"Mission Accomplished" Bush Gets the Last Laugh in Iraq and Afghanistan
For years, George W. Bush has been roundly criticized, even lampooned, for declaring "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq while wearing a flight suit and landing on an aircraft carrier. But like so many other catastrophes associated with the Bush administration, in the end, Bush always seems to get the last laugh. Maybe declaring "Mission Accomplished" was not that crazy after all. If the "mission" in Iraq was to bilk the federal government for hundreds of billions of dollars in "no-bid" contracts for politically-connected corporations like Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater-Xe, reaping enormous profits for Dick Cheney's Old Boys' network -- then it's safe to say: "Mission Accomplished."
Or if the "mission" was to privatize a socialist-leaning economy in the heart of the Middle East through bombing parastatals and government enterprises to create future investment opportunities for U.S.-based conglomerates and other multinational corporations -- then it's safe to say: "Mission Accomplished."
And if the "mission" was to seize sweeping Executive powers and use the Iraq war to scare the hell out of the American people with graphic descriptions of "weapons of mass destruction," "smoking guns," and "mushroom clouds"; if the objective was to win the 2002 midterm elections in an atmosphere of war and win re-election in 2004 as a "wartime" president; if the "mission" was to tarnish your political opponents as "unpatriotic" whenever they criticized your war of choice; if the purpose was to lock-in obscene Cold War-levels of military spending for the foreseeable future -- "Mission Accomplished."
If the "mission" was to wreck a nation that once prided itself on its modernity and level of economic development; if the goal was to weaken a nationalistic Arab country that has water resources, agricultural land, a technocratic class, and immense oil reserves; if the aim was to turn Baghdad into the most violent city on Earth with hideous blast walls, bombed-out buildings, and open sewers, forcing millions of Iraqis to live in squalor as an example to those who might challenge U.S. power -- then it's "Mission Accomplished."
President Barack Obama is caught in a bind of Bush's creation. The journalist Thomas Ricks, in his new book The Gamble channels the Bush-appointed Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno urging Obama to keep American troops in Iraq forever. Ricks and other "experts" predict that if Obama fulfills his popular campaign pledge to disengage from Iraq, there will be a "bloodbath" and the lives already lost would have been lost in vain. But opinion polls have shown consistently since 2006 that the American people disagree with the "experts" on this one and want an end to the U.S. occupation as soon as possible. Ricks and others need to be reminded that the war in Iraq was a war that never should have been fought.
In Afghanistan, President Obama's new emphasis on economic development, regional diplomacy, and training Afghan security forces is a welcome shift from Bush's unilateral and militaristic policies, but even these new tactics probably have failure written into them. The goal seems to be to peel off some of the Taliban's less extreme elements through bribery and promises of a share of power and take advantage of ethnic and religious conflicts between the Pashtuns and the "Afghan Arabs" associated with Al Qaeda, while training an Afghan police force capable of providing "security." But it is folly to talk about "weeding out corruption" in a country whose biggest export is opium and half the population lives in the 11th Century. Allies of the Taliban are sure to infiltrate and disrupt any Afghan "security service." The role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) complicates the whole picture. And drone attacks that kill civilians only inflame local antagonism toward the governments in Kabul and Islamabad and don't seem much different than the "terrorism" they're aimed at fighting. Again, Bush gets the last laugh because it was his policies toward Pakistan when General Pervez Musharraf was in power that produced the dilemma that Obama now faces along the fictive Pakistan-Afghanistan border.
The neo-cons of the "Project for a New American Century" (re-branded "The Foreign Policy Initiative") that provided the brain trust for the Bush administration exposed the nakedly imperialistic side of American foreign policy that often remains hidden. Whether it's the historical examples of toppling governments in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and elsewhere; or raining more bombs on Vietnam than Germany and Japan experienced during World War Two; or launching "strikes" against Libya, Serbia, Sudan, and elsewhere; or arming paramilitary groups to harass governments deemed unfriendly to U.S. "vital interests"; or implementing "regime change" through invasion and occupation; or torturing prisoners -- You can call it "soft power," "hard power," "smart power" or whatever the hell you want, but the operative word is "power." Now that Dick Cheney, William Kristol, Robert Kagan, and other members of "The Foreign Policy Initiative" have assumed their place in the opposition they seek to use their elite perch to hem in Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan, limit his politically acceptable options, and set up a media frame where they can denounce him when the level of violence escalates.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The danger with a sarcastic headline is that
1) It presumes that everyone reads the article
2) At some time in the future, an individual or a group who think that G Bush was the greatest thing since sliced bread can post it as proof that even his detractors realised that he was right.
Our stupid drones should be outlawed and those who invented them should explain the reasoning behind creating them and those in the military who authorized their use should also explain their reasoning as well.
Our actions in Pakistan should be with full and totally transparent support of the government and the people of Pakistan for otherwise we will be instrumental in creating more terrorism than destroying it.
Pakistan's military support for the Taliban is a reaction to our insulting their integrity and their love for their country and not a reflection of their giving a damn about the Taliban.
When are we going to stop this arrogance of believing in our security at the expense of everybody else, especially since no nation in the world is truly as secure as we are?
God, we must be the most frightened nation in the world. Smaller countries such as Holland, Kuwait, Bangladesh, and Taiwan should be paralyzed with fear but they are not.
Ironically enough it was our President who said “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” And yet, we live in constant fear and have created an atmosphere of fear for the rest of the world.
Who cares? The result of islam is a primitive brain locked in endless rounds of resentment and retribution. Clearly your roots in humanity have rotted away. Try giving a suicide bomber some love. Instead of ignorant promises. Then we would not have anything to use the drone for.
