Thursday, September 14, 2006
HAUNTED BY THE PRESIDENT'S WORDS
President Bush's utterances are often disturbing, but seldom haunting. But during the course of his fusilade in defense against critics of his Iraq policies, the president made a remark which has been haunting the Militant Moderate. Within the context of a vigorous justification of his "stay the course" stance on Iraq, the President said, "We will not leave Iraq, so long as I'm president!"
What did he mean by that? Was it merely another way of reiterating his determination to keep on trying failed policies and practices? Is this akin to an "over my dead body" declaration? Was it just an emphasis with bravado and bluster, which he demonstrates on occasion?
Was this a slip indicating that he thinks the war will continue on its stormy course beyond the elections of 2008, and his term ends? Does this contradict all the rosy interpretations and predictions made by Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and friends? As some have suggested, does it mean that we are there for the oil, and not for dethroning Saddam or democratization motives?
Has Mr Bush given up on the administration's solutions in Iraq? Does he really expect now that the situation will worsen rather than improve over the next two years? Will this country be called upon to sacrifice another 2,600 young men and women, with thousands more maimed. Must the Iraqi people add to their 50,000 or more dead in the escalating internecine violence?
"We will be in Iraq, so long as I'm president." That is a serious declaration, Mr. President.
In contemplation, this remark indeed raises too many questions. Perhaps it would be best to accept it in its simplest form, as a part of a blustery defense of his controversial war. But it can be haunting.
There arises a serious motivational question: "For what?" Is this squandering of human and financial resources just to keep Mr. Bush in Iraq for two more years so he will not have to admit the error of his ways, and can blame leaving on his successor?
All indications are that conditions are worsening in Iraq. The conflict has become (or is becoming) a civil war. There are those who say that our presence there is more of a cause than a deterrent. Some say that if we leave, the Iraquis will have to find a way to get along together. Mr. Bush says that conditions will worsen if we leave, but others contend these will worsen if we do not leave.
It has become incresingly clear that Iraq is a quagmire. It is obvious that we cannot peacefully impose a secular democracy in a country with both tribal and religious divisions that are both fanatic and hostile to one another. Perhaps we should remember our own history of thirteen independent-minded colonies, which first tried a confederation of autonomous states before a constitutionally federated democracy was born.
Is it time to remove our forces and allow the Iraqis some form of self-determination -- even if their course displeases us? Must we really wait until Mr. Bush is out of office? How about a whole new Congress?
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
