Martin Pool's blog

Mail me RSS Bazaar distcc Canonical is hiring! flickr

The real reason for invading Iraq

The Economist's review of Bush's presidency gives this explanation for his foreign policy. [Sub required, mail me if you would like to see the whole text.]

It is not surprising that such a conservative president produced such a conservative response to September 11th. For a while the terrorist attacks both unified the country and turned Mr Bush into the most popular president since the second world war. Democrats and Republicans in Congress joined hands to sing "God Bless America"; the vast majority of the country supported Mr Bush's immediate decision to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the months after the felling of the Taliban, Mr Bush drove a wedge into the heart of American politics.

One reason why Mr Bush proved so divisive was that he embraced such a radical response to September 11th. He did not think that fighting terrorism was just a matter of bringing individuals to justice: that approach had been tried in the 1990s and resulted in catastrophic failure. He did not think it was just a matter of improving security at home: terrorists would always find a way to get through even the most cunning security systems. He argued that you need to take the battle to the enemy camp: first, by destroying terrorists in their home base and, second, by revolutionising the Middle East. America's traditional policy of cuddling up to the region's dictators and kleptocrats had turned the region into a breeding ground for Islamic extremism. What was now needed was a radically new approach, in which America would throw its weight behind the liberating force of democracy.

Mr Bush's decision to remove Saddam may have been highly controversial. But at least it sprang from a positive vision of regional transformation (people who say he took the huge risk of invading Iraq to improve his election chances are misjudging where the true political risks lay). Much less admirable is Mr Bush's willingness to exploit September 11th for partisan gain. In the mid-term elections in 2002 the Republicans relentlessly portrayed the Democrats as weak on terrorism. In Georgia they even campaigned successfully against Senator Max Cleland—a man who had lost three limbs in Vietnam—on the grounds that he was soft on homeland security.

Whether "revolutionising" the Middle East again will improve things has yet to be seen.

posted Sun 24 Oct 2004 in /issues/politics | link

Copyright (C) 1999-2007 Martin Pool.