Beware unilateral war without end
Tuesday, February 5, 2002
By HELEN THOMAS
HEARST NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON -- President Bush used his State of the
Union address and some other recent speeches to flex the
nation's military muscle and threaten several nations,
designated as the "axis of evil."
Rarely has the world heard a more belligerent American
president. His tone and substance have dismayed our allies
as much as the targets he cites -- Iraq, Iran and North
Korea.
No U.S. military attacks are imminent, his spokesman
reassures. And no, there's no new intelligence that makes
these three nations any different now than they were last
week.
Such strident statements from the commander in chief
make you wonder. He's riding high in public opinion polls
and is daring the world: "I can lick anyone on the block."
It seems to me that Bush has brushed off the man who
knows more about war than anyone in his administration --
Secretary of State Colin Powell, the former chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Powell looked forlorn as he stood with other Cabinet
officers when they rushed to congratulate Bush on his
bellicose speech.
Bush, closer to the hawks in his administration, has not
been happy with the retired general for urging him to
announce that the United States would treat the detainees
at the Guantanamo Bay Navy Base in Cuba in accordance
with the 1949 Geneva Convention on treatment of
prisoners. Bush hasn't decided yet whether he wants to go
that route.
American officials insist the prisoners taken in Afghanistan
are being treated humanely but will not be designated as
prisoners of war and thus automatically protected by the
Geneva Convention.
Powell apparently is too dovish for Bush, who was recently
dubbed a "freshly anointed American Caesar" by a German
newspaper.
Considering the national gung-ho mood, I have no doubt
that if Bush were to widen the war beyond Afghanistan
tomorrow, he would have the strong backing of the
American people, with few questions asked.
The Gallup poll shortly after Bush's speech Tuesday night
gave him an 83 percent approval rating; 91 percent said his
policies are taking the nation in the right direction and 64
percent thought his proposals on dealing with terrorism
were "very effective."
Senior political adviser Karl Rove had already signaled that
Bush would play the war card with the mid-term elections
coming up in November. Rove told the Republican National
Committee: We can go to the country on this issue because
the American people "trust the Republican party to do a
better job of protecting and strengthening America's
military might and thereby protecting America."
His remarks infuriated Democrats who have gone all out to
support the administration's conduct of the war. They are
now in a political straitjacket. Rove has made the war a
partisan issue and any criticism from the Democrats would
be considered unpatriotic.
Bush also put terrorists of the world put on notice if they
pursue their goals or seek to develop weapons of mass
destruction, he would not hesitate to take preemptive
action.
Do we really have the right to attack a country without
provocation? To strike first is not our tradition. When he
says, "Let's roll," does that mean he believes he can
undertake armed intervention anywhere in the world
without any congressional or international go-ahead?
In his threatening remarks he did not bother to mention
U.S. allies or Congress.
This unilateralism is Bush's foreign policy in a nutshell.
Bush is saying we will go it alone. We don't need the rest of
the world to take up arms against any country suspected of
sponsoring or harboring terrorists.
After the Sept. 11 horror, Bush mustered the sympathy of
foreign leaders with a marathon of friendly, soothing
personal telephone calls. But many now are appalled at the
new, pugnacious Bush. The New York Times said Britain
was the only nation that came out stalwartly behind the
aggressive speech.
Dimitri Rogozin, chairman of Russia's parliamentary
international committee, said the speech seemed to
indicate that the ultraconservatives in the administration
had the upper hand.
Does the president really feel the United States is powerful
enough to extend its military operations to so many places?
Where is his diplomatic outreach? What makes him think
that the world would be with him when he widens the war?
Will the bombs be so smart they would only hit al-Qaida
members and no innocent civilians?
Why hasn't the president put the case of global terrorism
before the United Nations and tried to bring everyone into
the act?
I remember Vietnam. Lyndon B. Johnson had most of the
nation and the media with him in the beginning. But the
futility of that war eventually turned the country against
the war and the president. Retaliation was the right
response in Afghanistan.
But looking to the future, the American people should be
careful about embarking on a war without end.
Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. Copyright
2002 Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: helent@hearstdc.com
seattlepi.nwsource.com |
