A rchive Date
[ 08-05-2004 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Edmonton/Paul_Stanway/2004/05/08/451101.html
Bush ties himself too closely to Iraq scandal
By PAUL STANWAY -- For the Edmonton Sun
Sat, May 8, 2004
Perhaps I'm missing something, but when did it become necessary for an American president to take personal responsibility for the actions of every individual serving in the U.S. military?
George Bush is the U.S. commander-in-chief, so a general responsibility goes with the territory - the sort of responsibility that requires an expression of regret on behalf of the American people and the determination to ensure that those responsible are punished. Which is precisely what Bush did following the publication of photographs showing U.S. troops mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
Apart from that, fire somebody if you must. End of story.
I'm not sure why Bush felt it necessary to do a mea culpa for Arabic television viewers. I very much doubt if it did anything to change obdurate public opinion in the Arab world and it only served to link the credibility of the Bush administration to the barbarous behaviour of a few soldiers who are about as far removed from the actual control of the commander-in-chief as it's possible to get.
Perhaps his handlers thought it was necessary to placate U.S. public opinion, but if Americans now hold their president personally responsible for the actions of all troops, then Bush is already on his way to defeat at the polls in November. No one, not the U.S. president or the manager of your local bakery, can absolutely guarantee the behaviour of everyone who works for them. It's an impossibly high standard.
We have become used to seeing Bush's motives for invading Iraq impugned in drive-by slaggings. He did it to clean up the mess left by his dad at the end of the first Gulf War. He did it to gain control of Iraq's oil. He did it as part of some elaborate ploy to distract Americans from domestic issues. He did it as part of a global assault on Islam.
No serious proof is offered to support any of this, but Bush's critics refuse to accept the obvious - that he invaded Iraq (and Afghanistan) in response to an unprecedented attack on America by militant Islamists, and in an attempt to meet his most basic obligation to the people he is elected to serve: to preserve their security.
Whether Bush's aggressive and proactive foreign policy works, only time will tell. But if he had done nothing or relied upon the UN to solve the problem, it seems to me that Americans would have been more likely to condemn him. And rightly so.
The demand that Bush personally apologize for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners comes from his political opponents and an overwhelmingly hostile media, but the fact that he felt compelled to do so the day after his appearance on Arab TV demonstrates just how close his administration is to losing the script on Iraq.
Of course that's assuming they are all working from the same script, which now appears unlikely. Over the past week Americans have been treated to the unedifying spectacle of the White House distancing itself from Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, while Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff was distancing his boss from the White House. As if there was any real alternative to hanging tough!
What if America were forced into a full-scale retreat from Iraq? Who would benefit? The Democrats in November, certainly. Those who have no interest in seeing a democratically elected government in Iraq - one that doesn't threaten its neighbours or aspire to offensive nuclear weapons.
And, of course, the Islamic militants for whom every failure of American policy is cause for popping off their AK-47s.
Does anyone seriously believe the UN would be able to rehabilitate Iraq, or that France, Germany, Russia or anyone else would step up to pay for Iraq's reconstruction?
We are only now beginning to hear details of the swamp of corruption that was the UN's last contribution to Iraq - the "Oil For Food" program that was supposed to funnel aid to Iraqi civilians, but instead appears to have propped up Saddam Hussein and lined the pockets of his cronies in the above-mentioned countries.
Funny, but I don't recall anyone demanding apologies for that.
Letters to the editor should be sent to mailbag@edm.sunpub.com Home Page
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|