Opinion

Bush’s Iraq visit just hypocritical self-promotion

Also by Rob Deters:
Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:




Share on:

 

Thursday, December 4, 2003 12:00 a.m.

0 Vote 0 Votes

I gave many thanks last weekend. I gave thanks for my family and my friends. I gave thanks that the man serving my turkey was a kindly 91-year-old grandfather, instead of our goofily smiling commander in chief.

I was taken aback when I saw the footage of Bush in Baghdad Thursday. I had listened to the radio on the way to Thanksgiving dinner, and it had described the quiet dinner Bush was planning to have with his family.

Instead, it turned out he flew half way across the planet to smile pretty for the camera. Oh, and raise the morale of the troops.

President Bush went to Baghdad for two reasons, and he arguably accomplished both. The first was to raise the morale of troops overseas. He presumably did this given the wild hooting going on during his speech.

The second reason for getting in harm’s way was to present to the American people a “tough guy” image. Also, it helps provide footage for campaign commercials. Having him wear the U.S. Army windbreaker and pose with a giant grin on his face and turkey in his arms is one sure way to wow the electorate.

As for raising the troop morale overseas, Bush needed to do so. After all, November was the deadliest month in Iraq since hostilities began, including the months of the actual invasion. It was deadly for our allies as well, since Spain, Poland and Japan all lost intelligence agents, diplomats or military personnel. Bring ‘em on, indeed.

It’s also necessary for Bush to boost the esteem of troops in Iraq, because he pays short shrift to the bereaved at home. Bush did meet with some families of those killed in Iraq from Britain and America. However, he refuses to attend the funerals of returning war dead (or is it “occupation casualties”?). The Bush administration also bans press coverage of returning corpses.

“Bring ‘em on” was apparently intended to bloody the foot soldiers, not the commanders.

Interestingly, a member of the Iraqi National Council pointed out that Bush’s visit, which took 210 minutes and involved great secrecy and security, actually accomplished the opposite of what he was intending. A member of the Iraqi governing council told the United Kingdom’s Guardian that militants in Iraq “will be able to boast that they forced the most powerful man in the world to come in through the back door.”

If post-war Iraq is as safe and better off as the Bush administration contends, then why is Bush being flown in and out faster than I can get a pizza on a Badger Saturday? Of course, he is the president and taking foolish risks is not required of him, but it shoots the Bush administration’s stance that post-war Baghdad is a drastic improvement in the foot.

Giving the troops a “buck-up!” message was certainly in order, since the whole reason it was so dangerous to be in Baghdad is squarely on Bush’s shoulders. The up-tick in hostilities in Iraq is based on a number of reasons, all of which land in the Bush camp of responsibility.

First, by disbanding the Iraqi Army upon invading, the United States let hundreds of thousands of suddenly unemployed men simply melt away into the countryside. Just a week ago retired Gen. Jay Garner, the former head of Iraq until that looked a little too militaristic, said that disbanding the Iraqi Army was the biggest mistake the Bush administration has made so far.

Second, the United States refuses to seriously consider letting foreign troops help with the reconstruction of Iraq. There is a strong case to be made that hostilities would reduce with a U.N. presence (yes, the U.N. headquarters were bombed) since its presence is less inflammatory than a U.S. one. Simple statistics say that if there are fewer U.S. troops in Iraq, fewer of them will die.

The second reason Bush went to Iraq was a far more venal one. Bush, like all presidents, presses the flesh. However, if I were currently serving in the armed forces, every time I saw Bush wrap himself in a uniform, land on a carrier deck or rally the troops like a high-school football coach, I would want to vomit on my own spit-shined shoes.

See, what should really gall any thinking person about Bush is how much the president’s own miserable military service record is not held against him. Calling Bush a “chickenhawk” (someone who doesn’t fight himself, but calls for war incessantly) is too weak. I call him a dangerous role model to our armed forces.

Bush flew with the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. This was a cushy assignment, one virtually guaranteed not to put him in harm’s way (unlike his father, who flew bombing raids in WWII). If Bush had done his duty in Texas and the South (he served at bases not in Texas as well), his current embrace of the military wouldn’t be so hypocritical. But Bush didn’t report for duty for a year, his whereabouts unknown. This was never prosecuted or investigated. Bush, like many fortunate sons, got away with a serious dereliction of duty.

Here’s a proposal. The next time a soldier says he or she doesn’t feel like returning to duty in Iraq to walk countless deadly patrols through a hostile environment, he or she can just say “Hey, I’m pulling a Bush!”

Bush wants to use a war he created to make himself look strong and decisive. This is absolutely unconscionable. As a proud American, one who supports our armed forces wholeheartedly, I can only see Bush’s embrace of a militarism he doesn’t have to fully face as a total disgrace.

Rob Deters (rvdeters@wisc.edu) is a second-year law student.


Leave a comment

To comment anonymously or if signed in, leave name and e-mail blank.

Place a shout-out!
Top Classified Ads (view all)

HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com

Place a classified ad

Advertising