"Unilateralism and dictation will only add to the complexities and will not solve problems"- Saeb Erekat
President Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 prompted a hailstorm of opposition from nearly every country, organization, and institution around the world. America's invasion of a sovereign nation that had little to no ties to Islamic extremism led many to denounce the United States as the world's policemen, who do as they please without international assessment or approval of such a large scale operation. Little did the Bush administration know, this plan of operation only weakened national security further, as Islamic fundamentalists had a new fuel for their fire. President Bush did exactly what the terrorists wanted which was to portray America as the imperialistic western nation that seeks to impose it's values on Muslim countries, exploit their resources, and to further it's geopolitical strength in the region. The window of opportunity for the Bush administration to handle the war effectively was lost, as a lack of oversight, research about the area, and a one sided view of how the world works ultimately hindered the Bush administration's attempts at bringing democracy to the Middle East.
As this article will show, the attempts of the Bush administration to dismantle and destroy terrorist operations in the Middle East was severely encroached upon by the administration's own lack of foresight. The differences with the way the war is being handled now and how it was handled under the Bush administration has a strong contrast. President Obama's strategy of comprehensive intelligence sharing between Afghanistan and Pakistan and other international agencies, his decrease in resources administered to Iraq and brought back to Afghanistan, and the revamping of the military's operations have all proved effective in countering terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. These differences will be shown as I go over the Bush adminstration's policies and the Obama administration's policies towards these two wars that have lasted over a decade now. While not everything that both of these administrations have done have been significantly effective, it is easy to show the differences between the two administrations and how the path of specific, intelligence gathering and diplomatic engagement rather than old fashioned military invasions and ground units have bettered our position in the Middle East.
When America invaded Iraq in 2003 the thoughts from the Bush administration was that by toppling the Saddam regime and installing a western style democratic government, the Iraqi people would finally be liberated from the dictatorship they live under and this would ultimately better the security of Americans at home. Despite calls from international monitors to wait for the results of the ongoing investigation into Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons, President Bush pursued a policy of unilateralism, which ultimately undermined our legitimacy in the region and produced instability throughout the region. Foreign Affairs published an article entitled "Re-making the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives", which looked at the effects of the policies enacted by the Bush administration on the people or Iraq and Afghanistan. The article goes on to say
As this article will show, the attempts of the Bush administration to dismantle and destroy terrorist operations in the Middle East was severely encroached upon by the administration's own lack of foresight. The differences with the way the war is being handled now and how it was handled under the Bush administration has a strong contrast. President Obama's strategy of comprehensive intelligence sharing between Afghanistan and Pakistan and other international agencies, his decrease in resources administered to Iraq and brought back to Afghanistan, and the revamping of the military's operations have all proved effective in countering terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. These differences will be shown as I go over the Bush adminstration's policies and the Obama administration's policies towards these two wars that have lasted over a decade now. While not everything that both of these administrations have done have been significantly effective, it is easy to show the differences between the two administrations and how the path of specific, intelligence gathering and diplomatic engagement rather than old fashioned military invasions and ground units have bettered our position in the Middle East.
When America invaded Iraq in 2003 the thoughts from the Bush administration was that by toppling the Saddam regime and installing a western style democratic government, the Iraqi people would finally be liberated from the dictatorship they live under and this would ultimately better the security of Americans at home. Despite calls from international monitors to wait for the results of the ongoing investigation into Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons, President Bush pursued a policy of unilateralism, which ultimately undermined our legitimacy in the region and produced instability throughout the region. Foreign Affairs published an article entitled "Re-making the World: Bush and the Neoconservatives", which looked at the effects of the policies enacted by the Bush administration on the people or Iraq and Afghanistan. The article goes on to say
 |
| Anti-America Protests in the Middle East |
"Several of the premises for the invasion of Iraq turned out to be false or misleading, and the U.S.-led coalition was unprepared for the massive postwar challenges of occupation, reconstruction, counterinsurgency, and political transformation. Anti-Americanism and radical militancy in the Muslim world seem to have intensified in part because of events in Iraq... And the Iraqis' feelings toward their liberators turned out to be more ambivalent than Washington had assumed, the regional ripple effects less extensive, and the diplomatic damage of the whole episode worse and longer lasting" (Foreign Affairs)
 | |
| Daniel Benjamin, Coordinator for the Counter-terrorism Unit at the Department of State |
This
lack of collective agreement by the international community, the
unilateralist policy of policing the world by George W. Bush, and the
lack of strategy by the Bush administration to handle the aftermath of
such a war had created a large scale opposition towards America from
every corner of the world. This in turn undermined our political
strength and continues to hinder our ability to compromise with other
countries. It's this 'my way or the highway' sort of policy which has
driven America into a decline and has helped foster Anti-Americanism
around the world, only worsening the security of our country.
