2004 Year in Review

Bush - a liberal?

A good case can be made that since the weapons of mass destruction were not found, our occupation of Iraq has become more of a liberal than conservative cause.

As William Saletan in Slate points out:

I love it when he goes to the United Nations—as he did two years ago and again today—and tells those lazy cynics to get off their duffs. They spend their days congratulating each other, passing toothless resolutions, and giving lip service to tired pet issues. Bush is just what they need. He pokes them in the ribs. He points out that scofflaws are treating them like a joke. He tells them to enforce their threats, or he'll do it for them. He preaches freedom and democracy. He vows to serve others, no matter who else joins in the cause. He refuses to back down, no matter what the price.

Unfortunately for Bush, it's the liberal in me who loves these things. And it's the conservative—in me and other Americans—who's turning away.

This is what liberals do: They coerce or cajole the fortunate to serve the less fortunate. They spend American lives and money to serve causes beyond our national interest. It's what lured Presidents Kennedy and Johnson into Vietnam. It's what conservatives hated about President Clinton's war in Kosovo.

Saletan notes that President Bush says that the world is a better place for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, while John Kerry retorts that the invasion and occupation was a mistake since Saddam was no threat to the US (no weapons of mass destruction found or connection with Al Qaeda terrorists). George Bush is playing the liberal who is interested in the welfare of the world, while John Kerry is espousing the usual conservative "America first" rationale:

(Bush states that) Iraq and the world are better off with Saddam gone. Bush is mistaken: It isn't hard to imagine that a candidate for president would prefer stability abroad to democracy. We're talking about the presidency of the United States, not the world. What's hard to imagine is that the candidate who prefers stability is the so-called liberal and the candidate who prefers democracy and "hope" is the so-called conservative.

It is increasingly more difficult to justify the Iraqi occupation as being in the US national interest. To put it simply, the war is going badly and without some grand new strategy the US is likely to fail in Iraq. Three Republican Senators last weekend: Hegel, McCain and Lugar said as much and called the present US policy "incompetent."

Before you say that this is too pessimistic, note that the CIA is just as dour on the situation in Iraq. They came out with a report last week that was pretty darn pessimistic. According to the New York Times:

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages.

The choices at this point are three. One, the US could follow the advice of Republican Senator John McCain and aggressively attack the Sunni strongholds like Fallujah. Escalating the conflict is unlikely, in my opinion, to succeed and would turn more of the Iraqis against us.

The second possibility is to continue the course that Bush has followed so far. The US sort of attacks rebel strongholds, then pulls back when it looks like there are going to be casualties, both Iraqi militants, civilians and US soldiers. This approach is likely to get the US nowhere. It will certainly not guarantee elections.

The third possibility is one few people are suggesting, that is, to pull American troops out of Iraq. The consequences of this would likely be chaos and civil war, which could lead to Iraq becoming a chaotic, stateless state which would be a haven for terrorists.

No wonder neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry seem to have a real plan for getting out of Iraq - all of the choices now are dismal and likely to lead to terrible consequences.

by John Legler, Guest Columnist
September 22, 2004