To Veto or Not to Veto? That is not even the question for the Iraq War
April 28th 2007 05:03
To Veto or Not to Veto? That is not even the question for the Iraq War
So US Congress got together and created a pullout ultimatum linked to the funding on the War in Iraq. George W Bush has stated on several occasions that he will veto the bill and it seems likely that he will. The Bill was created knowing that it would fail but in doing so also act as no confidence vote in the President’s judgment. It is more of a PR exercise than a practical measure aimed at stopping the War. The question of whether he should veto the bill is mute because he has already inked up his veto stamp and eagerly awaits his chance to use it. This whole episode is a show for the cameras and the true believes on both sides of the political fence. It is a show that gives nothing but stoic victories for all involved but does nothing practical to end the war.
All evidence points to the status quo until the Bush administration has gone into retirement. Meaning of course that it become a win-win for all. The Democrats win because they claim to have stood up to the President and the Republicans win because they claim to have stood up for the president. The rhetoric is restrained and the notion of Pre emptive strike is passed onto another generation. The absolute power of Presidents to start wars also passes onto another generation. The war gets passed to another President who is left with an impossible situation of blame. Ending the war is already being flagged as the seeds of a festering problem in the Middle East.
In practical terms the Middle East was already festering with discontent and Anti American sentiment long before the Iraq War. A brief burst of sympathy after the 9-11 attacks was the exception and not the norm. The Iraq War has squandered this sympathy. A situation not helped by the Abu Graibe scandal. The longer the War lasts the more these images will be used to recruit insurgents. Despite trying to blame others the US does not want to take any blame for the Civil War its invasion made possible. The war for ‘hearts and minds’ is no longer being fought in Iraq it is now being fought in the domestic theater of mainland USA.
Again we have a face saving exercise for a domestic American audience. When the war ends who in American politics will claim victory and who will be blamed for causing the nation to be humiliated. In Australia Prime Minister John Howard has stated publicly, ‘that it is not in Australia’s strategic interests to see America humiliated in Iraq.’ He has also condemned the recent vote by the US congress as, ‘Giving comfort to the enemy.’ Whether his words cause another media flurry is a side issue. However it does clearly show his adherence to the, ‘Stay the course till the job is done,’ rhetoric.
In real terms the damage to the American reputation has been done and whatever enemy they thought that they were defeating has now multiplied. The moral high ground is now a valley where torture and cluster bombs have set the level. Staying the course in the hope that civil war will magically go away seems to show a lack of planning. Refusing to leave because it is embarrassing shows a lack of moral priorities. Hanging in there rather than face the humiliation of defeat is nothing short of bloody pride (and I do mean bloody).
Outsiders to this war would wonder why an invading army should be spared the humiliation of defeat when they leave. History is littered with humiliating defeats and long marches home. USSR left Afghanistan, Napoleon left Moscow, USA left Vietnam and the Indonesians left East Timor. All these were humiliating at the time but unfortunately they were the only possible course of action. Nations can survive humiliation but rulers often don’t. History is scathing of the people who create huge disasters in what is obviously done for the short term interests of one man and his cronies.
There is a sense among some people that a victory in Iraq will wipe out the humiliating defeat of the Vietnam War. They are fighting on a nationalist and jingoistic platform that has little or no grip on reality. The theory is that by winning the war in Iraq it would that they could have and should have won in Vietnam, if only they were allowed to finish the job.
The question of national humiliation is rarely at a national scale rather it is directed at the persons responsible. Hitler and his henchmen were the culprits not the entire German nation for the next 100years. Stalin killed millions, Napoleon wanted to rule the world, Genghis Kahn, Mao are blamed for their criminal decisions but anyone suggesting that their entire nation should be destroyed would join their ranks. Had the war in Iraq gone swimmingly the Bush administration would taken the credit, so if it fails they will certainly take the blame. The rest of America has an escape clause, ‘Bush did it, Bush took us to war. It is all his fault.’