"...Our stupid drones should be outlawed and those who invented them should explain the reasoning behind creating them and those in the military who authorized their use should also explain their reasoning as well...."
Off the top of my head I'd say the reason is people like you aren't volunteering for near-suicide missions.
BTW, around nine years after Roosevelt specified what we should fear, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. No doubt you thought he said that post 12/7/41.
Part I.
Obama has the opportunity of a lifetime to be not a politician even in the best sense of the word but at all times a statesman concerned for our nation and the world on a long term basis. As a statesman, every day in the White House is an opportunity to do what is right - an opportunity no other human being has or ever will because every day is for ever unique in its singularity - "singularity: sounds like the dawn of our universe.
This is what I would do if I were in his position. I would withdraw our forces from Iraq ASAP because we had no business to be there to begin with and the people want us out. The jinn of the fundamental conflicts between the Shiites and the Sunnis controlled through the dictatorship of Saddam is out of the bottle. It can only be truly resolved if they fight it out until one or the other converts which is very unlikely.
The Sunnis - and I was born in Persia in a very orthodox Shiite family - rightfully believe in the first three Caliphs as Prophet Muhammd's legitimate successors. Shiites consider them apostates.
Sunnis rightfully believe that the first three Caliphs were chosen in a democratic way. Shiites believe that the true successors of Muhammad should have been his immediate family.
Part II.
This means his daughter and her husband and nephew Ali and their direct descendents - 11 of them which together constitute the Twelver Shiites - more than 90% of Iran's and about 60% of the Iraq's populations.
Sunnis on the other hand accept Ali and the 4th Caliph which he was historically and they have great respect the Prophet’s family as reflected, for example, in the use of names Hassan and Hussein – Ali’s sons – which are common names in the world of Islam.
Shiites believe the 12th Imam, Mahdi, is in the state of Occultation to reappear and bring peace and justice to the world along with Christ. Sunnis don't believe in this fundamental tenet of Shiism the present President of Iran is so fund of talking about.
Another fundamental difference is the Shiites belief that Muhammad, his daughter Fatimah and Ali as well as their descendants were all infallible! Sunnis don't.
In addition, most of the shrines of the Shiite Imams - sacred for the Shiites - are in Iraq. Sunnis believe those shrines to be symbols of idolatry.
Tell me how our being in Iraq will solve these fundamental issues?
Regarding Afghanistan, the whole world should unite to wipe out the cancer of Taliban. Just imagine what we alone could do if Afghanistan was our 51st State. This is the way of creating a democracy that would be a model for the rest of the region to emulate.
Excellent article, as usual!!
It is so ironic that the more "primitive" a country's infrastructure is, the harder is military success in that country. We will ultimately probably lose both wars. The Taliban will eventually return in Afghanstan and strongman rule will return to Iraq. Bush sycophants will undoubtedly blame Democrats for what was their policy blunders. But Bush accomplished puttig America on a permanent war footing to reduce our civil liberties, while breaking the budget to reduce the options of future presidents, discrediting government- a body hated by conservatives, aggrandizing his own power, and eventually discrediting capitalism itself. And now he has "accomplished" going unpunished for his careless regard for the constitution. Shame on us for electing this misanthrope twice and for letting him watlz freely into the sunset after the significant destruction he has caused. How can one so insubstantial do so much harm to so many in so limited a time?
Consult the writings of Hannah Arendt on the banality of evil, to understand how someone like Bush could precipitate what he has done to the world.
Yes, good point! Evil is usually sold as patriotism!
WHERE WAS THE JOUNRNALISTIC COURAGE IN 2003 AND 2004?
WHY DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS?
I cannot agree more with Professor Palermo's assessment of the disgusting cynicism of the Bushies and their neo-con shills (Feith, Krauthammer, Wolfowitz, Ledeen etc.) and how the only winners in the Irak-Afghanistan quagmire are the Blackwaters, Halliburtons and KBR's who suck taxpayer money ....
Why were such truths not voiced in 2003, 2004 - why did it take so long to point out the obvious? What kind of intimidation and self-censorship was operating that kept the wholesome truth out of the mainstream media? We were fed pious and lethal homilies, while hundreds of billions were pocketed that led to the present financial collapse.
I love Arianna's initiative to create an invesitgative journalism fund. Speaking of basic jounrnalistic questions, here is these days too much Who, When and What and hardly any Why and How. Good investigative journalism is a cornerstone of individual freedom:
I hope America did not forget this specific article of faith of the Founding fathers. With real, critical journalism Irak would have been much less likely and countless lives (and dollars) would have been saved.
Wow, this article hits the nail on the head. Petraeus and Odierno are Bush loyalists that will do whatever it takes to keep the Military Industrial Complex going. I can already see their handy work in the Afghanistan war. They are going to lead President Obama astray.
If the goal was to "starve the beast"....
We must not be the US of amnesia. Thank you for this concise hard-hitting and yes depressing recap, but a necessary reminder just the same. It does seem Obama is cornered into continuing these policies of failure. Seems the power of presidency is used the same no matter the party.
The stupidity of "Mission Accomplished" was declaring victory... then not leaving.
It's like the old saying that they can't miss you if you won't leave. You can't be the winner of the war if you are still fighting four years later.
I just wrote how Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al should be arrested. Seconds later, I couldn't access the Huffington Post site. What's going on?
We need to put Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al in jail.
Since the primary aim of W at the start of his presidency was to completely trash every economic, social, and political institution in the United States and to completely flip the country upside down and milk the country dry, then I would say -- Mission Accomplished!
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED ABSOLUTLEY,BROUGHT THIS COUNTRY AN THE WORLD TO ITS KNEES
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
