The LA Times has a great piece today on Bush's accomplishments in the Middle East, here's a couple snippets that hit the mark:
While Mid-Eastern countries like Kuwait try to come to terms with Iraq, the US Government has different ideas. Coalition-building is being thrown out the window:
Bush should be careful before launching an all-out attack on Iraq to save his polling numbers...
A war without end? Remember Bush and his poor polling numbers pre-9/11? If you're read 1984 you might see the benefit of continual conflict for someone in power...
Check out the full article at <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/suncommentary/la-000026642apr14.story" target="_blank">the Los Angeles Times</a>
Cheers!
Joram
Quote:
| It seems probable that U.S. military action against Iraq is now not a question of whether but of when. The U.S. government insists action is necessary because Iraq has been defying United Nations resolutions and represents an imminent danger to the world in general, and to the U.S. in particular. This explanation of the expected military action is so thin that it cannot be taken seriously. Defying U.N. resolutions or other international enjoinders has been commonplace for the last 50 years. I need hardly remind anyone that the U.S. refused to defer to a 1986 World Court decision condemning U.S. actions in Nicaragua. And President Bush has made it amply clear that he will not honor any treaty should he think it dangerous to U.S. interests. Israel has, of course, been defying U.N. resolutions for more than 30 years, and is doing so again as I write this commentary. And the record of other U.N. members is not much better. So Hussein has been defying quite explicit U.N. resolutions. What else is new? |
Quote:
| Several weeks ago, Iraq and Kuwait signed an agreement in which Iraq agreed to respect the sovereignty of Kuwait. The foreign minister of Kuwait, Sheik Sabah al Ahmed al Jabbar al Sabah said his country is now "100% satisfied," adding that he had written the agreement himself. A spokesperson for the United States nonetheless exhibited skepticism. The U.S. is not about to be deterred simply because Kuwait is "satisfied." What is Kuwait, that it should participate in such a decision? It is clear that, at this point, almost no one supports a U.S. invasion of Iraq: not a single Arab state, not Turkey or Iran or Pakistan, not Russia or the great bulk of Europe |
Quote:
| This relative economic decline has cost the U.S. the unquestioned political deference of its close allies. All that is left is military superiority. And, as Machiavelli taught us all centuries ago, force is not enough: If that's all you have, then its use is a sign of weakness rather than of strength and weakens the user. |
Quote:
| Bush promised the U.S. people a "war on terrorism" that "we will certainly win." So far, all he's produced is the downfall of the weak and impoverished Taliban. He hasn't captured Bin Laden. Pakistan is shaky. Saudi Arabia is pulling away. If he doesn't invade Iraq, he will look foolish where it matters to him most--in the eyes of American voters. And he is being told this, in no uncertain terms, by his advisors on internal U.S. politics. Bush's incredibly high approval ratings reflect his being a "war president." The minute he becomes a peace-time president, he will be in grave trouble--all the more so because of failed wartime promises. |
Cheers!
Joram