Daniel Benjamin is the coordinator for the Counter-terrorism Unit at the Department of State and he echoes this sentiment, as he has actually experienced first hand the results of Bush's policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan. "America's image in the Muslim world has never been more battered, and the jihadist's claims that the United States seeks to oppress Muslims has never seemed more plausible -- no matter how noble we view our own sacrifices in the liberation of Iraq. There is, as has so often been said, a war of ideas going on, a battle for hearts and minds. Unfortunately, America has wound up on the wrong side" (foreign). We have stepped on our own feet by killing numerous civilians, violating international law, and have spent billions of dollars in our efforts to combat terrorism abroad. President Bush has sabotaged American security by providing terrorists a platform from which to denounce America. The invasion of an autonomous Muslim country that had no ties to terrorism, all for the sake of military expansion and oil resources is now the new talking point for ever Islamic extremist from Yemen to Pakistan. This was the final nail in the casket, as thousands joined the loosely organized terrorist organizations in a fight against American imperialism initiated by George W. Bush. Not only does this jeopardize our missions in these countries, it puts our citizens at risk abroad and has cost the federal government billions in providing the security necessary to combat these terrorist threats.
The United States alone since 2003 until 2007 had spent over $400,000,000,000 dollars in Iraq, whether it was to re-build infrastructure, house/feed refugees and soldiers, or various other projects that need to be completed during a time of war (International 2007). Now, the Bush administration’s thought was if we throw enough money at the problem, it’ll go away. This is not a plan of substance, due to the Bush administration’s failure to regulate this system of money throwing, which led to corruption, embezzlement, bribery and inefficient programs/failed projects. A problem that stems from this lack of oversight was that the Bush administration did not allocate the proper resources to the funding of newly trained soldiers. This led to bribery and corruption, as security forces took money from various groups like the Mujahideen Shura Council, Al-Qaeda and others to allow them through borders and provide safe-havens for these terrorist leaders/groups due to shabby wages. This is a threat to not only America’s security, but the security of the Iraqi people, and the international community as well. This never ending cycle of wasted money, corruption, deference of responsibility and lack of regulation paved the way for this war to be handled ineffectively and ultimately discredited the international community’s efforts in this nation. The significance of creating, maintaining, and training an effective, efficient, non-corrupt Iraqi security force would not only have been beneficial to the progress in Iraq, but would have brought about a much quicker end to the war. Without the Iraqi security forces put in place to ensure self-sustainability and to keep Iraq secure from terrorist groups after we leave, we’ll end up leaving Iraq in worse condition then it was before. At least Saddam’s regime kept Iraq in line, but with the way the Bush administration ran Iraq it was more like the wild west, with terrorist groups bribing their way into the country to take strongholds over different regions, thus undermining our attempts to bring democracy and peace to the nation.
Another serious problem with Bush's approach to the two wars is how the Department of State was instructed to fund the various Warlords that hold power over many of the various regions in Afghanistan. These Warlords are basically thugs who have murdered thousands of innocent civilians in attempts to control the countries resources, from opium to lithium. These Afghan mobsters extort, kidnap, torture, murder and anything else that needs to be done to get their way.
Under Donald Rumsfeld the U.S. policy towards these warlords
had not been to eradicate them, but rather to actually fund and
strengthen them, giving them political participation in the government, allowing bribes from D.C. to Warlords for safe
passage of resources for soldiers, and protecting the Warlords from various
rival factions. A report done by the Subcommittee on National Security
and Foreign Affairs, along with the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform stated that "...In short, the Department of Defense
designed a contract that put responsibility for the security of vital
U.S. supplies on contractors and their unaccountable security providers.
