A Mess of War and Ego (Op-Ed.)

Tom Shusterman, Opinion Journalism, 3 May 2007.

A Mess of War and Ego

The war in Iraq is effectively over. And regardless of what President Bush says to the media, America has lost. American troop deaths have now extended into the thousands, with this past month being declared the deadliest since the war began four years ago. An estimated 104 United States soldiers lost their lives in April and for nothing more than simply hindering the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites efforts to kill one another. The Iraqis do not care about the US occupation; they care about revenge and being able to exercise it in as brutal a fashion as possible.

President Bush fails to see this and even worse he seems to prescribe to the same barbaric philosophy himself. He has been so intent on screaming battle cries for war these past years that he has failed to notice that few are paying attention to him or his terror rhetoric any longer. He is blind and deaf to it all and innocent Americans are paying the price.

Perhaps all of this is a result of the president’s own vendetta against Saddam Hussein, who tried to have his father assassinated so many years ago. Of course American citizens also spent the better part of a year preceding the war listening to government experts explain how Iraq was building nuclear weapons and allied with Osama bin Laden. But there were no bombs, no link to Al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein is long dead and the Iraqis are free. The reasons for war have fallen by the wayside and now there is nothing left to rationally explain this horrific invasion that violated so many of the provisions spelled out in the Geneva Convention. Without justification this war should have ended. But as every American knows this isn’t the case.

The statues of Hussein have fallen, a new government has been established, and yet still Bush requests nearly $124 billion to continue his war. And it is his war for his legacy and nothing more. The American people mustn't be fooled.

Ironically enough, the anti-war Congress granted this request and asked only one thing in return: that the American soldiers be allowed to return home soon, with a promise that they had fulfilled their duty in a war that never should have been. The president promptly refused them.

In only the second time during his presidency, Bush used his veto power to prevent the war spending bill put before him by the House and Senate from taking affect. Maintaining his hard-line stance on eradicating all global terror, Bush stubbornly asserted that, “Setting a deadline for withdrawal is setting a date for failure, and that would be irresponsible.” Some might suggest that allowing even a single American life to be lost in a conquest not his own to be irresponsible, even downright offensive.

This veto, which in itself shows that the president values his pride above anything else, puts the thousands of American troops in Iraq in a terrible position. Not only are they being asked to continue to fight a war with nearly no popular support and substandard equipment, but they must now continue this task knowing that there is a very real possibility that funding for their enterprise will expire within a month. They would have fought, suffered, and died for nothing. This is something the president promised wouldn’t happen, that he alone would refuse to abandon his soldiers. In fact, ‘Support the troops!’ must be Bush’s second favorite catchphrase; his first being taken from Winston Churchill, ‘Victory at all costs!’

This ‘victory’ will mean that a great many more American lives will be lost as General David Patraeus conducts his 28 thousand troop surge on Baghdad. More parents will lose children; husbands will lose their wives, and wives their husbands. All this blood spilled can and should be laid at the president’s feet. It is no wonder why Bush refuses to attend any of the funerals of these fallen heroes. It is most likely out of respect for the families involved. After all they should not be subjected to looking upon the face of their loved one’s killer.

Sources

Associated Press. “Key Figures About Iraq.” The Washington Post 1 May 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com

Raghaven, Susan and Karin Brulliard. “April Toll Is Highest Of ’07 for U.S. Troops.” The Washington Post 1 May 2007. http://www.washintonpost.com

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay and Jeff Zeleny. “Bush Vetoes Bill Tying Iraq Funds to Exit.” The New York Times 2 May 2007. http://www.nytimes.com

Opening Eyes, Furrowing Brows (Op-Ed)

Opening Eyes, Furrowing Brows

By Tom Shusterman

An Inconvenient Truth couldn’t have been timelier. Although scientific in nature and full of the numbers and graphs that make so many peoples’ eyes roll back in their sockets, the topic of Global Warming serves as a soapbox on which Vice-President Al Gore is able to shout a more important truth: that men and women, regardless of age or class have the ability and the duty to pursue societal change even if it’s not in their specific best interest. It presents the message that despite the difficult times of this world and the overwhelming sense of disempowerment being spoon-fed to the American people from its president, an individual can still make a difference. Scholars refer to this as civic responsibility. I refer to it as common sense and good will.

Recently Robert Thorson, a Professor at the University of Connecticut wrote that Gore was unjustly influencing national policy by transforming the motion picture industry into “the fourth branch of government.” To this, I pose a simple question: Is it so wrong for a man who nearly was our President seven years ago to voice his concerns about a topic that he not only holds dear to his heart but believes is of genuine concern to the world? If it is, than perhaps Democracy doesn’t mean what I thought it did.

American Democracy was not created to be political. Silence and ignorance were not the vehicles behind safeguarding life and liberty in this nation. An Inconvenient Truth reveals that these dangerous qualities are defining the American citizenry. If utilizing the motion picture industry is an effective means of reaching people to show them their serious lapse in judgment, why not use it?

In this film Gore talks about his struggle; how he has presented his concerns about global warming over a thousand times in cities across the world for 30 years. He stressed how nearly every respected scientist in the world found global warming to be a legitimate threat and contrary to our President’s beliefs, quite real. The facts were right before the public’s eyes. The United States needed to ratify the Kyoto Treaty and cease abusing fossil fuels. If not, millions of Americans would die and much of the world would be lost because of climate change. Still, no one was listening.

My belief is that people tend to ignore what they do not understand and it is that which causes citizens to appear apathetic or callous to such a highly emotional issue. Gore seems to agree, saying that his primary objective is to learn what the roadblocks are that prevent individuals from embracing his message. To that end, Gore fashioned himself a goal: to teach the truth about global warming directly, “by going city to city, person to person, and family to family.” Gore never lost faith that he could convince enough people of the worthiness of his cause to make a difference.

This grassroots effort is admirable and speaks to the true fabric of what it means to be an American. Unfortunately it is an effort that’s gone largely unnoticed. The increasing costs of war with Iraq and Afghanistan, both monetary and in human life have drawn many Americans’ gaze away from global concerns and onto their home life. I don’t presume to judge whether this is acceptable, but it forced Gore and anyone else wishing to promote an issue besides war and terror to find a new information outlet.

Motion pictures are attention-grabbers, as An Inconvenient Truth proved by winning the Oscar for Best Documentary this past year. Sometimes all it takes to spark public interest is to repackage an old idea in a new way. Gore succeeded—both in informing people and inspiring them to take action; something that is hardly an unjust act.

This should serve as a wakeup call to politicians in Washington. War is not the only thing to make policy on and the citizenry are recognizing that. An Inconvenient Truth has gotten Americans talking, uniting them in a way that an Orange Terror Alert no longer can.

Mr. Thorson might have been right after all, though not about the movie industry. There is a forgotten fourth branch of government; it’s the American People, now not so forgotten.

Sources

Dahl, R., A. (1998). On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Guggenhiem, D. (Director). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth [Motion Picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.

Landy, M. & Milkis, S., M. (2004). American Government: Balancing Democracy and Rights. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thorson, R., M. (2007, March 29). More Heat than Light. The Hartford Courant, Other Opinions Section.