The real question over Iraq is who is responsible for the mess? It doesn’t matter if the bill is vetoed as Bush’s political self survival is totally dependant upon not admitting he was wrong. Even saying that his intentions were good cannot excuse the thousands that have been killed. As the years pass the history of the chapter will be written in part by those trying to distance themselves from any blame. It is likely that Bush will be portrayed as the bad apple removed before the whole barrel went rotten.
Ink up my Veto Stamp. I'm gunna need it.
All evidence points to the status quo until the Bush administration has gone into retirement. Meaning of course that it become a win-win for all. The Democrats win because they claim to have stood up to the President and the Republicans win because they claim to have stood up for the president. The rhetoric is restrained and the notion of Pre emptive strike is passed onto another generation. The absolute power of Presidents to start wars also passes onto another generation. The war gets passed to another President who is left with an impossible situation of blame. Ending the war is already being flagged as the seeds of a festering problem in the Middle East.
In practical terms the Middle East was already festering with discontent and Anti American sentiment long before the Iraq War. A brief burst of sympathy after the 9-11 attacks was the exception and not the norm. The Iraq War has squandered this sympathy. A situation not helped by the Abu Graibe scandal. The longer the War lasts the more these images will be used to recruit insurgents. Despite trying to blame others the US does not want to take any blame for the Civil War its invasion made possible. The war for ‘hearts and minds’ is no longer being fought in Iraq it is now being fought in the domestic theater of mainland USA.
PM John Howard. Stamp it twice to make sure
In real terms the damage to the American reputation has been done and whatever enemy they thought that they were defeating has now multiplied. The moral high ground is now a valley where torture and cluster bombs have set the level. Staying the course in the hope that civil war will magically go away seems to show a lack of planning. Refusing to leave because it is embarrassing shows a lack of moral priorities. Hanging in there rather than face the humiliation of defeat is nothing short of bloody pride (and I do mean bloody).
Outsiders to this war would wonder why an invading army should be spared the humiliation of defeat when they leave. History is littered with humiliating defeats and long marches home. USSR left Afghanistan, Napoleon left Moscow, USA left Vietnam and the Indonesians left East Timor. All these were humiliating at the time but unfortunately they were the only possible course of action. Nations can survive humiliation but rulers often don’t. History is scathing of the people who create huge disasters in what is obviously done for the short term interests of one man and his cronies.
There is a sense among some people that a victory in Iraq will wipe out the humiliating defeat of the Vietnam War. They are fighting on a nationalist and jingoistic platform that has little or no grip on reality. The theory is that by winning the war in Iraq it would that they could have and should have won in Vietnam, if only they were allowed to finish the job.
The question of national humiliation is rarely at a national scale rather it is directed at the persons responsible. Hitler and his henchmen were the culprits not the entire German nation for the next 100years. Stalin killed millions, Napoleon wanted to rule the world, Genghis Kahn, Mao are blamed for their criminal decisions but anyone suggesting that their entire nation should be destroyed would join their ranks. Had the war in Iraq gone swimmingly the Bush administration would taken the credit, so if it fails they will certainly take the blame. The rest of America has an escape clause, ‘Bush did it, Bush took us to war. It is all his fault.’
The real question over Iraq is who is responsible for the mess? It doesn’t matter if the bill is vetoed as Bush’s political self survival is totally dependant upon not admitting he was wrong. Even saying that his intentions were good cannot excuse the thousands that have been killed. As the years pass the history of the chapter will be written in part by those trying to distance themselves from any blame. It is likely that Bush will be portrayed as the bad apple removed before the whole barrel went rotten.
| 45 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mrs M
Mum's Word
If Congress can convince 16 more Republicans to cross the floor (2 have already done so) then Congress can override Bush's veto.
Now that would be something - a pivotal moment in history.
If that happens, then that will most definitely cement Bush as a President who stuffed up.
Love & stuff
Mrs M
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You are 100per cent correct.
If they Us Congress gets those 16 votes it would be a completely different story.
And instead me saying that the veto is so ho hum I would be saying is very interesting.
I would be happy to be proven wrong on this issue.