If the general public, which has only followed the situation in the Middle East the past 5 years since 9/11 brought more attention to the region via war-laden soundbites, took this long to catch up to the fact that US military intervention has not only failed but has made the situation even more dangerous - you have to wonder what they're thinking now that they are following events much more closely.
While many people oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simply because they now understand that winning is not guaranteed and/or they are finally getting a grip on the hundreds of billions of US dollars wasted on a war in Iraq that could have been spent on domestic interests that have been short-changed and/or they realize that the lives sacrificed have indeed been in vain, they are also able to see that the situation in the ME is far more complex than they've been sold by their leaders.
They've long been cognizant of the fact that Bush refused to make public information about Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11 citing the old 'national security' excuse and that the connection fell out of the public spotlight at Bush's insistence. They've been sold the idea that Pakistan's Pervez Musharaff is a staunch ally in the war on terror despite the fact that his country harbours terrorists while the Bush administration also turns a blind eye to his refusal to reform opressive rape laws that severely impact Pakistani women. But, the US must back the Pakistani dictator because the country has nuclear weapons that could easily fall into enemy hands and that's why the Bush administration coddles Musharaff despite his massive defects.
Meanwhile, it's also trying to convince the senate to back a nuclear deal with India, which would come in handy if Pakistan does fall into the wrong hands but an attachment to the senate bill would give the IAEA more access to US nuclear facilities and, as we know, when it comes to the US and nuclear inspections what's good for the goose (Iran) isn't always good for the gander (the US). So, hypocrisy and protectionism rule the day once again.
This week saw the meeting of Iraq's prime minister al-Maliki and Iran's president Ahmadinejad - an event which definitely turned many heads in the US who were unaware of al-Maliki's past ties with the country and left many outraged over the fact that al-Maliki would ask the so-called evil Iranian regime for help with security. During the Israel/Lebanon war (which is now off of the American radar screen, much to the relief of many who are so conflicted about the situation and don't know how to deal with it - including president Bush), Howard Dean denounced al-Maliki as being anti-semitic while many top Democrats lined up behind Dean and demanded that Iraq's PM be barred from speaking before congress while he visited the US this summer. So, while the US state department is chastising Iran for being involved in Iraq's affairs (read: big oil) since America believes it's the only country that has the right to meddle in Iraq's business, al-Maliki's new, cozy relationship with Ahmadinejad has pretty much guaranteed that the US will find some way to get rid of Iraq's PM as soon as it can. Stay tuned.
The situation in Iraq in the meantime is detriorating so quickly that al-Anbar province is all but lost to al-Qaeda - a setback that could have huge implications in a country that's so war-weary that the concept of federalism is all but dead. The daily death toll in Iraq is staggering, with 65 bodies - victims of torture and executions - being discovered on Tuesday. A chilling article by Tom Engelhart this week looks at 'The Real Link Between 9/11 and Iraq' in a compilation of statistics and comparisons that outlines the results of the US's war on Iraq. Despite so many objections to the contrary, the Pentagon still believes that war and the one in Afghanistan can actually be won militarily and while Democrats are using the reality on the ground to combat the Republicans in the upcoming election, they haven't said much about the fact that the US is building its largest embassy in the world in Iraq along with 14 permanent military bases that will ensure a huge US presence in the region for decades to come. This is the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about 50 years ago and it's the force that determines future military efforts in the Middle East - not US voters, no matter who they elect. Donald Rumsfeld won't resign or be fired as long as defence contractors are able to have their way with him with the backing of Dick Cheney.
Then there's Afghanistan - another country where the US simply didn't send enough troops to actually take control of the the situation and ignored the complexity of the relationships between the people who live there - a miscalculation made in Iraq as well. Even Canada's defence minister has admitted that the war there won't be won militarily. Unlike WWII, which the Bush administration often harkens back to in order to explain the so-called war on terrorism, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan involve many rival factions fighting each other thus, any type of military victory is not as simple as marching in, defeating a simple enemy and marching right back out again while they hand over a few dollars to repair the mess they left behind.
NATO announced on Wednesday that 173 people have died as a result of suicide bombings in Afghanistan this year and its requests to allies to send in more troops were rebuffed on Wednesday. The US, of course, is slowing pulling its troops out since NATO is now in charge and other countries simply don't have enough troops to spare because they are already overstretched. In the meantime, the poppy crops flourish and finance the insurgents.
So, while major players like the US, Canada and Britain try to shift the focus to the so-called Good News in Afghanistan, the reality is that it's still an extremely fragile situation some 5 years after 9/11 and that's where Pakistan comes in again - recently offering a truce with militants in order to save Pakistan's troops while allowing those insurgents, who may be sheltering bin Laden, to still take aim at coalition soldiers in Afghanistan. It's not suprising that the Pakistani government would decide to protect its interests above those of the US or NATO, but it certainly affects overall security in the region.
Beyond all of this, there was an attack on the US embassy in Syria on Tuesday which forced the Bush administration to issue thanks to a government it despises for taking care of the situation, Hamas and Abbas are quarreling about the recognition of Israel, Israel is encroaching on Lebanon's territory - a country that has only begun to deal with the ruins of the most recent war while the Bush administration has fallen back into ignoring the persistent problems between Israel, Lebanon and the Palestinians (a situation that only fuels more hatred towards American military might in the region, which is one of the main complaints of the terrorist jihadis.)
And, while this is happening, nobody is actually talking to each other because of the old cliche 'we will not negotiate with terrorists' (except, perhaps, NATO and the Taliban, which NATO denies). Meanwhile, Musharaff now believes that the Taliban is more dangerous than al Qaeda.
So, here we are - in one huge mess made worse by the Bush administration's failure to understand an enormously complex and diverse region by planning for quick wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and now leaving the Iraqis, NATO and the UN to clean it all up in a job that will take decades. And, while some members of the public still live in that soundbite world, they are still at least able to conclude that Bushco has made some serious mistakes - no matter how much they might not understand about all of the intracacies involved. What has not been lost on them is the fact that Bush is a failure as a wartime president, regardless of his series of recent speeches which were intended to ensure his Republicans stay in control of congress while attempting to convince Americans that they must continue to live in fear of the multitude of enemies his own policies have created.
Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until November again to gauge the real reaction of the majority of Americans who have supported this president and his congress' failed war plans for too many years now. Each day that passes though guarantees the deaths of more soldiers and civilians in the name of securing America's freedom, as Bush states, while he strips them out from under them by breaking and rewriting international and domestic laws. Hopefully, there won't be many more of those days left.
No comments:
Post a Comment