Hedge

President Bush addresses the nation, er... a bunch of Armed Forces guys at Fort Bragg and then it was broadcast to the nation... trying to shore up the effort in Iraq. Full text here.

Four points.

1. Childishness -- Name calling and historical inaccuracy (within his own presidency, no less)

"The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. "

President Bush was empowered to declare the current global War on Terror on September 18th, 2001; and did so on September 20th; there was an incident on Septmber 11th, but the "war" did not touch Americans until the President declared American participation eight days later. His over-reaching statement, that "[o]ur war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." The implication, that a war against a non- national, non-political, non-static identity can be won. Anyone can be a terrorist, accept it. Or watch the movie, The Terrorist, or revisit the actions of April 20th, 1999.

This being said, that anyone can be a terrorist, or at least can be percieved as a terrorist, there is something to be said about the situation in Iraq and, furthermore, about definitions in this War on Terror. Implying that the insurgency that thrives in Iraq today is being carried on by terrorists is absurd. The United States military is an occupying force in Iraq. Pay attention, news sources have stopped referring to the military presence in Iraq as an "occupation," this does not make it any less true. The insurgent forces in Iraq are battling the greatest war machine the world has ever known. Any who oppose the occupation are aligned, whether they are sympathizers to the old regime or not. The soverignty of Iraq, the ability for that nation to select its own fate, does not exist. It is America that defines the future for the Iraqi people. Initial opposition, of course, was from those empowered by the regime of Saddam Hussein, so-called state-sponsored terrorists. Now, this loose definition has spread to any opposition to American policy.

The definition of terrorist, in Iraq, works both ways. The insurgents are freedom-fighters -- fighting against "American freedom" and in favor of freedom for Iraqis and all Islamic people -- are labeled terrorists by this President. This irony, fighting freedom for freedom, seems to be growing more widespread. On the other side, Iraqis seeking freedom from "American freedom" may perceive the U.S. occupying force as the present state-sponsored terrorist. With each day, their mere presence encourages further destruction. Though "better off" than in the former regime, the raids and attacks that accompany an insurgecy against occupation are "soft" comfort.

As to the establish leader sought in the campaign in Iraq, Saddam Hussein IS in prision, his regime ended. This, WITHOUT direct connection to the September 11th attacks, WITHOUT discovery of the weapons of mass destruction that constituted a clear and present danger to the security of the United States and her interests, and WITHOUT any causal connection of state-sponsored international acts of terror.

2. Playing God -- Creating an Allied nation

"Our mission in Iraq is clear. We're hunting down the terrorists. We're helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We're advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability..."

"A little over a year ago, I spoke to the nation and described our coalition's goals in Iraq. I said that America's mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend -- a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform."

These statements lead me to beleive that the War on Terror is designed to never end. It is designed to be a check an balance that the United States can use on the world at large to police any state that it chooses. The statement made, September 20th, 2001; "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" could prove to be a landmark statement. If becomes true that the 9/11 attacks have sparked an Orwellian global perspective -- constant surveillance and constant war -- as a suitable and profitable replacement for the Cold War, then this American incursion into global affairs cannot be supported.

US foreign policy of this type demands that every nation of the world open itself to inspection for "terrorist" activity, whatever such activity is on that day. Allies will, undoubtedly, acquiesce. Opponents will be subject to scrutiny. Scrutiny, invariably, offers up evidence and evidence leads to indictment. This process, policing the world and rebuilding in the image of American ideals, seeks to subvert and destroy the diversity that makes the world what it is.

The slogans of 1984: "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" eerily parallel the state of affairs in the US. Orwellian doublespeak continues to come to light. Freedom from America is slavery, but American freedom is the best slavery there is.

3. Passing the buck

"would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight... Like free people everywhere, Iraqis want to be defended by their own countrymen, and we are helping Iraqis assume those duties."

Whose fight is this anyway? The U.S. staged a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein. American forces looked in every hole they could find until they rooted out Saddam Hussein and killed his two sons. Once that finished stumbling toward success, they realized that there's a country here that somebody, anybody but US, should run and that they had entrenched themselves a fight in Iraq against Islamic extremism, one that the Iraqi people hadn't necessarily believed would follow from the deposition of Hussein. So they undertook the difficult task of nation-building; from designing and helping to equip new security forces, to staging elections, to picking up juicy contracts for infrastructure rebuilding.

Why hire an Iraqi engineering firm for US$10 000 when you can get an American one for US$1B?

The new, representative assembly of New Iraq, does not have the capacity to stand on its own yet. Nor do they have control of their military, their judicial or executive branches of government. The legislative side is all theirs, though. Soverignty does not exist without self-determination. Being founded with the interests of a foreign nation at heart, not having fought for their own independence from a foreign power, New Iraq will not stand without American forces constanly present to support it. Thus, America will never be able to leave New Iraq.

America decides everything for this fledgling nation; including what the basid institutions of their society should be. For example:

"... by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and equal justice under law. The Iraqis have held free elections and established a Transitional National Assembly. The next step is to write a good constitution that enshrines these freedoms in permanent law."

While I don't disagree with what is being attempted, the establishment of a social order that guarantees individuals rights and freedoms, the question remains, is this representative of the desires of the Iraqi people? Or, is this another case of ethnocentrism and a lack of understanding in patronizing and administering an occupied territory?

4. References to 9/11

Without a causal connection between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, the two cannot be mentioned in context with one as justification for the other. Thus, each time "terror," "terrorist," "security" wrt. America, or "9/11" was mentioned, it constitutes an unjustifiable causal connection.

The total, in this speech alone: 58

References to Terror/Terrorism: 38
References to 9/11: 12
References to American Homeland Security: 8

The more times he says it, the truer it gets. History records that which is most widely held as it is that popular opinion which is translated into its annals.

"The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. "

Before America took to rejuvenating their imperial advance of their ideals, the twin towers of the World Trade Center were attacked. This is true terrorism. The insurgency within Iraq is a protest against such imperial power, a fight against the usurption of freedom. The terrorist tactics of al-Qaeda, if they are an organized group headed by Osama Bin Laden as reported in media, seek to strike against sinks of power generally held by America. This is not in disdain of their freedom, it is against the oppression that much of the world is subjected to, which secures American freedom that is at issue.

By standing ignorantly on the backs of the impoverished nations of the globe, by utilising its armed forces to secure this seat of power and influence, and by flaunting its glut and excess as virtue, America encapsulates a clear and present threat to the rest of the world. The spread of democracy and freedom opens markets for Americans. The promise of "the advance of freedom" is an empty promise. The freedom and democracy of America cannot promise the any real difference to people around the world; vast poverty grips Americans too. This is the infidelity at issue, that America concerns itself with interests of the uppermost echelon while guaranteeing the suffering of the less fortunate. As a devout Christian, and the leader of a powerful near theocracy, President Bush denies his Christian duty to treat all people as brothers.

"We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard, and rebuilding while at war is even harder."

Rebuilding a country after you've bombed the crap out of it is even harder than that, Mr. President. Did I mention the juicy contracts? Yes, JUICE. Join US In Commercial Entropy, the more you destroy, the more you can charge to rebuild it. That's the joy of presiding over a country with absolutely no value for ancient history and no ancient history of its own. If it can't be rebuilt for billions of dollars, then it isn't worth anything. See also: National Treasure

There are two more points to follow, NIMBY and Doublespeak. Demain, j'espere.

8