|
When
George Bush came to power some two years ago after his narrow,
even controversial win over Democrat Al Gore, he apparently
adopted an isolationist policy: He withdrew the US from the
Kyoto Protocol, backed off from engagement in the Middle East
peace process, among other isolationist measures. Coming to
power eight years after his father – George Bush senior, who
had lost his post to Democrat Bill Clinton after winning the
Gulf War – it was clear that Bush junior was convinced that
his father had lost because he had focused on “the outside”
too much. Therefore, Bush junior decided to play it the other
way to guarantee re-election.However, the deadly attacks of
September 11 turned everything upside down. The Americans
suffered the heaviest blow ever on their soil by some mysterious
power – mysterious because, so far, it is not definitely known
who was behind 9/11. Bush Jr. found himself forced to change
tactics and shift focus to “the outside.” His focus on the
outside, however, was a bit different from his father’s: The
use of military force to maintain the status of the sole global
superpower.
Less
than a month after 9/11, Afghanistan received the first blow.
The bombing was heavy and civilian casualties were reported, but
Bush did not care. The Americans themselves did not care then;
they were still hurt and in shock.
Polls
showed Bush enjoyed sky-high support for his handling of the
“war on terror” campaign against Afghanistan. It seems that
after 9/11 Americans cared about nothing but revenge.
Days
went by, the Taliban regime was “changed” in Afghanistan,
and military bases were set up across Asia and Africa. The
military genie was out of the bottle. There had to be another
prey, waiting and ready, to keep the drive going.
In
his State of the Union address, in January 2002, Bush named
three “preys;” Iraq, Iran, and North Korea – his famous
axis of evil. Up till that moment, Iraq was not on top of the US
agenda. On the contrary, Baghdad was lobbying hard to have the
decade-long embargo lifted, on the basis that Iraq met all UN
Security Council resolutions needed for the country to be
welcomed back into the world community.
Early
last year, voices against the “war on terror” started
questioning its effect on the civil and human rights of people
both inside and outside the United States. Minorities and
opposition groups all over the globe faced barbaric measures
under the banner of “war on terror.”
It
was clear that most Americans had started to come back to their
senses and question both “the legality and morality” of the
Bush administration’s unrestrained policies.
To
keep the people busy, focused and lined up behind their leader,
the nation, any nation for that matter, has to be in a state of
war. It’s clear that Bush, supported by his hawks, made the
strategic decision to engage in an actual war, or at least in
the atmosphere of one, to guarantee support until it’s time
for re-election.
Looking
at the three victims, Iraq seemed the most vulnerable and least
able to resist aerial bombing and a ground invasion. North Korea
is a de facto nuclear power anyway, and Iran is tough.
Bush
first accused Iraq of possessing nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons, and demanded the return of UN weapons
inspection teams to Baghdad to resume their work. Iraq, to the
surprise of many, agreed to allow the inspectors back in.
Moreover, it accepted almost impossible conditions to cooperate,
conditions referred to by some observers as “humiliating.”
Bush
did not wait for a solid case against Iraq or for the support of
the majority of voters; the nation had to be in a state of war
to keep its people busy, focused and lined up behind their
leader!
So,
it was the possession of weapons of mass destruction and the
means to deliver them, or even a willingness to give them to
“terror groups.” The UN inspectors found no evidence to
support the claim, and Powell himself failed to build a case in
the Security Council or even in the media.
Then
it was links to “terror groups;” apparently a reference to
al-Qaeda. It was funny though, especially to those familiar with
the Middle East, as Osama bin Laden has always considered most
Arab regimes to be Kuffar (infidels). Saddam Hussein himself was
on top of Bin Laden’s “black list.”
So
it was really absurd to accuse the secular Iraqi regime of
allying with hard-line groups whose top priority is to oust all
secular regimes in the Arab and Muslim worlds. No case there
either.
Fine.
The third case Bush resorted to was “regime change” for the
liberation of the Iraqi people, and that was the starkest
example of absurdity and illusiveness addressed to the public.
Bush kept trying to convince the world that Saddam had been
suppressing his people for too long, and that it was time for
Washington to grant the Iraqis a new, democratic and prosperous
life.
Actually,
it’s a bit difficult to grasp the notion of the deadliest
military on earth directed to Iraq to grant life of any kind.
Death and destruction were always the more likely case;
certainly, the terrifying firepower of the United States was not
expected to kill only Saddam Hussein and his top aides.
Some
observers have been talking about ulterior motives behind the
invasion of Iraq, a result of which was US control over Iraqi
oil, leaving the United States in control of 4/5 of the
world’s energy potentials. Well, now that we’ve seen the
anarchy and chaos plaguing Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities
after the US-led troops rolled in, I do not think such an
explanation was just a conspiracy theory. The Americans did
nothing at all to hide their goal. The Iraqi Ministry of Oil was
the only government building that protected by US forces, along
with other oil-related facilities throughout the country. The
Baghdad Museum – containing some of the world’s most
precious monuments and artifacts – was looted and ransacked;
but who cares?
Now
there’s also the objective of fighting what Bush and his hawks
believe to be the true source of terror: the education system in
this area of the world. By invading and occupying Iraq, the
whole region will be reshaped.
These
and other motives, or objectives, may be true. However,
re-election cannot be ruled out while addressing the occupation
of Iraq. To keep the people busy, focused, and lined up behind
their leader, the nation, any nation for that matter, has to be
in a state of war.
Reforming
the ailing US economy seems too risky, as it is such a
complicated subject; its results, if any, take a long time to
surface and be felt to the degree that really affects voters.
Security-related
fears mobilize the citizens behind their leader. Once you have
the feeling your life is at risk, it’s really hard to think
about the morality, or even the legality, of killing another
person, or maybe thousands of Iraqis, for the lives of Americans
to be protected.
Playing
on the lack of security and fear from “deadly terrorist
attacks,” Bush kept repeating that “time is running out.”
Time was running out and Bush had to go to war before it was too
late to guarantee his re-election.
“Day
by day, the Iraqi people are closer to freedom,” bringing
Bush’s re-election closer to reality.
Khaled
Mamdouh is an
editor and staff writer in the News Desk of IslamOnline. He is
also a radio announcer, journalist and translator for several
Arabic magazines. You can reach him at Mogrem81@hotmail.com
|
