Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be
no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. Wittingly or
unwittingly, President Bush deceived the American public and
Congress and rode roughshod over the opinions of our allies. The gap
between the Administration's expectations and the actual state of
affairs could not be wider. It is difficult to think of a recent military
operation that has gone so wrong. Our soldiers have been forced to do
police duty in combat gear, and they continue to be killed. We have put
at risk not only our soldiers' lives but the combat effectiveness of our
armed forces. Their morale is impaired, and we are no longer in a
position to properly project our power. Yet there are more places than
ever before where we might have legitimate need to project that
power. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons, and Iran is
clandestinely doing so. The Taliban is regrouping in Afghanistan. The
costs of occupation and the prospect of permanent war are weighing
heavily on our economy, and we are failing to address many festering
problems—domestic and global. If we ever needed proof that the
dream of American supremacy is misconceived, the occupation of Iraq
has provided it. If we fail to heed the evidence, we will have to pay a
heavier price in the future.
eanwhile, largely as a result of our preoccupation with
supremacy, something has gone fundamentally wrong with the
war on terrorism. Indeed, war is a false metaphor in this
context. Terrorists do pose a threat to our national and
personal security, and we must protect ourselves. Many of the
measures we have taken are necessary and proper. It can even be
argued that not enough has been done to prevent future attacks. But
the war being waged has little to do with ending terrorism or enhancing
homeland security; on the contrary, it endangers our security by
engendering a vicious circle of escalating violence.
The terrorist attack on the United States could have been treated as a
crime against humanity rather than an act of war. Treating it as a crime
would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not
military action. Protection against terrorism requires precautionary
measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering—all of which
ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which the
terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been
treated as a crime. We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would not
have our military struggling to perform police work and getting shot at.
Declaring war on terrorism better suited the purposes of the Bush
Administration, because it invoked military might; but this is the wrong
way to deal with the problem. Military action requires an identifiable
target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been
directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are
by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by
states.
The war on terrorism as pursued by the Bush Administration cannot be
won. On the contrary, it may bring about a permanent state of war.
Terrorists will never disappear. They will continue to provide a pretext
for the pursuit of American supremacy. That pursuit, in turn, will
continue to generate resistance. Further, by turning the hunt for
terrorists into a war, we are bound to create innocent victims. The
more innocent victims there are, the greater the resentment and the
better the chances that some victims will turn into perpetrators.
Soros speaks truth....Bush only lies....
CC |
