Recent Post

June 24, 2014

George Bush Versus Saddam Hussein

Most American misunderstands their country’s foreign policy. It seems to operate only when “danger” looms when there is any terrorism like 11 September, When Iraq invades Kuwait, when Russian “imperialism” threatens to resurface, when China rattles its sabers at Taiwan. Even people who religiously read the newspaper fail to grasp that US foreign policy is far more than simply a series of responses to crises.
The present era is described as a “post cold war era”. This is misleading because it starts at the wrong place. First, the shift of economic activity has not been sudden. Even if East Asia rose in the American consciousness just as the Soviet Union receded, to define the economic and geopolitical transformation of East Asia as a post cold war phenomenon Americanizes and trivializes a development in international (not American) politics of far greater impact than the cold war itself. Although Vietnam, China and North Korea were for forty years able to contain America’s cold war ambition to “roll back” communism, they are proving utterly unable to contain the juggernaut of East Asia’s capitalist political economy. Most important, to imply that the end of the cold war is of primary significance to US policy is to wrench that policy out of its most important context and to distort its underlying aims and challenges.
The Cold war was merely instrumental in America’s larger “Cold war” Strategy. The US-Soviet rivalry helped to create a US dominated world order. America’s Cold War policy is best understood not by its communism-containing words but by its ally containing deeds. Washington committed itself to building and maintaining an international economic and political order based on what official at the time termed a US “preponderance of power”. By banishing power politics and nationalist rivalries, America’s cold war alliances in East Asia and Europe in effect protected the states of those regions from themselves.
The United States has not subjected colonies but, like the Great Britain in the nineteenth Century, has built and benefited economically from a stable international political order. In this way Lenin was right; imperialism is, or allows for “the highest stage of capitalism”, an open economy among the industrialized nations.
United States war against Iraq was also due to its policy of getting economical control of a country and get benefited from its resources. Although President of America, George, W. Bush has tried desperately to justify this war and make his position clear, but the media has proved all his justifications false. Let us see what George Bush had said to justify the war

George Bush Justification to going to war:

George W. Bush repeatedly said that they want war against Iraq in order to maintain peace in the world. In his address in Washington D.C, before the joint houses of Congress, he said,
“ We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If a war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means- sparing in every way, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the US military – and we will prevail” (Campbell and Chaulia, 2003).
But people in United States and all around the world believed that this is not a war for peace but Bush tried to uplift the poor state of economy. It has been estimated that Iraq has almost 326 trillion cubic feet of hydrogen gas, which can easily be used for commercial purposes. The Citizens of United States protested against Bush’s policy against Iraq and said that they “don’t want war for oil”.
People all around the world also protested Bush’s attempt to wage war against Iraq, the media and people of United Kingdom, who is a very close ally of United States, had condemned Bush attempts as well as Blair’s efforts to pave the way for America to wage a war.
“ George Bush seems set on his course of action despite strong world opinion against an attack, but at least Tony Blair is willing to listen to his voters and rethink his support for the US” (Routledge, August 2,2002)
In an article “ Will Blair Destroy his party or just himself” the author said” There was dancing in the streets when the Taliban regime, once an ally of the USA, let it not be forgotten, was toppled. Yet the picture of Northern Alliance “Soldiers” glorying in the bloody roadside murder of their opponents demonstrated the barbaric nature of our allies.
They have no monopoly on cruelty, as Americans showed in their inhumane treatment of prisoners of war at camp X-ray, Hooded, Chained, confined to wire cages in the Cuban heat, their plight in an affront to the civilized values that were supposed to be defending” (Routledge, September 11, 2002)
In an article “ Routledge: Public harden against Blair”, the author wrote, “ They don’t like it. They don’t want it. And they will punish Tony Blair if he goes ahead with his madcap military adventure in Iraq.
Our ICM Poll yields remarkable figures, coming virtually on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. It demonstrates that Britons are not fooled by the war propaganda of President Bush even if Tony Blair is” (Routledge, August 02, 2002).
Political Policy against Iraq:
Bush administration was first claimed that Iraq might have some links with Al Qaeda, but the investigators of FBI, said that, FBI did not find any such links (Risen and Johnston, Feb 2003).
Bush administration had also accused Saddam Hussein Government that they are going to prepare nuclear weapon and US weapon inspector presented documents as proof for Iraq nuclear plan but these documents proved to be forged afterwards by the director of International Atomic Energy Program (Kole, March 2003).
Then Bush administration took the role of policeman of the world and said that they wanted to wage war against Iraq for peace and the only purpose of the war is to free the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein.
Thus all the discussion shows that Bush Administration had actually no solid reason to start war against Iraq, but Bush desperately wanted to use the oil resources of Iraq to lessen their budget deficit, and this was the only reason for war. 


Post a Comment