Is George Bush Weak?

What to say? It's been a while since I added a page to this section of my site, and it doesn't seem there's anything significant to comment on even now. Perhaps that's because I've taken the unique position that while I opposed entering the war in Iraq on the basis of pacifist beliefs, I also oppose leaving Iraq now that we've gone in and made the mess we've made. That put's me at odds with some of those liberals I usually agree with.

Maybe there's a diabolical alterior motive at play here. If George expends all his 9/11 political capital fixing the Iraq mess he's vulnerable next fall. But I don't really think that's possible. He's too opportunistic to let that happen. The real question is if political expediency will lead him to abandon Iraq when it needs him most.

You have to take what you hear from Iraq with a few freighters of salt -- understanding the bias of the sources. The media will tend to focus on the troubles; dying soldiers, rebelling Shiites, bombing terrorists, and so on. There are places where things are going quite well, despite the claims of certain liberal commentators. But they aren't going as well as Bush and his cronies are trying to make out either. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

Who's doing it? Saddam loyalists? Foreign invaders hoping to gain from the chaos? Al Qaida operatives eager for any chance to strike at American targets? It's probably like a cheesy multiple choice test -- all of the above. I still maintain that the life of the average Iraqi has not yet improved over the days of Saddam, and they're getting impatient. Iran clearly wants to eliminate this threat on its border and doesn't trust the United States to act in its interests (with good reason, I'm sure). And while Al Qaida may or may not have been active in Iraq before the war (if they were, it was in the part of the country where we prevented Saddam from exercising full control) it seems certain they're there now.

If we took on Saddam because of his weapons of mass destruction (and we KNOW he had them even if we can't find them) why are we dragging our feet about destroying the ones we've agreed to part with? That's a rhetorical question....

So what should we do now?

1. Give our GIs a crash course in Muslim culture so they can act with more deference to their beliefs and ways.
2. Understand that Saddam was a harsh leader because he had to be to control the unweildy country cut out by dense-headed foreigners with little regard to the compatibility of its population groups. A successful secular democracy won't happen without a lot of support from us and our allies (if we haven't alienated them all with our cowboy unilateralism).
3. Stop demanding that we be in control of everything. Yes, we did this unilaterally and without the sacrifice of the U. N. countries who now want a piece of the action. But the question is how to reach our goals without bankrupting ourselves, and a willingness to yeild a little control would probably win us a lot of help we'd be insane to reject.
4. Provide clear, tangible, and unequivocal support for moderate Muslim leaders in Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world. It needs to be clear that we aren't a Christian nation dedicated to eliminating the influence of Islam and that we can reach an agreement to mutually respect each other's deeply held beliefs and values.

Iraq aside, is there anything Democrats can do to unseat King George the second? Most of them seem eager to milk what's happening in Iraq for political advantage, which is a shame since the issues at stake are important enough we should work together. Most of them don't have any real moral standing on the issue anyway, since they voted to let him start this war. While those who did vote against the war have some ground to criticize Bush for inadequate preparation for post-war reality, they're probably too far left to have a real hope to get elected in this country.

So how do we stop a man who seems determined to give the country away to those who already own way more of it than even the most warped ideology would say they're entitled to? We have to end the influence of big money on politics. It will have to be a drastic remedy. We have to understand the moral insanity of the argument that restrictions on money in politics run afoul of the first amendment. If wealth were distributed more equally, that argument might hold weight, but under the massive imbalance of economic control that exists in this country the first amendment actually demands that we divorce money and politics with extreme prejudice and with stringent "no contact" court orders against both parties.

It would also be nice if all presidential hopefuls from all parties could sign and live by a "discussions of Iraq are off limits" agreement. It's all fine and dandy to say you were for or against the war. But it's happened and we need to be talking about the best way to clean up our mess -- best for Iraq and the Moslem world with only token nods to our own interests. Let's discuss the economy, future foreign policy issues, dealing with skyrocketing health care costs, and so on. Those are the things that will make a real difference for voting Americans.