The Bush Administration has been trying to have it both ways since 9/11 in the security vs. liberty argument. At home their covert actions have been suggesting to us for some time that in order to ensure our security, we need to sacrifice some of our liberties. But then abroad, they have been pushing liberty at a tremendous expense of security – where far more innocent, non-American lives are being lost on a daily basis. This high incidence of “collateral damage” is not only morally repugnant, but also a cause for increasing disenchantment with America around the world.
To therefore help keep an increasingly skeptical American public engaged, the Bush Administration has begun drawing parallels between the longevity of the Cold War and what some in the Administration have been referring to lately as the “Long War” (a.k.a. the “War on Terror”). In any event, they cannot continue to unilaterally violate a sacrosanct principle common to these two ideological struggles: the preservation of liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. Ironically, the preservation of liberty – which their oxymoronic “Long War” policy now seeks to curtail in order to secure – was the rai•son d'être for the Cold War.
The genesis of the “Long War” was an attempt by the Bush Administration to establish a dubious link between Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11. This blatantly false equivalence was used as a rationalization to divert the true “war on terror” from Afghanistan to Iraq. To make matters worse, after no WMD were found in Iraq, the Bush Administration changed its phony primary objective to an even harder, secondary objective of “establishing democracy” in Iraq. In recent Senate testimony, the top two Pentagon officials politely suggested that it is hard for a democracy to function in the midst of a civil war. This stark testimony leaves President Bush with a Hobson’s choice – to continue to promote “democracy” or try to contain a civil war.
Is it any wonder then that almost 60% of the American public now believes that the Iraq war was a mistake? In the light of which, it is quite surprising that Senator Lieberman, a strong supporter of President Bush’s “Long War” policy, lost his primary bid for reelection in a deep blue state by only a narrow four point margin. One could conclude that Senator Lieberman took his constituents for granted and paid a price for it. However, based on his post-primary remarks, “For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand” it appears that Bush-style hubris has infected Senator Lieberman as well.
The morning after his humiliating loss in the primary, Senator Lieberman proclaimed, “I am even more devoted to my state and my country,” as his justification for making an independent run in November. Senator Lieberman may think that he is putting his country first, but he is definitely putting himself second, and his party last among his priorities. He does not seem to care how his selfish power grab might affect the chances of his Democratic Party in winning back the Congress – ironically, from those very Republicans he now hopes will help elect him as an independent senator.
As far as the “Long War” is concerned, it’s quite apparent that both parties are playing politics with what “The Daily Show” host, Jon Stewart, so presciently called “Mess-O-Potamia” shortly after it began. Many people now see President Bush’s “Long War” strategy as trying to “stay the course”, even if it’s a failing one, for the next two-and-one-half years – then to “get outta Dodge” and leave it to the next administration to clean up the mess. Personally, I had an epiphany while watching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on a recent Sunday morning talk show. It seemed to me like she was fiddling while Baghdad was going up in flames. One can only hope that the larger American public will resist political fear mongering, as was witnessed in the aftermath of the foiled London plot last week, and hold the Bush Administration’s feet to this messianic fire of its own volition. As Baghdad sizzles, we can no longer afford to have Condi fiddle and Bush piddle with the “Long War” riddle – they either solve it or “Lamont” (i.e. lament) the consequences of a November tsunami!
No comments:
Post a Comment