Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
From the beginning there always has been something that has irked me about the Bush Administration’s use of the word “terror.” How did “terrorism” become “terror”? Was this just a harmless simplification of the word? With politicians’ love of manipulating our language for their own gain, I would suggest it serves another purpose.
Let’s look at what this does: “Terrorism” is a fairly tangible noun, we could actually fight against terrorism. But “terror,” what exactly is that? According to Webster, it is “a state of intense fear; terribleness.” Does President George W. Bush actually think he can rid the world of all fear, as he would seem to imply? Can he even eliminate terror in any part of the world? That would be impossible.
The very assumption that we can fight a “war against terror,” let alone win one is therefore false. So, why is the United States still deploying troops to countries that are supposed to harbor “evil doers”?
One answer is a document called “Rebuilding American’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a new century.” This is a plan that was written for the Bush administration even before Bush took office in Jan. 2001. According to the Scotland Sunday Herald, “the plan shows that Bush’s cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power” (Sunday Herald, Sept. 15, 2002). The document went on to say Hussein and the Iraqi conflict both provides justification for sending in American troops, and “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
The document was created by a group called the New American Century, which was established in 1997. PNAC is, in its own words, a non-profit educational organization that believes “American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.” (www.newamericancentury.org). Their purpose is “to explain what American world leadership entails.”
Sounds pretty far-fetched, right? Yet this document, written in Sept. 2000 was given to the president, vice president, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby (Cheney’s chief of staff) and even Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.
The 90-page report continues to outline four core missions America’s Defense Department should strive for. These include to “fight and decisively win multiple simultaneous theater wars;” “perform the constabulary duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;” to “transform U.S. forces to exploit the revolution in military affairs;” and to “defend the American Homeland.”
It also goes on to “describe peace-keeping missions as ‘demanding American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations,’” according to the Sunday Herald.
The document seems to look at the world as a big “Risk” board. Unfortunately this is not a game of world domination, this is a plan for real-life world domination. This is quite a departure from Bush’s campaign plan of a “humble foreign policy.” In fact I would call it a blatant lie, which I will not accept, nor should the rest of America.
Check out this document at www.newamericancentury.org, then call your national representatives and let them know you don’t want them voting in favor of any military action in Iraq. A small group of power-hungry, money-grubbing individuals should not have the right to decide the entire world’s fate, let alone a country’s.
Catie Joyce is a senior English major.
