By Dan Nelson
God protect Dubya
May God protect George W Bush. I may have no great love for our current President, but I find the thought of our cranky Vice President ascending to leadership utterly terrifying. While much has been made about Dick Cheney’s age and health and, the man is only 52, making him 48 years younger than the eternal Strom Thurmond. Cheneys’ diplomatic policies, however, seem to be from the 19th century, and I find Bush’s address to the UN, if not fully sincere, at least promising that someone other than the Vice President has his ear.
The White House has been sending mixed messages concerning Iraq, and the media has been quick to contrast the positions of the hawkish Cheney and the more moderate Secretary of State Colin Powell. While the administration has been busily contradicting itself, support for an outright Iraqi invasion has been plummeting and even some Congressional conservatives have voiced their concerns. International support has been nearly nonexistent, proving a worldwide consensus that vigilante attacks by individual superpowers is a bad thing.
With opposition and division everywhere, Bush has finally decided to take the reigns on the issue by addressing the international community rather, than firing missiles. Bushs’ sincerity is, however, questionable. This address has conveniently coincided with the anniversary of the terrorist attacks, just a few months before the next congressional elections.
While speaking with the UN, the President asked them to take action, or the U.S. would take action for them. Bush is not completely without basis for such a demand. International response to Iraq has been unspectacular. Weapons inspectors left the rogue country in 1998, and the UN seems disinterested in securing their return. Whether or not Iraq has received appropriate reparations for its past actions, it is still an aggressive country commanded by a former professional assassin. The tacky images of the homely Hussein plastered throughout his country is a crime unto itself, both against humanity and good taste. Monitoring must be restored in Iraq, and Bush’s speech on September 12th will hopefully be a wakeup call for the UN to do its job.
However, is the President truly interested in acting as a member of a global community rather than a Supreme Leader? Bush made it clear that he wishes to see some sort of action towards Iraq, or the U.S. will take matters into its own hands. But how severe does the White House wish the UN to be? According to a recent ABC poll, only 40 percent of Americans believe the President has a clear policy on Iraq. After spending the entire summer fumbling the issue, Bush knows that.
Americans are growing weary of indecision. Will he have enough patience for the UN to respond? I certainly hope so. Despite the Bush administrations’ best efforts to merge the two issues, Iraqs’ links to terrorism are highly questionable. If we are already fighting a supposed war against terrorism, would it be smart to divide our resources from what should be our top priority and open a second front? Much has been written about the need to preserve the “delicate alliance against terrorism,” and any unsupported U.S. aggression against Iraq would cause us to lose friends in a time when cooperation is of high importance. While Iraq is indeed a problem country, military action would harm valuable anti-terrorist alliances and, contrary to what the Dick Cheneys of the world may think, would do nothing to help fix the global issues which have bred terrorism in the first place.