This arrangement has fueled a vast protection racket run by a shadowy
network of warlords, strongmen, commanders, corrupt Afghan officials,
and perhaps others. Not only does the system run afoul of the
Department’s own rules and regulations mandated by Congress, it also
appears to risk undermining the U.S. strategy for achieving its goals in
Afghanistan" (boston). Not only does this breed an environment of
corruption, this will only further lead to the instability of these
regions, providing rival warlords simultaneously with almost unlimited
funds, which they will surely use to buy weapons to wage war on each other once America isn't there
to stop it.
As the Bush administration's term came to a close, it was left to the next administration to pick up the pieces left by the former incompetent military strategists. As we can see the attempts made in previous years failed miserably, with billions of dollars wasted, countless lives lost, and the decline of American prestige around the world. When President Obama was elected in 2008 on the platform of reconciling with America's enemies, commitment to international law, and his belief in bringing back America's honorable image to it's allies and skeptics left many grateful for a President who actually understood this new age, where productive use of diplomatic engagement is much more beneficial rather than military confrontation.
Barack Obama looked over the military strategies employed in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has changed the system in a way that is producing results. His attempts at ridding the corruption of the Afghan government under Karzai has brought many in Afghanistan to actually trust the American occupation, as they see that America is acting in their best interest rather than creating a puppet government under Hamid Karzai. Obama's emphasis on training Afghan security forces that can take over after we have left has provided more security for the region and Afghanistan seems to be on the path towards autonomy. His re-allocation of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan has showed his commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan, while simultaneously leaving Iraq to govern itself which Iraqi's already have experience with. Obama understands that Afghanistan can not fall back to the Taliban and this is why he has increased security forces and resources towards the region in an attempt to produce stability.
Daniel Benjamin is the coordinator for the Counter-terrorism Unit at the Department of State and he echoes this sentiment, as he has actually experienced first hand the results of Bush's policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan. "America's image in the Muslim world has never been more battered, and the jihadist's claims that the United States seeks to oppress Muslims has never seemed more plausible -- no matter how noble we view our own sacrifices in the liberation of Iraq. There is, as has so often been said, a war of ideas going on, a battle for hearts and minds. Unfortunately, America has wound up on the wrong side" (foreign). We have stepped on our own feet by killing numerous civilians, violating international law, and have spent billions of dollars in our efforts to combat terrorism abroad. President Bush has sabotaged American security by providing terrorists a platform from which to denounce America. The invasion of an autonomous Muslim country that had no ties to terrorism, all for the sake of military expansion and oil resources is now the new talking point for ever Islamic extremist from Yemen to Pakistan. This was the final nail in the casket, as thousands joined the loosely organized terrorist organizations in a fight against American imperialism initiated by George W. Bush. Not only does this jeopardize our missions in these countries, it puts our citizens at risk abroad and has cost the federal government billions in providing the security necessary to combat these terrorist threats.
The United States alone since 2003 until 2007 had spent over $400,000,000,000 dollars in Iraq, whether it was to re-build infrastructure, house/feed refugees and soldiers, or various other projects that need to be completed during a time of war (International 2007). Now, the Bush administration’s thought was if we throw enough money at the problem, it’ll go away. This is not a plan of substance, due to the Bush administration’s failure to regulate this system of money throwing, which led to corruption, embezzlement, bribery and inefficient programs/failed projects. A problem that stems from this lack of oversight was that the Bush administration did not allocate the proper resources to the funding of newly trained soldiers. This led to bribery and corruption, as security forces took money from various groups like the Mujahideen Shura Council, Al-Qaeda and others to allow them through borders and provide safe-havens for these terrorist leaders/groups due to shabby wages. This is a threat to not only America’s security, but the security of the Iraqi people, and the international community as well. This never ending cycle of wasted money, corruption, deference of responsibility and lack of regulation paved the way for this war to be handled ineffectively and ultimately discredited the international community’s efforts in this nation. The significance of creating, maintaining, and training an effective, efficient, non-corrupt Iraqi security force would not only have been beneficial to the progress in Iraq, but would have brought about a much quicker end to the war. Without the Iraqi security forces put in place to ensure self-sustainability and to keep Iraq secure from terrorist groups after we leave, we’ll end up leaving Iraq in worse condition then it was before. At least Saddam’s regime kept Iraq in line, but with the way the Bush administration ran Iraq it was more like the wild west, with terrorist groups bribing their way into the country to take strongholds over different regions, thus undermining our attempts to bring democracy and peace to the nation.
