|
|
Categories: Civil Liberties/Privacy, Honest and Ethical Government, Civil Rights and Equality, Foreign Policy, National Security, Peace and Armed Conflict, Social Justice, Ranting and Venting
In an attempt to define victory in Iraq last week, President Bush chuckled as he said, "Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our country that, as you know, have a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives, and that's what we're trying to achieve."
Perhaps Mr. Bush spotted a funny clown with a big red nose and cartoon shoes at the Associated General Contractors of America meeting, but his chuckling revelation struck me as odd not only because I heard the comment, but also because it came and went with little notice or comment.
Were the Democrats getting ready for the Kentucky Derby? Did no one identify this as another George Bush flip flop worthy of comment? Hell, I remember the President’s own campaign lambasted John Kerry for a similar statement in October of 2004. During one of Kerry’s brainy moments he compared terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling in that it will never go away, “but we're going to reduce it ... to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day."
Right after this comment, big Dick Cheney characterized Kerry’s comments as "naive and dangerous," while the commander in chief said they were proof Kerry "fundamentally misunderstands the war on terror." While Kerry was probably right, his comment came a few weeks after he said, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." But to actually hear Kerry talk about living with a certain level of terrorism during the last month of the campaign… let’s just say my jaw dropped and I shook my head in disbelief.
I knew what he was trying to say, but I also knew how that comment would be beaten upon like a drum. And beat it they did with Bush underscoring that the comment showed Kerry didn’t get it on terrorism (remember the wolves commercial?). Sure, Kerry may have been right, but he would never be the President.
Today it is Bush who fundamentally misunderstands terrorism with is continued dedication to consistent inconsistency. This is the guy that has asked that we accept his “long war” because it would eradicate terrorism. But now, we are being told to recalibrate our thinking. No longer should we think: Victory in Iraq = No More Terrorists. Instead we must now conclude: Victory in Iraq = A Continued But Acceptable Level of Violence. If you think Bush doesn’t get it, here’s your membership card, welcome to the club.
This begs the following questions: What is an “acceptable level of violence?” Is there a casualty level that we should seek to achieve and if so, what is this acceptable casualty level? Can we pack-up and leave when the threshold is reached, or do we have to measure this over an extended period of time to give us a trend line? If it’s an extended period of time, how long is that timeline?
Henry Kissinger et al got Nixon to declare victory in Viet Nam so that we could spiral out of that misery. Having grown-up in Athens with Ohio University students who served in Viet Nam coming and going from my family’s house regularly, I remember that time very clearly. Now that our President has defined victory in this 21st Century Viet Nam, I want to know, “What is an acceptable level of violence in Iraq?”
Perhaps knowing that “level” will allow this country to place a threshold certain that will allow us stop this madness and bring our brothers and sisters home.
1) I actually heard Thom Hartmann talk about this on his Thursday, May 3, podcast. He made a great observation: Bush's - and Conservatives' - solution to big problems is to beat them down with a hammer, and when they are sufficiently flattened they say that the problem is "fixed". Note that Bush could have said, "victory is achieved when the Universities re-open", or "victory is achieved when the electricity is on 24 hours a day", or "victory is achieved when oil production is back to pre-War levels". But no. To Bush, the only way to achieve "victory" is to TAKE SOMETHING AWAY (violence), and not TO GIVE SOMETHING (peace).
2) Bush stated off-handedly "There are parts of our country that, as you know, have a certain level of violence to it." I think he is referring to inner-city violence here. Is he stating that he has declared victory on inner-city violence, because it has an acceptable level of violence "where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives"?
3) I have not heard the following point being made, so I am going to claim this as my own: Bush wants to keep the troops in Iraq until after his term is over because, in part, when the troops come back they will find themselves without a job. Unemployment will spike, and Washington will be pressured to force employers to take back these former employees. Since Bush's primary job is to please his big-business friends, he wants to avoid making them accountable for this (perhaps illegal) layoff of active-duty military. Thus, Bush wants to keep unemployment low to show that "the economy is doing great", and he wants to avoid asking his big-business buddies to account for their actions in "firing the troops". Bush therefore wants to keep the troops in Iraq at all costs.