As President Bush continues his Nixonesque policy of exiting Iraq by escalation and intimidation, both Republican and Democratic politicians are also imitating the Vietnam-era rhetoric of blaming the citizens of the chaotic country and their neighbors for the mess. In fact, the politicians are blaming everyone but themselves for this monumental policy failure.
As Nixon fingered Laos and Cambodia for acting as communist havens for the destabilization of South Vietnam and expanded the U.S. war into them, Bush is raising troop levels in Iraq and blaming Iran for Iraqs problems. The Bush administration tried to get away with accusing the Iranian political leadership of providing armor-penetrating explosives to Shiite militias in Iraq, but when Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he saw no evidence of such leadership involvement, the administration quickly backpedaled.
Of course, if the Iranian leaders arent providing such materials and training to Shiite militias in Iraq, one should wonder why not. One might forgive even the despotic tyrants in Iran for being a little nervous. Troops from the hostile government of the United States have invaded and occupied countries on both sides of IranAfghanistan and Iraq. If a hegemonic foreign power had invaded Mexico, who would doubt that the United States would aid Mexican resistance? Yet, contrary to the findings of the U.S. intelligence community, the administration is now trying to foist the blame for the Iraqi sectarian civil war on Iran.
The situation is so bad in Iraq that U.S. politicians of all political stripes are looking for someoneanyoneelse to blame. In the debate in the U.S. House of Representatives on the congressional resolution disapproving of President Bushs escalation of the war, Republican Ric Keller, who opposed the escalation, blamed the Iraqis for their troubles:
Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist, so you decide youre going to mow his lawn for him every single week. The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn forever?
Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn? Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow your own lawn or theres going to be serious consequences for you?
Although Mr. Kellers opposition to the presidents escalation should be praised, the arrogance implicit in this statement also runs through similar statements by Democratic war opponents. Because they want to get re-elected, politicians cant blame America for the problems in Iraq so they have to blame the Iraqis.
One should ask even Mr. Keller and many other escalation opponents why a homeowner should be presumptuous enough to trespass on a neighbors property to mow their lawn in the first place? Also, Mr. Keller should realize that his analogy is imperfect. In fact, what the United States did in Iraq was akin to running a car over the neighbors lawn mower (invading the country, ruining Iraqi social cohesion, and then dismantling the Iraqi security forces), then expecting him to mow his lawn, and blaming him when he cant. Finally, the Iraqis, like the neighbor, know that the threat of coming consequenceswhether civil war or long grassis already a fact on the ground.
Hillary Clinton, however, would prefer to blame President Bush entirely for the war and take no responsibility for her own vote in favor of going to war. Her position to date has been a cop out: knowing what she knows now about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, etc., she wouldnt have voted for the war. Instead of saying that her vote was a mistakea colossal one given that the invasion would not have been justified even if Saddam Hussein had had such weaponsand apologizing, she is now saying that if voters want to hear an apology, they can just go vote for someone else for president. She doesnt know it, but this stance is the kiss of death for her presidential bid. She is trying to not be dragged too far to the left during the Democratic primaries in an attempt to win the general election by retaining moderate votes.
But even after the utter repudiation of the war in the election of November 2006, Republicans and Democrats have been slow to realize that Bushs post-election escalation will cause opposition to the conflict to be a tsunami in 2008. After digging in her heels about the apology, Hillary will not even be able to get the Democratic nomination. Anti-war Barack Obama, or more likely, John Edwardswho has apologized for his war votewill be the Democratic nominee and the next president.
Because Bushs escalation flies in the face of public opinionin both the United States and Iraqhe has sunk the chances of the Republican Party in the 2008 election. All the major Republican candidatesJohn McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romneyhave been forced to endorse the escalation. Only the courageous Chuck Hagel has criticized the presidents policy, but regrettably he will not survive the Republican primaries because of that stance.
Although the finger pointing will continue throughout the 2008 election campaign, ironically the Iraqisaggrieved but the butt of blame for their plightwill have had a powerful influence on who is the next leader of the free world.
|Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office.|
Taking a distinctly new approach, Ivan Eland profiles each U.S. president from Washington to Obama on the merits of his policies and whether those strategies contributed to peace, prosperity, and liberty. This ranking system is based on how effective each president was in fulfilling his oath to uphold the Constitution.