Opinion

Bush’s bad call

President may be making big error

By Michael Rocque

Posted on Jan. 27, 2005, at 12:00 a.m.

Now that President Bush has been sworn into office for another four years, those of us who were not so comfortable with the first term are wondering, what is going to happen next?

From the looks of it, more military interventions and deaths of more brave young American soldiers. Bush’s inaugural speech was rife with references as well as blatant statements indicating just how willing and eager he is to use force “when necessary.” He also said, “America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal, instead, is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.” However, since he has no plans to find out if the people in the nations he has or will target actually want American soldiers and bombs in their homes, there is no way of knowing who “the unwilling” are.

Recently Seymour Hersh, the journalist who exposed some of the horrendous crimes committed in the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib, reported in The New Yorker that the United States has plans to become militarily involved in Iran. In fact, strikes could be imminent. “The goal is to identify and isolate three dozen, and perhaps more, such targets that could be destroyed by precision strikes and short-term commando raids. The civilians in the Pentagon want to go into Iran and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible,’ the government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon told me,” Hersh said.

Hersh also mentioned that Bush has cleared covert operations in Southeast Asia, namely North Korea. It would seem that the so-called “Axis of Evil” – interesting how the administration desperately wants their war to be compared to World War II, often referring to Sept. 11 as a “Pearl Harbor-like” attack – is the primary target of Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Bush has made it clear that he wishes to leave a legacy behind, and unfortunately, that legacy comes with a price: American lives.

Of course, the government made sure to announce that Hersh’s work is completely false and has no firm grounding. Condoleeza Rice, the next Secretary of State, echoed the Department of Defense, stating, “[The Article] is inaccurate and its credibility is sorely lacking.” No specifics were mentioned describing just how the article was inaccurate, be it the claims of possible military action, or perhaps the dates described. As usual, the administration has been vague.

Thus far, all signs point to more guns, bombs and bloodshed. In an interview with NBC, Bush would not deny that he might use military force against Iran in the coming years, despite being given ample opportunity to do so by NBC’s David Gregory.

Gregory: “About Iran, will you rule out the potential for military action against Iran if it continues to stonewall the international community about the existence of its nuclear weapons program?”

Bush: “I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I will never take any option off the table.”

In addition to North Korea, Iran and Syria looms as another possible target.

The media and people in Iran have taken notice as well. According to the BBC, some mainstream newspapers have issued hostile responses to the story. A newspaper called Resalat stated that “reports of possible military involvement in Iran represent the massive negative propaganda of imperialist media against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The periodical went on to caution the United States, “America cannot invade Iran like Iraq and Afghanistan, since American strategists know that there is an unbreakable link between the people and the political system.”

It is unclear whether the U.S. military can accomplish such an ambitious agenda. Many people in- the-know, such as Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.), have warned that the situation in Iraq is in urgent need of more troops. As it is, our army is already stretched thin, having to rely heavily on National Guard and Reserve personnel for assistance.

So, what does this all mean? It appears that a military draft is unavoidable. As I try to understand how Bush and pals think, I become more and more confused. It would be impossible to be successful – if it is possible at all – in further conquests with the troop levels as they are. Yet a draft would result in Bush’s agenda falling out of favor among the American public. On the day of his inauguration, his approval rating stood at around 49 percent.

In other words, Bush seems willing to sacrifice nearly everything – money, popularity, lives, you name it – in the pursuit of what apparently he holds most dear: power. What lies ahead may not be pretty for this country, but I’m not sure our president cares.

Michael Rocque is a senior sociology major.

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 27th, 2005, 12:00 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.