Jackson Free Press

When I read stuff like this I wonder why more federal money isn't thrown at investigating "daddy issues" among our men in power.

Here is the excerpt from Bush Sr. Memior that explains exactly WHY we didn't go into long term occupation in Iraq. Surprisingly, it makes sense. Too bad that Jr wasn't listening...

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

What is absolutely amazing to me is its accuracy in portraying what has occurred in this war.

Now, granted this was pre- 9/11, but I think since most people know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 at this point (at least I'm hoping so) it still makes a viable point about occupying the region.

Previous Commentsshow

I have a theory that Jr. spent all life being told he wasn't worth a damn compared to his father, especially during his alcoholic years, and is now on some level trying to one-up him--get two terms instead of one, take Iraq, push even more mysterious judicial nominees through, be more successful in gathering the support of the religious right, etc., then leave office with a higher approval rating than his father did. That's no way to run a country. It must have been rough for the kid, though, with an absent father he idolized and a hypercritical mother he could never be good enough for. B.A. in history from Yale; MBA from Harvard; and he has clawed his way up--no doubt ready to lie, cheat, and steal whenever necessary--to get where he is today. And now he's at the top. I think that when folks look back on the second Bush administration, they'll be very pleased with the outcome of the Afghanistan War, but that all of that will be overshadowed by the continuing U.S. presence in Iraq. The administration is obviously still planning on us being there after 2008 because Republican candidates in the know are running with that as a given. So when will it be? 2010? Depends on who wins that election. If we get George Allen or somesuch, it could be much later than that. Or we could watch the government collapse into anarchy and see if the guy who emerges at the head of the pack will be any worse than Saddam. Very likely it would be a Shiite fundamentalism a la Iran. Heck, I can see a revolution by Shiites who then declare loyalty to the Ayatollah and cede the country over to him. Bush has opened Pandora's Box here. Either the modified Islamic democracy model will hold, or the whole system will collapse and we will end up with a region that is even more dangerous and unstable than it was before--very likely resulting in the conquest of states by other states, and an imperial Islamism that brings about the return of the caliphate. With a nuclear-armed caliph in charge. Fun, huh? Ducking and covering, TH

Tom Head

Oct 24 2005

I should specify here that we can safely rely on one factor: Sunni-Shiite hostility. I was speaking of a multi-state Shiite ayatollah theocracy as a caliphate, but in classical terms that's probably incorrect. What we would probably see is a multi-state Shiite theocracy, including both Iraq and Iran, provoking fear that could only be addressed by a unified Sunni theocratic response. The public would cry out for a new empire and a new caliph; it would be the only way to feel secure against the then-massive Shiite nation. So the question then becomes whether or not Saudi Arabia, among other nations, can keep its already embattled "moderate" theocratic regime in place, or whether it will be replaced with a balls-out Sunni theocracy. Now, folks reading this might say: "Iran and Iraq functioning as a combined state? What the hell? They HATE each other." But they hate each other because of a war waged by the Sunnis, a minority group in Iraq that has traditionally formed the aristocracy and ruled the country during the Saddam Hussein era--and a rather secular bunch of Sunnis at that. The majority of Iraqis are Shiites who never had a full say in their government. If a group of fundamentalist Shiites took over, then it seems logical to me that they would, at the very least, pursue a very close working relationship with Iran--but more likely simply hand over the government. None of this is an exact science, and as the Bush administration showed, even our best intelligence officials have absolutely no idea what will happen. Obviously I don't, either. So take some comfort in that. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 24 2005

(The aforementioned "balls-out Sunni theocracy" being the aforementioned caliphate. Bah! Now I'm explaining my explanations. Back to work...)

Tom Head

Oct 24 2005

More on the caliphate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caliphate

Tom Head

Oct 24 2005

Tom, I agree with you on the mess that is over there. I think that once we committed, its a hell of a lot harder to get out than people think. I also understand the need for that region to be stable. But, (and I may be talking out of my ass here) I think there are other things that Bush could have done congruent with the war that would have made the situation better. Like, throwing some REAL money at alternative energy sources. Or, actually HAVING a withdrawal plan. You know, the basics. ;) And, God knows I can sympathize with the "W" on his daddy issues, but that doesn't mean he gets to act like an out of control child when he's running this country. You know, on a completely different subject, there has been some interesting writing done on "Bush as an addict" and the personality traits that come along with someone who has had alcohol or drug problems in the past. Most of these deal with being narcissitic, black and white thinking, etc. Basically, addicts have difficult times making decisions where their ego isn't invovled...This is very interesting when looked at in the context of the decisions he has made for this country. I will also add the disclaimer that most of the books written on this subject were deemed "unethical" because the people who wrote them never actually TALKED to Bush. They just did studies based upon his past admittance of drinking and drugs and the readily available knowledge on addictive personalities. I can't say whether they are true or not, but they are mighty, mighty interesting.

Lori G

Oct 25 2005