| You Break it, You Bought it |
|
|
|
It was as if from the very beginning President Bush wanted to leave a lasting mark on history. He wanted to change, uproot, sabotage, or reverse almost every foreign policy initiative of his predecessors. Even before he was sworn into the Presidency, he declared China to be “a competitor, not a partner.” In March 2001, after reneging on his campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, President Bush announced his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. By December 2001, his administration notified Russia that it intended to pull out of the three-decade old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
Then came the 9/11. For a moment, when he convincingly stood on the still simmering rubble of the World Towers and assured the nation, “I hear you,” we thought, we were seeing another Roosevelt in making. Unfortunately, that is all it was, a moment.
The whole world lined up behind him when he decided to go after Al-Qaeda. He was cheered on when he ousted the purist Taliban government even though that was done with the help of the Northern-Alliance savages. But that is when the Texan cowboy started to overcome the statesman in making. The cowboy wanted the whole world to hear the crack of his whip, as he mounted his high horse to roundup the nations whom he called the “axis of evil.”
Like a child who wants a new toy soon after getting bored with the existing one, President Bush too started to obsess himself with Iraq. Virtually every Taliban and Al-Qaeda leader on Bush Administration’s most-wanted list was still at-large when the Neo-Cons in his administration embarked on a crusade to invade Iraq. Through hook or crook, the Neo-Cons tried to convince the world that Saddam was about to invade the world with his Weapons of Mass Destruction. Fake documents were circulated, spotty intelligence was artificially hyped, and pictures of Mushroom clouds were painted to cement world opinion for the Iraqi invasion. The Neo-Cons posse’s stated objectives to invade Iraq were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
Like a scene out of a Western/Cowboy movie, one fine day of May 2003, the Texan cowboy dismounted his Navy S-3B Viking on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln. Behind him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished." Like a victorious emperor, Bush announced in a nationally televised address that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
From that day onward, in ironic twists after twists, the glorious victory in Iraq turned into one of violent chaos, and finally into a civil war. The Anglo-American occupation was immediately followed by an Iraqi resistance; led by the Sunni-dominated Baathist and Shia groups like Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia. It was a nationalistic response to a foreign occupation. Slowly but surely the nationalistic resistance turned into a bloody civil war. Like an ostrich with its head in sand the Bush Administration vainly tried to hide behind clichés like "freedom is winning", “Freedom's untidy”, insurgency is in its “last throes”, “staying the course,” and “force-augmentation. “
Neither attacking nor occupying Iraq made the Middle East a bastion of democracy, as claimed by the neo-cons, nor did Saddam’s hanging bring any respite to the chaos and mayhem spewing out of Iraq. If anything, Iraqi quagmire that has already sucked up the lives of approx. 4,000 fine American servicemen and servicewomen, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (many of which are victims of drunken, unaccountable, and trigger-happy marauding mercenaries of Blackwater), is now threatening to turn into a vicious regional conflict.
Iran and the Syria are already actively involved in turning Iraq into the first Arab-Shia state. Testifying before a House International Relations Subcommittee the (then) Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton insisted that there are strong indicators Syria is assisting the anti-coalition forces in Iraq. A 40-page security report by the Saudi National Security Assessment Project suggested Iran has effectively created a “state within a state” in Iraq providing logistical-support for the armed Shia groups.
Likewise, Sunni states like Saudi Arabia announced they would support Sunni population, because they don’t want to see a contiguous Shia belt, starting from Iran and ending in Lebanon, encircling them. In a November 29, 2006 Washington Post article Nawaf Obaid, an adviser to the Saudi government, wrote that if America leaves Iraq prematurely, "one of the first consequences will be massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis." Month before that, (then) Saudi ambassador to the U.S Prince Turki al-Faisal, in no-uncertain terms warned America in a speech, that "since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."
Turkey and Syria have also made it abundantly clear that they will not allow creation of a Kurdish state. Ankara fears that an independent Kurdish state in Iraq could engulf Turkey’s Kurdish regions. The Kurds who live in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran have long aspired for their own country, but none of the governments in the region support their ambition.
A Kurdish state resulting from the fractured Iraq is a “red line” for Syria, too. In 2004, the Syrian Prime Minister Naji al-Otri warned that the creation of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq would mean violation of the “red line” for Syria, which also shares the same concerns with neighboring Turkey. While visiting Ankara, the Syrian President Bashar Assad also cautioned, "We condemn all approaches that pose a threat to Iraq's territorial integrity."
If the Iraqi mayhem is not brought under control in immediate future, no country, including China and Russia, will be able to sit on the sidelines as oil-producing nations plunge into sectarian and racial conflicts. They will try to compose a global peace-force to safeguard the oil-supplies. Such a solution will be supported by majority of nations with the exceptions of the U.S and its closest allies like the Great Britain who by most accounts will resist dilution of their influence in the region. Possibilities of the events playing out from thereon paint even gloomier pictures.
In short, it’s in everybody’s interest to allow the Americans to cleanup the mess they created. Of course, the Americans won’t be able to cleanup their mess until President Bush accepts the reality and brings fundamental changes in his Iraqi policy. The changes will have to include a political solution as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.
Maybe one day the historians will be able to explain the influences behind President Bush’s decision to open Pandora’s Box, and most importantly, what clouded his judgment in thinking America was winning the war? For whatever its worth, he is smart enough to understand the pottery barn rule, ‘you break it, you bought it.’
Users' Comments (0) |
|
(0 vote)
|
No comment posted
mXcomment 1.0.6 © 2007-2008 - visualclinic.fr
License Creative Commons - Some rights reserved
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Views: 118