|
|
|
|
COMMENTARY
The ghost of
LBJ
By Ehsan Ahrari
American people are edging toward creating
a momentum for America's withdrawal from Iraq. But
the question President George W Bush must face is
whether he must "cut and run", or stay put. Only
he can decide how he is to respond to that
question, since his decision has nothing to do
with any re-election - he is not eligible for a
third term. However, historians are already
sitting by their laptops, composing texts about
his second term. The American people, for their
part, have begun to speak. History is in the
making. Look at the evidence.
As the Pew
Research Center's report on Monday states: "With
the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq exceeding
1,700, there is widespread awareness of the rising
American death toll. As a consequence, baseline
public attitudes toward the war are gradually
turning more negative. Support for an immediate
withdrawal of US troops from Iraq continues to
inch up from 36% last October to 42% in February,
and 46% currently."
Bush administration
officials consistently scoff at all comparisons
between Iraq and Vietnam. Now public opinion polls
indicate that American people are clearly thinking
along those lines. "About a third of Americans say
Iraq will turn out to be another Vietnam, while
47% think the US will accomplish its goals there,"
states the Pew Center report.
Another item
of interest is people's emotional involvement in
the war in Iraq. The Pew report notes, "There is
some evidence that Americans are becoming less
emotionally involved in the news from Iraq. More
than four in 10 (44%) say that people they know
are becoming less involved emotionally with news
of the conflict. That is the highest percentage
expressing that view in the past year."
A
poll by the Gallup Organization states that a
majority of Americans now believe that war in Iraq
has not made America secure. Bush and all his
national security officials have been making
claims to the contrary - that America is safer
today because the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Finally, Bush is registering the lowest approval
rating of his presidency. "President Bush's
approval rating [45%] has plunged to the lowest
level of any president since World War II at this
point in his second term," the Gallup poll
reported. What is the meaning of all of these
polls? Will Bush pay much heed? After all, he is
not facing another election. That may be so;
however, he is still facing the judgment of
history. Even though philosophy has never been his
forte, Bush ought to be thinking about the
long-term implications of America's presence in
Iraq - an important Muslim and a very important
Arab country. How will America be treated in the
Middle East and in the world of Islam at large in
the coming years? What happens in Iraq will have
implications for America for at least two more
generations.
Every president, especially a
two-term president, worries about his legacy. How
people will remember him; how historians will
judge his administration; whether history will be
kind or cruel to him. On just these questions, the
judgment of history regarding Bush is not likely
to be too kind, at least when viewed from the
Middle East or the Islamic world. He had a good
start when he sent American forces to Afghanistan
to topple the medieval Taliban regime. However,
things have not gone well for Bush's global "war
on terrorism" since then. Only he is to be blamed
for that. Yes, he toppled a Middle Eastern
dictator, and may even have created a fleeting
snapshot of his country as a "liberator" of Iraq.
But that snapshot quickly disappeared in the
bloody battles in which Iraq remains engulfed to
this day.
The most ironic aspect of Bush's
choice is that, despite toppling a brutal
dictator, he seems to be facing a no-win situation
in Iraq. He cannot pull out without permanently
destroying all his bravado about transforming the
Middle East and eradicating transnational
terrorists. Who would have thought that the
rag-tag bands of Iraqi insurgents could create
such havoc in that country? Now even the US
appears receptive to the proposition of having a
dialogue with insurgents, by offering only a few
perfunctory caveats. Whatever happened to that
Bush who, on July 2, 2003, said that American
troops under fire in Iraq were not about to pull
out, and challenged those tempted to attack US
forces by saying, "Bring them on."
By
staying put in Iraq, Bush is likely to prolong the
bloody saga in that country. There is little
chance that the offer of rapprochement with the
insurgents will de-escalate mindless killings. The
insurgents, on their part, envisage this as a
"divide and rule" tactic. It will be interesting,
nevertheless, to see whether some serious rounds
of negotiations will start in the coming weeks.
A fantastic scenario from America's
perspective would be that such a dialogue ensues,
then the Iraqi and American forces would gather
effective intelligence in return and bring an end
to the Iraqi insurgency. Alas, the reality is
considerably crueler than that. The insurgency in
Iraq is not a unified body. It appears to comprise
many multi-headed hydras that have the
extraordinary capability of multiplying themselves
as parts of them are chopped off. They are formed
by numerous, angry Iraqis, Muslims, Arabs and
jihadis, all appearing to get even with what they
perceive to be terrible wrongs committed by the
mighty superpower against them, against Iraq and
against Islam.
By staying put in Iraq,
Bush might envision himself going through the same
horrendous and horrific agonies that president
Lyndon B Johnson faced as the war in Vietnam
became less and less popular and chants of "hey,
hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today"
became louder in the streets of America in the
late 1960s. LBJ had to decide against seeking a
second term and still go down in history as a
president who played a crucial role in America's
first defeat. One wonders whether Bush is thinking
about what the future holds for America in Iraq.
Will he be taking agonizing walks in the semi-dark
halls of the White House, talking to the ghosts of
Abe Lincoln or LBJ? Even if Bush decides to pull
troops out of Iraq, the making of a tragedy in
that country will not come to an end.
Consequently, his presidency, like that of LBJ's,
appears to be edging toward some harsh judgment by
historians.
Ehsan Ahrari is an
independent strategic analyst based in Alexandria,
Virginia, US. His columns appear regularly in Asia
Times Online. He is also a regular contributor to
the Global Beat Syndicate. His website:
www.ehsanahrari.com.
(Copyright 2005
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
