Segmentation Fault: Core dumped..;-)

You bet some of it is President Bush’s fault!

You can’t have it both ways - collect all the kudos when the “actual” war went well and NOT hold yourself accountable for the things that did not go well! You’re the commander-in-chief, for crying out loud.

US had all the right in the world to go in and take out Al Qaeda and Talibans in Afghanistan. And they did! Did we have the world with us when we went in there? You betcha. Did it cost US taxpayers that much? Nope. Are the soldiers protecting Afghanistan considered “occupiers”? Nope. Why? Because, the world sided with us, helped us and continues to help us, especially with “nation building” and “winning the peace”. That’s why you have merely 11,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan, less than the number of cops we have in New York (I think).

I don’t care what the pundits say, I was around when we went to Iraq war. Anyone trying to tell me that there was “no other way” to deal with Saddam is being disingenuous. There were plenty of different ways of doing this. Our commander-in-chief chose a certain way. The “cowboy” way, if you ask me.

The war was flawlessly executed. Kudos to the commander-in-chief. He “chose” to take this short lasting moment of success to get in a flight-suit and show off his leadership by declaring Mission Accomplished. And you know what, I will give him that. Way to go, Mr. President!!

Ofcourse, little did we know that just about everything else was not “planned” for. “We will be welcomed as saviors.” That’s it. That was the plan!

We took out Saddam’s sons fairly quickly. We even took Saddam into captivity by Dec. 2003. So, are we done? Far from it. In fact, if anything, our soldiers and guards there are stuck! This is precisely, what folks who opposed the war feared would happen, especially with no “real” world support for the pre-emptive war, but more importantly, for the “peace efforts” afterwards. Even the former president, George H.W. Bush had feared this outcome back in 1991 (see an earlier post for details).

US soldiers continue to die on a daily basis, even under an interim Iraqi government. We’ve burned our bridges with NATO and other nations around the world so much that they continue to shy away from this “mess”. And you can’t blame them.

The fact is that the US tax-payers (people like you and me) continue to pay, almost exclusively, for this war. Is this also Saddam’s fault? Who planned it all out? Who ratified those plans? Did anyone have any contingencies, any backup plan? It’s lame to just blame everything under the sun on the “intelligence officials” or “Al Qaeda” or “Saddam”

So, yes, some of this is President Bush’s fault. There are things that he did right. And I applaud him for it. However, I am not married to every decison that he takes, you know..;-) I get to pick on him when he screws up. And you bet he screwed up here. Screwed up big time!

If the US government was a business, the entire top management would be held accountable. People would laugh if the CEO said, “But, it’s the others who screwed me up! They gave me incorrect information”.

I am sorry to say this, but the war in Iraq was a war of “choice”. Not one soul (in US or the world) protested the war against Talibans and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. However, we all know what happened when this administration chose to adopt a doctrine of pre-emptive war. The first time ever in US history had a President of United States done this. We did not adopt this even after Pearl Harbor. We did not have the US President at the time saying, “Look, I can’t trust any country which has a significant Japanese population. We’ll pre-emptively go after them, come what may”.

We all know a guy named Osama Bin Laden brought 9/11 hell on the doorsteps of US. Plain and simple. There isin’t and never was “any” link between 9/11 and Saddam. However, we chose to (and continue to choose to) think that there was one. Saddam was not an imminent threat. But this administration (and the world’s intelligence I might add) “erroneously” thought he was.

However, even if I side with the administration and give them a pass on the faulty intelligence and assume that the “Iraq war” was indeed absolutely necessary, they still need to be held accountable for “how” they planned for the actual war and the “peace” afterwards. This was their choice. And you know what, they “screwed” up. Saddam DID NOT cause US to exclusively spend 120 billion dollars on this war. Saddam DID NOT arm-twist President Bush to go at it by alienating major NATO and UN allies. Saddam did not make President Bush say to the world (not in so many words though), “It’s my way or it’s the highway.” That was a choice. President Bush’s choice. And he was wrong.

Was it all worth it? Well, even if I sided with the pro-war camp for a fleeting second, I would still say - “Nope, not all of this was worth losing over Saddam.” Bottomline, in my humble opinion, there “must” have been a better way of doing this. When 10,000 innocent civilians get killed as a collateral damage, there must be something wrong.

So, yes, Saddam is not the only one responsible for all of this. As the captain of the ship, the commander-in-chief, President Bush owes an explanation to the many who died and the umpteen whose lives changed forever because of the choices he made.

Moral of the story (for President Bush and Company):

You and your military might (your precision-guided missiles) can win a war in a hurry against any nation. And do it almost WITHOUT ANYONE’S HELP. However, if you plan on winning the peace, do some nation building, your military might ain’t gonna help. You’ll have to do that the old fashioned way. By winning people’s hearts. And, you “will” need friends. Really good friends. You will need the world’s support, Mr. President! Funny thing is, just ask your dad. He knows it better than you do.”

Erik, you should not let your political affiliations cloud your judgement here. Imagine what would you say if John Kerry or Bill Clinton were the president today and overseeing this mess. Would you still think that it was all for a just cause and done exactly right. Just think about it.