Another serious problem with Bush's approach to the two wars is how the Department of State was instructed to fund the various Warlords that hold power over many of the various regions in Afghanistan. These Warlords are basically thugs who have murdered thousands of innocent civilians in attempts to control the countries resources, from opium to lithium. These Afghan mobsters extort, kidnap, torture, murder and anything else that needs to be done to get their way.
 |
| Donald Rumsfeld standing next to General Peter Pace vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staf |
As the Bush administration's term came to a close, it was left to the next administration to pick up the pieces left by the former incompetent military strategists. As we can see the attempts made in previous years failed miserably, with billions of dollars wasted, countless lives lost, and the decline of American prestige around the world. When President Obama was elected in 2008 on the platform of reconciling with America's enemies, commitment to international law, and his belief in bringing back America's honorable image to it's allies and skeptics left many grateful for a President who actually understood this new age, where productive use of diplomatic engagement is much more beneficial rather than military confrontation.
Barack Obama looked over the military strategies employed in both Iraq and Afghanistan and has changed the system in a way that is producing results. His attempts at ridding the corruption of the Afghan government under Karzai has brought many in Afghanistan to actually trust the American occupation, as they see that America is acting in their best interest rather than creating a puppet government under Hamid Karzai. Obama's emphasis on training Afghan security forces that can take over after we have left has provided more security for the region and Afghanistan seems to be on the path towards autonomy. His re-allocation of resources from Iraq to Afghanistan has showed his commitment to stabilizing Afghanistan, while simultaneously leaving Iraq to govern itself which Iraqi's already have experience with. Obama understands that Afghanistan can not fall back to the Taliban and this is why he has increased security forces and resources towards the region in an attempt to produce stability.
 |
| U.S. Military working with local Afghans |
Obama's diplomatic nature has opened up
relations that were previously closed under the Bush administration and
has led to much more international cooperation when it comes to
operations deployed by the U.S. abroad. Barack Obama in his speech in
2009 said "My Administration is committed to strengthening international
organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next
week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in
doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we seek not simply
troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan
elections, training Afghan Security Forces, and a greater civilian
commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater
progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and
assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions. " (cfr). This policy
of strengthening Afghanistan's political institutions is something that the
previous administration had ignored, while it's main priorities were
eradicating terrorist cells and hideouts. Because of Obama's policies of
employing opium farmers with an alternative livelihood and compensating
for damages lost by the destruction of poppy fields, the terrorists no
longer have funding for their Jihad inspired operations. It's these
factors that have actually helped progress towards a path of ending this war, while
the Bush administration had only helped accelerate the decline of the
standard of living for the afghan people, and the increase in terrorism around
the world.
Any political scientist can tell you the main cause for terrorism in these regions is the amount of political instability in which the terrorists can take advantage of for their own benefit. By creating a strong government free of corruption, training and funding Afghan security forces, and by fostering democratic values from the ground up the terrorists are now slowly becoming an illegitimate alternative to the stable government. President Obama's policies of compensating families for their losses during the war, the strengthening of Afghanistan's security forces and it's government, and by slowly leading the way for these countries to govern on their own has actually helped strengthen the security for American citizens abroad and domestically. It's these attempts to relinquish our responsibilities in the region and hopefully hand them over to international organizations, and then eventually give that responsibility to the Afghan people has helped foster pro-American feelings among Muslims who now see America as acting in their interest. The world is much safer as almost every poll shows anti-American sentiments have declined while faith in America's genuine intentions in the region have increased under Obama's watch.
