|
Tuesday, 12 September 2006 18:47 |
 | | Mark West |
George W. Bush, having lost any possibility of being a popular president in his own time, has taken to appealing to the court of history for the final verdict on his administration and its policies. Sadly, the rhetorical policies his administration follows, coupled with its disastrous ineptitude in Iraq, give it little hope for success in either venue.
Denying it every step of the way, the Bush administrations and its armada of pundits seek to equate Islam with fascism, Iran with Nazi Germany, and to conflate Hesbollah, Hamas, Fatah and any other nativist or insurgentist organization under the heading "Islamofascist."
At
this point, the Bush administration hasnët any choice. The conflict in
Iraq, which the administration promised would last closer to six weeks
than six months and would cost no more than $1.7 billion, has now
turned into a quagmire of Vietnam proportions. We are fortunate in that
the insurgents lack generals like Vo Nguyen Giap, or political leaders
like Ho Chi Minh ÇƒÓ people capable of capitalizing on our disarray.
But that must be scant comfort to the troops in the field, troops whose
objective has become to stay alive in the face of a deadly and
invisible opponent while we fight yet another war in a far-off land.
Like Vietnam, itës a war where our objectives are unclear, the terminus
is indefinite and the enemyës strategy is to bleed us until we flee.
As history shows, we will, sooner or later.
The only rational path that the Bush administration might follow would
be to "de-Vietnamize" the war. This might involve following the
guidelines Joe Biden proposes; a partition of the failed nation of Iraq
into states along ethnic partitions.
Kurdistan, already pacified and relatively pro-American, could house
U.S. forces as needed for military purposes, while "Shiastan" and
"Sunnistan" could be formed, acknowledging the ethnic divides that
already exist.
Or, as Jack Murtha suggests, we could figure out what winning the war
would mean and then commit enough resources to the effort that we could
say "mission accomplished" and actually mean it.
We need a well-defined goal in Iraq and we need steps to get there that
make sense. And we need to decide what those goals and steps are in
some venue that lies outside of the sort of political calculations made
by Karl Rove and the other people who appear to be in charge of this
administration.
But right now, thatës what weëre getting from our president concerning
the war in Iraq. When heës asked about the war, we hear about
"appeasers" and the "hate America first" crowd and all the
catch-phrases that Karl Rove has found work well in focus-group
testing.
That may make for momentary surges in popularity, but it isnët leadership.
And, if George W. Bush is really reading all those books that he says
he carts about on his numerous vacations, he must know that history, as
well as long-term public opinion, judges presidencies on leadership,
not popularity.
ï
Mark West is a professor of mass communications at the University of North Carolina at Asheville.
|
