So I watched the State of The Union Speech last night. It was the expected defense of the war on terror, saying the United States would "never seek a permission slip" to defend itself. Yep, preemptive, preventative war is our duty now. Anywhere, at anytime. Heck, after all the terrorists "declared war on the United States - and war is what they got.? And of course, the threat of another September 11-style attack has not gone away.
And by the way, we did the wimpy UN?s work, because, after all, we "enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein - and the people of Iraq are free." Man, those UN guys are useless fools - although they may be of help in the coming months if we have to set up actual elections in Iraq to form a government there ? so we can haul ass out of that sorry sand trap before the Republican Convention in Hew York City in September. (Those uppity Iraq folks don?t seem to like our inspired idea of the new government being established by local committees made up of people WE choose to be on those committees. Ingratitude!)
And if you think things are going badly in Iraq? Wrong. We?re just mopping up a bit - "Having broken the Ba?athist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. Men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows. These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious continuing danger. Yet we are making progress against them. The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell."
Yes he does. Fine.
And we had to have this war because of those nasty weapons of mass destruction. Bush has the real facts: "Already, the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations."
No real weapons, nor real programs - just ?activities? - but close enough. I guess. Why not?
Here?s a curious item that explains why not.
Threat Of Terrorism
Charley Reese, January 19, 2004
Excerpts: You know, I'm sure, that the Bush administration has greatly exaggerated the threat of terrorism. Those who employ the tactic of terrorism do so because they are weak. They have no army. They have no great popular following.
Osama bin Laden was a crank living in the mountains of Afghanistan with only a small following in the Islamic world ? until George W. Bush elevated him to world celebrity status.
It's true that bin Laden knocked down the World Trade Center towers and struck the Pentagon ? or at least we're pretty sure he was behind those attacks. He was able to do that because his 19 people were lucky and because our immigration screening, our intelligence, the FBI and the airport security system were all sloppy.
To the extent that these attacks roused the federal government from its previous apathy and sloppiness, he did us a favor, though at the terrible cost of about 3,000 lives. But that attack was not justification for a "war on terrorism." A war on bin Laden, yes; a war on terrorism in general, no.
In the first place, there aren't that many terrorists in the world. You can check with the State Department's annual report on terrorism if you doubt me. In the second place, most of the world's terrorists are local guys with local beefs against local folks. All the time the Irish terrorists were bombing and shooting the British, Great Britain never felt the necessity of declaring a worldwide war on terrorism. It went after the Irish terrorists.
When bombs were going off in Paris some years ago, the French didn't say everyone must fight terrorism. They went after the guys who were planting the bombs.
Yeah, but everyone knows the French are wimps. And maybe the Brits are too. Too damned timid to do the real job ? go after terrorists everywhere, on any issue? Maybe so.
Then this: Our problem is with bin Laden and his al-Qaida organization. We should have concentrated on that instead of declaring a global jihad against terrorists everywhere in the world.
The problem with doing this is that it commits us to an unending war. It is a war in which there is no way to define victory. When you go to war against a country, when you occupy it and its government surrenders or collapses, you know you won the war. But terrorists don't have a country. They don't have a government. They don't have an infrastructure.
Terrorists, in fact, operate like criminal gangs. You kill some of their "soldiers," and they recruit more. You kill a gang leader, and another guy takes his place. Israelis, who are far more ruthless than we are, have been killing terrorists for more than 50 years. Have they solved their terrorism problem? No.
But wait! Isn?t Ariel Sharon a ?man of peace? (Bush) and Israel safe now, or will be safe when the finish the big wall to keep the evildoers out?
And as it seems Bush ?commits us to an unending war? then at least we have something to do. And folks will gladly join us.
Why?
"Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible - and no one can now doubt the word of America."
Of course. Well, we did find the ?activities.? Just like we said. Sort of.
And then there is this from an editorial in The Baltimore SunMr. Bush boasted that he had made the world a safer place, cautioned that danger still lay in wait, and called on Americans to stay the course.
Maybe, instead, the president should level with the American people.
If it's not clear what, exactly, this war was about, how can anyone know when its goals have been achieved? Clearly, there is good reason for the United States to remain engaged in Iraq, now that the country is so much in danger of disintegration. But with what means? And toward what end?
Iraq is in a mess right now, with ethnic groups warily vying for power, thousands of people demonstrating against American policy, and attacks on U.S. soldiers continuing all the while. Washington has asked the United Nations for help in fixing Iraq, though no one listening to Mr. Bush last night would have guessed that.
The Army is stretched to the breaking point, but Mr. Bush talked about fighting terror by spreading democracy from Iraq throughout the Middle East. How many troops will that take? How much conflict lies ahead? And isn't it strange to wage war against terror by attacking a country that had no links to America's terrorist foes?
"The word of America." Mr. Bush put the credibility of his nation on the line; the price of deceit, if deceit there is, will be enormous.
People can be so negative.
Folks like us. They always will.