Terrorism is a war of attrition based on ideas and values. If we as the western powers are to espouse democracy, value the rule of law, and abstain from abuse the of human rights, we should also act that way too. By violating a countries sovereignty, legitimizing torture as an interrogation technique, and by destroying the lives of civilians all across these already impoverished nations, we will in turn destroy ourselves. The terrorists will win if we continue the self destructive policy of undermining our own values and morals to ensure security. The irony is that by actually strengthening our values and morals and actually abide by them, we would in turn strengthen security, because the terrorist organization's ideology would be proven wrong. President Obama understands that by exposing the terrorist's ideology as false claims and that America actually does appreciate the rule of law and the values of democracy, the terrorists will be left without reason to cry foul, and therefore will have no audience who would sympathize with their complaints.
Any political scientist can tell you the main cause for terrorism in these regions is the amount of political instability in which the terrorists can take advantage of for their own benefit. By creating a strong government free of corruption, training and funding Afghan security forces, and by fostering democratic values from the ground up the terrorists are now slowly becoming an illegitimate alternative to the stable government. President Obama's policies of compensating families for their losses during the war, the strengthening of Afghanistan's security forces and it's government, and by slowly leading the way for these countries to govern on their own has actually helped strengthen the security for American citizens abroad and domestically. It's these attempts to relinquish our responsibilities in the region and hopefully hand them over to international organizations, and then eventually give that responsibility to the Afghan people has helped foster pro-American feelings among Muslims who now see America as acting in their interest. The world is much safer as almost every poll shows anti-American sentiments have declined while faith in America's genuine intentions in the region have increased under Obama's watch.
Terrorism is a war of attrition based on ideas and values. If we as the western powers are to espouse democracy, value the rule of law, and abstain from abuse the of human rights, we should also act that way too. By violating a countries sovereignty, legitimizing torture as an interrogation technique, and by destroying the lives of civilians all across these already impoverished nations, we will in turn destroy ourselves. The terrorists will win if we continue the self destructive policy of undermining our own values and morals to ensure security. The irony is that by actually strengthening our values and morals and actually abide by them, we would in turn strengthen security, because the terrorist organization's ideology would be proven wrong. President Obama understands that by exposing the terrorist's ideology as false claims and that America actually does appreciate the rule of law and the values of democracy, the terrorists will be left without reason to cry foul, and therefore will have no audience who would sympathize with their complaints.
President Bush and his
administration were widely flawed in their views towards the rest of the
world, and their belief that unilateralism would actually strengthen
America in the long run was a fallacy. Obama understands that by
obtaining international support for America's operations would legitimize our actions around the world. By
actually helping re-build Afghanistan responsibly with oversight, the projects started years ago are actually getting done. While not everything Obama has done is
perfect and not everything that Bush did was wrong, it is easy to see
the results that have been rendered by both administrations. Under
President Bush America's approval rating around the world declined dramatically. Allies
and international organizations denounced and even revoked it's ties
with America. Iraqi and Afghan society were thrown into upheaval as
warring factions were funded by America to maintain stability in the
region which actually did the exact opposite. Billions of dollars were
wasted as projects had no oversight and money was spent recklessly in a
hasted attempt to end the war which has in turn only prolonged it.
President Obama's commitment to international cooperation, his attempts at exposing and dismantling the corruption in the Afghan government, and his regulation and
oversight of the funds allocated to Afghanistan and Iraq has brought the
region more stability than has been seen in recent years. It is the
Obama administration's policies which have actually bettered the lives
of Afghan and Iraqi people while simultaneously providing security for
the American public. It's policies like this that are needed for
progress in today's age of international terrorism, as 20th century
tactics to fight 21st century battles have been proven to be fruitless. While
there is no definitive solution to the many problems we will face in
the future with Afghanistan and Iraq, I can easily say that Obama's
policies have only strengthened the security of our country, and have
brought America's reputation abroad to new heights.
Signing Out- John Thomas
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/76825/us-money-going-warlords-afghanistan.html
http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/obamas-strategy-afghanistan-pakistan-march-2009/p18952
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59380/joshua-micah-marshall/remaking-the-world-bush-and-the-neoconservatives?page=3
Christian T. Miller, Blood Money,\
General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff,
No comments:
Post a Comment