Monday, September 11, 2006

The 9/11 aftermath

I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban, as has been shown perhaps most clearly in Al Qaeda's recent statement thanking them for their support, were harbouring and abetting Al Qaeda. The Taliban needed to be dealt with. With the mandate to put a democratic government in its place and withdraw when the government could maintain control. I agreed with the mission, and still do, although I feel America, who led the world into the invasion, has especially lost their focus and turned away too soon.

Instead of a continuing effort and a relentless pursuit of Al Qaeda, Bush declared a second war on Iraq more than a year later. "We have to get rid of the threat of WMD."

But there were no weapons of mass destruction. The evidence was completely fabricated. The war was botched from the minute America declared victory.
In an effort to tie this into the war on terror, Bush claimed Saddam had links with Al Qaeda.
It has recently been announced that Iraq had no real links with Al Qaeda. Any links were coincidental, perhaps like the Bush family's closeness to the Bin Laden family.
Saddam a monster?
Most, if not all dictators are known for at least one heavy handed stifling of dissidence.
Tinamin square in China, the shooting at the riots in Addis Ababa. And the most serious current situation being the genocide in Darfur, against African Muslims.
But the world does little to intervene in such attrocities. Bush's arrogant behaviour weakened the UN, some even say made it into a joke, by going ahead with an "illegal" Iraq war. Not that the UN is willing to do much in Sudan. One of the big five "veto" nations always seems to look the other way when a major source of oil might be secured in the wake of ignoring mass murder. China and Russia seem to have particularly low ethical standards when their vested interests in volotile countries are threatened.

Before the war, I wasn't convinced at all that Saddam had WMD - mainly because I didn't believe a word George Bush said. But also because the UN couldn't find anything, despite their best efforts, they came up without a trace, and were saying they needed more time to be sure.

The warnings before the Iraq war - A shiite power vacuum will be created in the region. Iraq has no ties with terrorism. The war will create more terrorists than ever before. Iran will become the regional powerhouse. The Afghanistan rebuilding will be threatened by the loss of military force. Iraq will disentegrate into civil war spurred by sectarian violence.

All of these worst case scenarios are coming true. America, reverred as recently as when Clinton was in power, is now the most hated country in the world. If there was an idealogical battle between Bush and Bin Laden, sadly, Bin Laden, a murderer with a hate-filled and evil idealogy, is winning in every aspect.

One such catastrophic error was America's attack on an AlJazeera news stations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The result, the Arab media is now more Anti-American than ever. This coming at a time when winning the hearts of Muslims couldn't be more important in the war on terror. Stations like Al Jazeera are the prime fodder for stoking anti-American sentiment.

And Bin Laden is still in some hidden cave. Neutralized? He has no need to further plot or plan. America has done more to recruit terrorists by destroying their own image than he could have possibly hoped for.

1 comment:

HilaryMack said...

You have just said everything I would say on this subject, but I would add two things: Bush's real reasons. He had two. One was controlling the oil in Iraq, the richest oil field in the world, and 2, avenging his Dad, because Saddam Hussein had outlasted him and the Bushes felt he was cocking a snook at them.
If Bush really wanted to stamp out monsters he'd also be invading Pakistan, Israel, China... And who decides? If I get a turn, can i send troops to liberate America?