Posted by: Anand Sharma at August 26, 2004 @ 10:01 am

I am sure you’ve plenty to do than to sit and spend time responding to my blog entries. What I am trying to say is, thanks for participating..:-)

You raise good points. I will try to respond really quickly:

1.

You said…
Saddam had been breaking, disobeying, “insert the appropiate word here” the UN resolutions on inspections, etc. That had been put in place after the first Iraq War and I believe there were others put in place much later. Bush acted on what the UN was supposed to do. I’m glad the US stood by the rules the UN put in place. It is truly a shame, in my opinion, the way the UN handled this. Allowing Saddam to push them around and make them look like fools. “OK Saddam, we really mean it this time, you better let us come inspect your country”. There were numerous occasions where he “walked all over” the UN.

As I alluded to in my response, Erik, I am going to side with you (albeit for a fleeting moment) that indeed “US” had to use force against Iraq. Fine, so Iraq needed to be taught a lesson. Forget about WMD for a second. Even then, I am sure you will agree that more could have been done to get the major NATO and other UN allies to see our point of view. I for one believe that it would have been in the best interests of United States and Iraq if President Bush would have done ASOLUTELY EVERYTHING in his power (face-to-face conversation with French President in France, with Germany’s chancellor in Germany etc.) to show the world what his view point was. The fact that he understood the concerns that these countries had about a pre-emptive strike. To explain to whosoever would listen why he felt it was absolutely necessary to launch a war. Basically, he should have used all his “personal” charm (and not just send Colin Powell a gazillion times) to make the world see that he was no “cowboy”, but a true “compassionate conservative” who had the interests of his country and this world in his heart. It probably would have pushed the war a few months out, but it would have meant a lot for the world opinion. A whole lot! And yes, you need the world on your side, especially if you’re going to be in the business of nation building. Rambo approaches work well on TV movies or in just good old war where folks fight face to face using weapons. It does not work at all to win peace. Never has, never will.

2.

You said…
I have no problem with there being troops in Iraq. It is 2004 and we still have how many troops in Germany? When did World War II end? When did the Cold War end? Why aren’t people complaing about this? How many troops are in Japan? When did WW2 end? Again, people aren’t protesting that. Why not?

Well, I think it’s asinine that US has it’s troops all over the world. However, who am I to care about that if the countries where these US soldiers are don’t care. But that’s not the point. The point is this: It’s not about troops being in Iraq. I could care less if Iraqis don’t care. It’s about US troops getting killed, getting maimed there on a daily basis that troubles me. Folks in Germany or Korea don’t kill a US soldier at the rate of one a day. Folks in Germany don’t look at US soldiers as “occupiers”. Folks in Germany don’t have to put up with Abu Ghraib type fiascos. We’re complaining because i) we think there could have been a better way (”even with a war”) to do this and ii) we still don’t see the US Administration to be doing absolutely everything in their power to make their allies and the world (not to mention, many Iraqis) see that we’re not “occupiers”, that we’re friends. US must understand that making friends and allies is as much in the interests of United States as it is for the allied country. Funny thing is violence alone will not help US achieve that goal.

3.
You said…

Wasn’t Kerry in favor of the US going to war with Iraq? When and why did his opinion change. If I remember correctly Bush got permission for this.

I have talked about it at length in this entry:

http://tinyurl.com/5bd92

First, the resolution was about - “Ok, Mr. President, the country is behind you and speaks with one voice. We give you the authority to do the right thing.” Secondly, as I have said before, it’s not just about “going to war”. It’s more about “how” you did it.

In my humble opinion, President Bush and his team surely could have done much, much better job in the way they went about executing the Iraq war, assuming that going to war in itself was the right thing to do and the jury is stil out on this one. It was an error of judgement which, in my opinion, is costing us in more ways than I would like to even count (btw, the number of US soldiers killed shot up by 3 to 970 between the time I wrote this blog entry last night and my writing this comment: http://icasualties.org/oif/)

Ok, I am exhausted and hungry too..:-) I apologize if all this flies in the face of everything that you stand for and the way you see the world around yourself. Personally, I am just sad. Sad at this whole thing and the way it all turned out. Not because I (or others like me) feared this would happen all along. Not because we are any less patriotic than folks on the other side. It’s just sad. The ultimate price that our brave soldiers are paying today is not just because of Saddam. It’s also because of error in judgement on the part of President Bush’s administration. Heck, Darfur in Sudan would have been a more humanitarian mission if that’s what these soldiers are dying for - freeing people from the tortures of an oppressive regime (http://tinyurl.com/3vfu9) .

Posted by: Anand Sharma at August 26, 2004 @ 1:52 pm

Nah..I hate it when talkshow hosts on radio have the last laugh, even when they’re dead wrong. So, I will refrain from that. Just thank you for your sharing your opinion..:-)

- Anand

Posted by: Anand Sharrma at August 26, 2004 @ 3:09 pm

Thanks David!

- Anand

Posted by: Anand Sharma at August 27, 2004 @ 10:33 am

Thank you!!

- Anand

Posted by: Anand Sharma at October 9, 2004 @ 11:35 am