You should be able to tell pretty succinctly that the idea of George W. Bush being the most dangerous man in the world is not a foreign concept to me. In his role as White Hat Terrorist and bringer of doomsday he has filled the bill quite well. The real reasons he has brought carnage and death to mesopotamia has always been a mystery rolling in the back of my mind. If it were greed and lust for power it would become a little more understandable. From where we are five years into his eventual legacy, it is hard to figure out. This article by
sheds a little light on the issue. - fc
As a groggy and very hung-over American
hegemon
wakes from a dream of imperial dominion and faces the harsh light of morning
in
war-
torn
Iraq,
the cruel reality of what
General
William E. Odom calls "
the
greatest strategic disaster" in our history is beginning to dawn on
our political and military elites. The U.S. Senate, which originally signed
on to the president's war policy by a
77-23
vote, is backing away, and even
some
in the president's
own
party are beginning to voice
strong
doubts about "staying the course." Especially when we are on a
course set for the same disastrous fate that eventually overtook all the strutting
imperialists of times past, who took on a weaker opponent only to find that
there are different kinds of strength. As Martin van Creveld, a military historian
of some note, put it in
an
interview not so long ago:
"Basically it's always a question of the relationship of forces. If
you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are
going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going
to become cowardly - it's only a question of time. The same happened to the
British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the
same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets
in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can't even count
them."
No escape - that is precisely van Creveld's
evaluation
of our present conundrum, which, in his view, has earned our leaders the sharpest
rebuke imaginable:
"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish
war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost
them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office,
put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll
have plenty of time to mull over their sins."
This
isn't
some poster over at
DailyKos.com
or
Democratic
Underground talking:
van
Creveld is the author of some 15 books on military history and strategy,
including
Supplying
War (1977),
Command
in War (1985), and
The
Sword and the Olive (1998), and has been on the faculty of Hebrew University
in Israel since 1971.
Yes, says van Creveld, we must withdraw, and it will be a long and very painful retreat, likely to incur many casualties, but it is nevertheless "inevitable." Yet, in his view:
"A complete American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with
its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that. A continued military
presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces, will be
needed."
The genie has busted out of the bottle, and - to mix metaphorical fables -
all the
president's men cannot put it back together again. If the idea of invading
Iraq was to commit us irrevocably to a course set for
perpetual
war, then surely the
cabal
that
lied us into Iraq
has succeeded. The "
creative
destruction" they pined for has been visited on the Middle East, and
the pillars of stability have been shattered, ushering in a new and far more
credible threat to the region:
the
Shi'ite mullahs of Iran.
The irony is that, in conjuring a
nonexistent
nuclear-armed threat in Baghdad, we wound up empowering a real-world version
of that imaginary monster - in Tehran.
Continue Reading...