There’s a war on TV
Day 1.
There’s a war on the television again, but this time CNN promises live coverage from the front lines. Blood and gore, if we really get that, will be a relief after six months of Stormin’ Norman’s press conferences in the last one.
George Bush, playing the western role that was scripted for him, gave Saddam 48 hours to get out of town. Now, it is near sundown in Hollywood, and the Saddam’s time has passed. I make a quick trip over to the liquor store to refresh my supply of good bourbon, turn on the TV, and prepare for war. I have to feed my family first, of course, so I do that. After dinner I pour a glass of Wild Turkey and settle in. I don’t have to wait long before the bombs begin falling on Baghdad.
These bombs don’t really fall, however. They are precisely targeted. The live coverage of anti-aircraft fire in this ancient capital is dramatic. Then, a thin sliver of information comes into the newsrooms about where some of the bombs seem to be hitting. The news reporters in their hotel in Baghdad offer their best guesses as to where the explosions seem to be located. CNN then turns to retired General Wesley Clark for analysis of their interpretation of the likely targets.
Two hours before the deadline set by el Presidente, I told my lover that they (we) ought to send in some special forces, or shoot one of those “smart” bombs in an effort to take out Iraq’s dictator. By the end of the evening, the military analysts who have examined the camera eye’s keen perspective, and the reporter’s best guesses in great detail have convinced the press corps that the first attack was some kind of decapitation strike. Many are surprised at how the war begins.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI finished my bottle of bourbon in a little more than a week--a glass or two every night. Then I became depressed. Then I renewed my long abandoned habit of reading Foreign Affairs and a selection from the steady run of new books on American foreign policy. Then I voted for John Kerry because he demonstrated a strong grasp of foreign affairs. Because he lost, I am preparing for the coming judgement--the cost of this war in Iraq, which is beginning to turn many who once supported Bush against him, will prove trivial in comparison to the diplomatic costs of the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy. Meanwhile, the news media will continue to cover dramatic events with as much drama and as little critique as they can muster.
Please go on. Did your impressions remain the same?
Originally posted by WulebgrWhat do you think the salient points of these diplomatic costs are?
[b] Because [Kerry] lost, I am preparing for the coming judgement--the cost of this war in Iraq, which is beginning to turn many who once supported Bush against him, will prove trivial in comparison to the diplomatic costs of the Bush Doctrine in foreign policy.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe principal cost will become clear the next time we cannot accomplish something without full support of our allies, or when we object to an ally's actions and wish they might have consulted with us more thoroughly.
What do you think the salient points of these diplomatic costs are?
From the end of World War II to the Bush administration, the United States has been the world's preeminent power. Sometimes we have gone against the wishes of our allies, but when so, we have labored to make it right, and to reaffirm these alliances as primary in global affairs.
The Bush administration has declared that the interests of the United States are primary, and we will go it alone if we must. If our allies disagree, too bad. We now take it upon ourselves, and ourselves alone, to ensure global stability. We will certainly fail in time, and then what.
Our war against terrorism has made terrorism more likely.
Bush tried to cash in on a lot of political capital during his reelection campaign with the claim that absence of further dramatic terrorist attacks after 9/11 was evidence that his policies were working. After last week's bombings in London, this position has lost all credibility. Still, because it happened in Britain, and they supported us in our very nearly solo action against Iraq, the diplomatic repercussions of the Bush doctrine are deferred for the time being.
How will matters differ if and when a similar attack hits Paris or Bonn?