Who Can We Blame For Iraq?
by Timothy Hopkins, SUNY Cortland, May 21, 2007
Well the entire Bush administration has shouldered most, if not all of the blame for our current situation in Mesopotamia. But the question here is--do they deserve the bulk of these accusations? Well according to Thomas E. Ricks they don’t
In 1991, George H. W Bush kicked the Iraqis out of Kuwait to protect our oil interests. While at the time his son was still a drunk, he launched the last “successful” operation against Iraqi forces, although Thomas E. Ricks didn’t view it as a success. In Fiasco Ricks acknowledges that H.W suggested the Shiites and the Kurds rebel against Hussein. Without the assistance from the United States, of course, these two groups went ahead and did what Bush recommended they do. 20,000 Shiites died in the process, while tens of thousands of Kurds fled north into Turkey to live as refugees where they, "began to die of exposure (Ricks 4)”. I wonder why they don’t like us.
There are a few people in the left wing media that ask how Bush Sr. ran a successful operation in the Middle East, while his son has his head up his ass during the next adventure there. I was once one of these people, save I wasn’t in the media but supported this notion nevertheless. However, after reading this I began to think otherwise. Was daddy’s operation a victory? Well I don’t think 20,000 dead and over 10,000 misplaced can be called a victory; it’s a catastrophe that Bush Jr. paid dearly for.
We all remember the dogmatic rhetoric prior to the 2003 invasion. But do many people remember George H.W’s suggestions that Shiites and Kurds revolt against Hussein? More importantly, did Bush remember this prior to the ’03 invasion? Probably not considering he wasn’t aware that three different tribes resided in Iraq. Bush has blamed many for our current mess in the Middle East except himself and the administration. So do you think that he’s past blaming his father’s recommendations as the sole reason we weren’t greeted as liberators? Well I think there might be a chance, and here is what I think will unfold.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but had fewer electoral votes then Bush. Since Bush wasn’t technically elected in ’00 he could run for re-relection in ’08. His father, who only served one term, will say “I love my son, but I can’t have him messing with the family name.” H.W will inevitably run in ’08. Bush versus Bush—oh it’ll be a sweet Republican primary. Senior will attack his son with the whole “at least I ran a successful Iraqi campaign in ’91!!” Dubya will counteract by saying “Well it’s your fault that them there Shiites and Kurders didn’t greet us as libermerators.” Senior will have had enough back talk from his son and send him to his room, thus winning the Republican nomination. Senior will then lose horribly to Obama.
So even after a Bush duel, it’s still up in the air as to who merits the blame for Iraq. Or is it? Is it ethical to blame Senior for something now that he did in 1991? Had Junior and the administration done the right thing and stayed the hell out of Iraq, and actually pursued those who attacked us, then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. So therefore I disagree with Ricks that H.W should carry some of the blame for Iraq. No, we may not have been liked over there during our 12-year hiatus from war. Nor do I think it to be ethical to blame daddy for his son and his retarded policies. We all know who screwed up. Loved your book Ricks, I just didn’t agree with you on that one….
Work Cited
Ricks, Thomas E. Fiasco, The Penguin Press. 2006.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://neovox.cortland.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/500
your thoughts?
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)