| Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse…
Well, actually it was the week before Christmas. And plenty was stirring in the house… the White House, that is. For the first time since the war on Iraq was launched in March 2003, U.S. president George Bush delivered a televised speech to the nation, this time to reaffirm his administration’s determination to "finish the job."
"Our work is not yet done," Bush declared. "So tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies ahead." And so, as the fire crackled and carolers wandered the cold streets outside, I settled down to listen.
…The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads…
Like many good fairy tales, this one began with a vision of what was to come. The recent elections in Iraq, Bush declared, were "a landmark day in the history of liberty" – although this may be something future historians will choose to decide for themselves – and Iraqis were now set to "become full members of the free world."
Well, maybe. For this enticing vision of freedom – freedom of choice, among other things – was almost immediately qualified. With the votes yet to be counted, Bush predicted that the new government – whatever its makeup – would constitute "an ally in the growing strength in the fight against terror." This may well turn out to be the case. But it is also possible that any newly elected government in Iraq might instead pursue a nationalist agenda rather than one set by Washington.
Such an act, of course, would be one of immense ingratitude. After all, as Bush once more pointed out, the U.S. had successfully "rid the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people, invaded his neighbours, and declared America to be his enemy." Never mind that, in order to get the job done, the U.S. had engaged in a small matter of subterfuge. After all, "many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction," Bush argued, not just America. And so what if "much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," it was still "right to remove Saddam Hussein from power." Indeed, whatever it took, the point now was that Saddam has been reduced to a "raging tyrant… without a throne" and "the world is better for it."
…His eyes – how they twinkled! His dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry.
In this lingering season of goodwill, it would be churlish of me to persist in denying this point. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power, just as the world was better off with Adolf Hitler lying dead in a burning bunker in 1945. And if it takes a distasteful manipulation of international law to get the job done, then maybe so be it.
But unlike in fairy tales, real life rarely ends "happily ever after." After all, although Iraq has gone from military defeat in May 2003, through a "hand-over" of power in June 2004 and an election in January 2005, finally to this month’s election held under a new constitution (a remarkably quick transition in historical terms), all of this has happened against the backdrop of a bloody civil war. More than 2,000 U.S. troops have died since the "real" war ended, with as many as 15,000 others wounded. Estimates vary, but the number of Iraqi civilian casualties is at least 30,000.
Bush himself concedes that the election "will not mean the end to violence." But to those who argue it’s now time to withdraw American troops – "honest critics" and "defeatists" alike – his response is blunt. To do so would be to "abandon our Iraqi friends" and to "undermine the morale of our troops." What’s more, it would "cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve."
So there. The reckless bravado that Bush displayed in the aftermath of military victory in 2003 – "Bring them on," he taunted with regard to the threat of Iraqi "insurgents" – may have been usurped by a fear of being mocked, but what continues to propel White House policy is its "Wild West" sense of masculinity. (Bush even invoked childhood memories of "Wanted: Dead or Alive" posters in his determination to hunt down Osama bin Laden after September 11.)
And that’s what scares me.
… A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread…
Why? Ever since 9-11, and more especially since the decision to invade Iraq in early 2003, it’s been clear that the U.S. under Bush no longer pays even lip-service to notions of international law and order. Here isn’t the place to trot out details of abuse at Abu Ghraib (for that, see Seymour M. Hersh, Chain of Command), but the latest issue of Harper’s Magazine (December 2005) does underline just how physical torture has become casually accepted in the U.S. army. "We kept it to broken arms and legs and shit," admitted one soldier. "If something was broken he [the prisoner] would get Motrin and maybe a sling, but no cast or medical treatment."
No, it’s enough, perhaps, to contrast Bush’s – and by extension, America’s – sense of vulnerability with the sheer preponderance of U.S. military strength. America currently accounts for more than half of the $800 billion-plus spent on arms and armies around the world. In fact, the U.S. military budget is more than eight times that of its nearest rival’s. If that sort of power can’t buy security, what hope of peace does the rest of the world have?
…He spoke not a word, but went straight to work,
And filled all the stockings, then turned with a jerk.
"America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens," concluded Bush, "and will lay the foundations of peace for our children and grandchildren." And that work will not be done until Iraq has been "stabilized," whatever that might mean. But it is the very presence of U.S. troops that continues to foment instability in Iraq.
As so often, then, pulling out might not be the manly thing to do, but staying in is unlikely to help matters. |
Copyright ©2005 FFWD. All rights reserved.