"We will prevail. We will prevail in this ideological struggle because liberty is powerful. Liberty is hopeful. The enemy we face can only convince people to join their cause is when they find hopelessness. And so our strategy is threefold: one, protect the homeland; two, stay on the offense against these folks; and three, provide an alternative -- a hopeful alternative to despair and doubt and hopelessness."
US President George W. Bush
January 31, 2008
The Bush administration launched war on terrorism or War on terror to curb the spread of terrorism after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Its true that kost of the terrorists were created with the help of American state department and CIA when they outsourced terror to Pakistan to fight against Russians in Afghanistan.
Bush bashers are having a field time with pet themes like preemptive war, perpetual war, human rights abuses, violations of international law etc.
As Bush presidency nears its term, let us look at what Bush has really acieved.
One thing that escapes the Bush bashers is that even after 6 years of all they have accused Bush of, the terrorism refuses to die. Its not just US but the armies world over (except Communist China which is taking advantage of the drive to kill innocent monks), are fighting this menance.
Imagine a world if Bush hadn't launched this war. Its time we pay some tribute to this great person.
3 comments:
Bush made some sensible decisions immediately after 9/11 - decisions that were strong and courageous, and hardheaded. But once the smoke faded away, the whole policy fell apart.
The fact is that nothing was right after they decided to lie their way into a war that had and still has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. and the way they've gone about combating terrorism - selectively, unobjectively and without expert advice, or considering all options, has made the situation worse. As B. Raman says, if you characterize terrorism as a 'serious' threat, the terrorists win by default.
And unfortunately for the rest of the world which is now facing the brunt of the blowback from George the Second's disastrous mendacity, he has been equating all kinds of problems conveniently into terrorism, which, even more conveniently, the United States refuses to define suitably.
then, there are his policies like Gitmo, the Patriot Act, Blackwater, Israel (you can't expect to try and create peace while you arm one of the combatants. And you certainly can't expect the support of Arab nations when you aggressively arm one of their enemies, with no caveats).
I'm sorry to say, George had the strength to act on his decisions. Unfortunately, he hasn't had the intelligence to make the right ones. For one, Iraq was never a forefront of terrorism - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and obviously, Afghanistan is. By putting A'stan on the backburner, and not confronting Pakistan and Saudi support of terrorist elements, the US lost the initiative.
History will probably judge Bush as the man who wasn't scared to address the issue to terrorism and international affairs. Unfortunately, they will also remember him as the guy that did it the wrong way.
Just a word on B Raman, he is a part of a failed system (read his book "Kaboys of the RAW").
Comming back to Bush.
It would have been better if ("And unfortunately for the rest of the world which is now facing the brunt of the blowback from George the Second's disastrous mendacity, he has been equating all kinds of problems conveniently into terrorism, which, even more conveniently, the United States refuses to define suitably.")would have been suitably defined.
I am not sure what is meant by ("Israel (you can't expect to try and create peace while you arm one of the combatants. And you certainly can't expect the support of Arab nations when you aggressively arm one of their enemies, with no caveats).)"
Gitmo, the Patriot Act, Blackwater were mistakes,but, not so as to wipe out entire good deed that has been done on terrorism.
Intelligence of Bush is somewhat difficult to estimate as there s not measure of it. I still find him perfectly sane person.
"he has been equating all kinds of problems conveniently into terrorism, which, even more conveniently, the United States refuses to define suitably."
For one, the US has been using Terrorism as a convenient excuse for pretty much any inconvenient problem they have - so the Palestinian Issue, Kosovo, Iran, North Korea and other problems are conveniently painted with the very wide ambit of "terrorism" without even considering the full situation or the other issues. Terrorism has provided the US with a convenient excuse to snow out inconvenient truths.
As for the point about defining terrorism, it is in US's interest to keep it ambiguous. So Saddam's is terrorism, while Saudi support to terror charities is not; alleged Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents is terrorism, while Pakistan's support of LeT, Hizbul and other terrorist groups is not (not to forget ISI's continued support for the Taliban). So North Korea supports terrorists by "providing WMDs", while the father of proliferation sits in a comfortable home in Islamabad. They condemn the Myanmar crackdown as "terror", but theres no mention of Tibet. And we haven't even talked about Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
"Israel (you can't expect to try and create peace while you arm one of the combatants. And you certainly can't expect the support of Arab nations when you aggressively arm one of their enemies, with no caveats)."
I'm talking about unconditional US support towards Israeli policies. They may have been justified, but the fact is that if you rush cluster bombs to a country in the middle of a conflict, and these will be used to attack that country (in direct contravention of International Law and UN resolutions, I might add), you certainly can't expect the wholehearted support of the Arab countries. And you certainly can't claim neutrality in being able to solve the middle east crisis. Not when one party doesn't believe in your objectivity.
Gitmo, the Patriot Act, Blackwater were mistakes,but, not so as to wipe out entire good deed that has been done on terrorism.
Gitmo and Patriot were understandable, given the threat of terrorism at that point. But no self-righteous nation that claims to defend freedom, justice and liberty should ever use mercenaries who are removed from the ambit of any law, and free to do whatever they wish.
Also, the fact remains that Gitmo guys have been tortured, removed from the ambit of any laws and treated under conditions that the US criticizes in other countries that face worse situations. These may have been justified in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the Afghan war, but its been almost 7 years, and some, if not most of these men are innocent, and being tried by kangaroo courts (very slowly).
Again, I digress. The fact remains that by diverting their attention and resources completely away from Afghanistan and towards Iraq, and now Iran, the US govt has completely messed up the whole GWAT efforts. Now, US soldiers in Iraq are trying to fix a damburst with cotton swabs- its a situation that will not be solved by military means, and unfortunately, the administration has not been able to provide a good enough solution to the problem. Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, inexperienced and disorganized (at the larger level) coalition, mainly non-US troops are trying to solve the situation with absolutely no political solution in sight. Its not a failure. Its a disaster. Its getting clearer by the day.
Post a Comment