The standard battle cry against critics of the war on terror these days is "cut and run." While it may apply to some, it suggests everyone who does not agree with the Bush administration's handling of the war on terror - a war it declared and Congress didn't - only wants to run away in defeat.
How is it that a swaggering cowboy wannabe like Bush, a dark, plotting and face-shooting man like Cheney, and a military invigorator genius like Rumsfeld can control the most powerful military on Earth, yet be incapable of winning this war?
Rumsfeld's updated military doctrine has been to ignore the use of overwhelming force called for by generals like Shinseki and Powell, and instead to rely on small, fast moving, and highly skilled "advanced" forces. Such forces are suitable for police actions or punishment, but clearly they can't win a war.
Bush and Cheney, along with legal-eagle Gonzales, decided that the Geneva conventions and longstanding American liberties are quaint. Laws and treaties are passé. An intrusive government is preferred.
The Bush administration says that Osama bin Laden is like Hitler, despite his not having a country or a powerful military under his command or having invaded any other country. And somehow Hitler was easier to kill off, too.
The Bush administration says this is a war to preserve our way of life, that our very liberties are at stake, and that civilization itself is under attack. Clearly, this is a serious matter.
It seems to me that such a significant war would require careful planning, would require joining forces with much of the rest of the world, and would require sacrifices by the American people. The lines to join military would be long in such a war, just as under-aged kids lined up to fight in WWII. The size of our armies would increase dramatically. Americans would save energy and buy war bonds.
Surely, the Nazis, Japanese imperialists and other fascists of WWII could not have been defeated with light forces, few allies and a disinterested American populace in a just a few months.
Bush says he's the man to lead us to victory in the war on terror. He's the decider, the war president, the man who wants to stay his proven failed course.
But what course is Bush even on? He started out with a worldwide coalition against al Qaeda, yet managed to turn off many of our allies during the war itself. He gave us tax cuts, with the war seeming to be more about TV entertainment than a common national sacrifice and grave endeavor. The military has fewer recruits and dwindling capacity, requiring massive, foreign deployments of irregular forces like the National Guard just to field too few troops.
Yes, Bush has won many battles, but he's not yet led us to a single victory. Winning a few battles with the most powerful military against a loose federation of poorly armed, poor people does not deserve much credit. Little thinking has gone into the reasons why so many people may resent western capitalism, complete with tyrannies propped up by billions in oil revenues that never benefit the people, but do pollute the air, contaminate the fishing areas, despoil coastal lands and increase sectarian strife.
Bush stood proud with his "Mission Accomplished" backdrop, yet years later the conflict has grown worse. Was the mission to create chaos? That's all he's seemingly accomplished. Saddam's UN declarations that he didn't have WMD was "proof" that he was a liar. Where did all those WMD we helped him launch against Iran go? No need for evidence or planning when you are the decider.
Most people understand that a significant war means you bomb, attack and capture until you or your enemy surrenders.
Bush figured he had no need to fight until his enemies surrendered. He'd just control a small green zone, install a new government and declare his own victory. Capturing the flag wins a child's game, but your enemy's surrender wins a war. Now we're just fighting to keep an unpopular government in power against its own people.
Does anybody remember when the Germans surrendered on May 7, 1945? Does anybody remember when Japan surrendered on August 14, 1945? Nobody remembers when al Qaeda, Afghanistan or Iraq surrendered because they never have surrendered.
Bush claims he beat the Taliban in Afghanistan - with his proof being that a new government is in power. Yet the Taliban are still fighting and Afghanistan continues to be a failed state. Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have never stopped fighting from protected locations in Pakistan, the nuclear bomb wielding, undemocratic, military-controlled country responsible for nuclear proliferation that apparently is Bush's ally.
Bush used faulty or cherry-picked "intel" to justify a refocus away from the Saudi Arabians who attacked on 9/11 and al Qaeda, the perpetrator of so many attacks and our declared enemy. No, the Taliban host in Afghanistan never attacked the US either. But the decider decided he should invade Iraq, a country that was seriously hobbled by U.N.-approved embargos and no-fly zones, with no relationship to al Qaeda, worldwide terrorism or Islamic fascism.
Bush claims he beat the Baathist enemy in Iraq - with his proof being that he occupied the Green Zone and installed a new government. Yet they are still fighting and Iraq continues to be a failed state. While Saddam Hussein and other top leaders were captured or killed, they never surrendered, with Saddam hanged in the most sectarian of ways. They were never even brought before war crimes tribunals despite the U.S. launching a war to depose them. The "good" news is that the newly installed government is controlled mostly by Shiites with close ties to Iran, a country that Bush may be surprised to learn has clear ties to terrorism and anti-U.S. sentiment.
If winning the war on terror is really important, why won't Bush fight to win? Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars and fight longer than World War II only to lose? Why does Bush insist on rebuilding our enemy's army before he's actually defeated it? Without surrender, there's no victory in war. Why does Bush put trust in a new government that doesn't even control the militias operating inside its country? He's so clueless that he even carries out attacks that appear to support Moktada al Sadr, pruning splinter groups for him.
Bush does not seem able to defeat the ragtag Taliban, or the cave-dwelling al Qaeda, or even the impoverished Mahdi militia in Sadr City. He has nothing to be proud of. He's the loser.
Bush has accepted no surrenders.
Bush cannot control the borders of Afghanistan or Iraq.
Bush cannot disarm militias or expel foreign fighters.
Bush cannot capture Osama bin Laden, the leader who perpetrated the actual attacks that lead to the war on terror.
Worldwide terrorism is on the rise. Worldwide opinion has turned against the United States for its blunders in Iraq (faulty intel, continued chaos, newly introduced terrorism, failure to win, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, rendition, secret courts, blurred Geneva Conventions). Grandmas are searched, American phones are tapped, suspicion is on the rise, water and nail clippers are banned on planes, taxes are cut, the military is downsized and Americans are told to increase consumerism and sacrifice nothing more than the very liberties Bush says he's defending.
Bush apparently doesn't understand that the terrorists who have attacked for decades are not American, so Americans are not the enemy and should not be the suspects.
It's time to fight against the way Bush fights this war on terror. It's time for true leadership. It's time for the U.S. to keep its focus on its real enemies rather than trying to create more. It's time for the U.S. to use diplomacy and forge a true worldwide consensus to defeat global, Islamic terrorism.
Thank God Bush was not our leader during World War II. Can you imagine winning that war with a light force, little worldwide support and just a few months effort?