Image courtesy of The U.S. Army under CC BY 2.0
The time for “trust me” is over. The time for “tell us” has arrived.
Ask yourself, why, with war in Iraq, and attacks on Iran and Syria looming, has Bush been conspicuously silent about the REAL reason for this war? He hasn’t said word-one about what he is really up to, and we, as American citizens, have a right to know. If for no other reason than it’s our tax dollars going overseas, and our boys getting shot at.
It can’t be, as they keep saying, a war on terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity; it’s like warring against the foxtrot. As such, a war on terrorism has no “win or lose.” It is doomed to fail, because there is no victory in fighting a tactic, only perpetual war.
It can’t be a war to save Israel. With the money, technology, and weapons (including nuclear) we’ve given them, Israel could save itself in nothing flat by making mince meat of the Arab population.
It can’t be a war just for oil. With our economic power, political leverage, and international clout, we could “bully” our way to the best oil deal—while we work on alternative energy sources—and never go to war.
It can’t be a war of “empire.” Any plan that even hints at “controlling the world” would be revolting to Americans, and fiercely opposed by foreign countries before it ever got off the ground.
It can’t be a religious war. We could never transform—even by force—nations with “conflicting” beliefs, into one grand, international religion.The plethora of worldreligions and the fanaticism of their followers would militate violently against such a grandiose scheme—especially by America– and make the transformation impossible.
So, that begs the question: what is this war REALLY about?
Columnist Sydney Schanberg gives an answer to that question that is difficult to dismiss. He says that we should put aside all our reveries about an end to this war. Bush is going all the way—and he’s taking us with him.
What does Schamberg mean by “going all the way?” He means that Bush does not see this as a war, he sees it as a crusade. His conversion to evangelical Methodism, after a life of aimless carousing, “markedly informs his policies, both foreign and domestic.”
We are Good. They are Evil.
This is a reasonable assumption, given what author Stephen Mansfield writes in his book, “The Faith of George W. Bush.” In the election year 2000,” says Mansfield, “Bush told Texas preacher James Robison, ‘I feel like God wants me to run for president. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'”
Mansfield also points to other indications of Bush’s dogmatic evangelical mind-set: “Aides have found him lying face down on the floor in the Oval Office, praying; he refused to eat sweets while American troops were in Iraq; and he framed America’s challenges in nearly biblical terms: Saddam Hussein is an evil doer. He has to go.”
Bush, seeing this war as having a divine purpose of fighting Evil, may be acceptable in some circles, and under some circumstances, but taking the American people with him—without bothering to tell them how or why—is grossly presumptuous, even for a president.
At the onset of World War II, Roosevelt made a personal plea for Americans to aid in the war effort: pennies contained less copper; nylon was used for parachutes; Lucky Strike “green” went to war; sugar, meat and gasoline were rationed; people bought war bonds, etc.
Yet, Bush has done none of that. Just the opposite. He has asked for no civilian sacrifices like other presidents have done in times of war. When the tax rebate checks went out, Bush told us to go out and spend the money, this would get the economy rolling.
We’re at war, so spend money. The logic of that dichotomy escapes me.
In his new book, “Winning Modern Wars”, retired general Wesley Clark gave some insight into Bush’s serial-war plans: “In November 200l, a senior military staff officer and I had time for a chat. Yes, we are still on track for going against Iraq.” But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, and there were a total of seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan. I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.”
A five-year military campaign? Seven countries? That’s not a war, that’s a crusade; not unlike the crusades of the 11th to 14th centuries when the Christians fought to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.
Sounds like deja vu all over again.
That’s why every American ought to be troubled by Bush keeping us in the dark. If he expects us to fight in his 21st century crusades, he should at least tell us who our real enemy is.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”