Another Endorsement for George W Bush
By: GWYNNE DYERRUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin wants George W Bush to be re-elected, Osama bin Laden undoubtedly wants him to be re-elected, and the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council has just endorsed him for re-election, so it's hardly surprising that one of my sons has done the same.
He must remain nameless, of course, but he has given me permission
to quote his exact words on the subject of Mr Bush's candidacy: "He
has sown the wind; let him reap the whirlwind."
'BUSH MUST CARRY CAN' This nameless offspring of mine has never
worked for the KGB, planned terrorist attacks or been nominated as
a member of the Axis of Evil, but he does share with the three
gentlemen above a rather Machiavellian turn of mind.
His point is that Iraq will go to hell and the US economy will
run into heavy weather in the next four years no matter who is
president.
Those things are already practically set in stone -- so let the
man who actually caused them carry the can.
There is no way that Iraqi hostility to the American occupation
can be turned around at this point, and the current outbreak of
fiscal irresponsibility in the US -- a huge budget deficit and a
huge trade deficit, amounting to almost half a trillion dollars
each -- will certainly result in a great deal of economic pain and
misery for ordinary Americans in the coming years.
We all know who got the US into Iraq and who created the budget
deficit, but the man who is president when military defeat and
economic crisis can no longer be denied will bear the political
blame.
The main concern of Nameless was that a Kerry election victory,
followed by a humiliating scuttle from Iraq and a crash in the US
dollar at home, would generate a 'Dolchstoss' myth on the American
right.
He was referring to the alleged "stab in the back" by the German
left that was used to explain away Germany's defeat in the First
World War.
(In fact, the left had loyally supported the war, but had little
say in its conduct -- until, after Germany's generals admitted
irretrievable military defeat on the Western Front, the government
was swiftly handed over to the Social Democrats so they could
surrender and take the blame.) The 'Dolchstoss' myth, which denied
that it had been a mistake to start the war and blamed Germany's
defeat on a failure of will, poisoned all subsequent efforts to
create a healthy democratic republic on German soil.
No analogy is perfect, but similar myths already exist in US
politics.
Many on the American right still believe that the Vietnam war
that could have been won if only the spineless traitors of the left
had not weakened American "resolve" -- and they say this even
though President Richard Nixon, who was elected on a promise to end
the Vietnam war and presided over the whole latter phase of it, was
a Republican.
What could they do with a lost war on a Democratic president's
watch? IRAQ WAR 'UNWINNABLE' The war in Iraq is unwinnable for the
same reason as the Vietnam war, and all the other wars of the 50s,
60s and 70s in which Western armies tried to beat local resistance
movements.
The Western armies won almost all the battles and imposed
casualties on the insurgents at a ratio of ten-to-one or even more,
but the locals had an inexhaustible supply of angry young men who
were willing to die.
The Western occupiers had to contend with voters at home who
could not see why their children should be killed in faraway places
in wars fought for imperial power, economic advantage, or obviously
misconceived "strategic" reasons.
As the casualty toll rose, eventually they would rebel at the
cost of the war and force the government of the day to bring the
army home.
It will happen that way in Iraq, too -- unless Senator John
Kerry is lying and secretly intends to pull American troops out
right away if he is elected.
That would minimise the humiliation suffered by the United
States, but it would still be seen by most Americans as a
humiliation, and the Democratic Party would pay a high price for it
politically unless post-occupation Iraq miraculously turned into a
Middle Eastern Switzerland.
Staying longer would only make the eventual humiliation greater,
so Senator Kerry has no good options.
Except, maybe, to lose the election.
HOBSON'S CHOICE My son's point was that the mess created by the
last administration cannot be fixed and forgotten before the 2008
election no matter who wins next month -- so why not vote for
George W.
Bush to ensure that the blame is pinned on the right man? That
way, there can be no "stab-in-the-back" legend to haunt the
Democratic Party in years to come, and to fuel a drive by
hard-right radicals flying the Republican banner to regain the
White House in 2008.
The down-side of this, from a Democratic point of view, is four
more years out of executive power, a Supreme Court packed with Bush
appointees, and significant damage to both America's reputation and
the US economy.
The negative consequences from Iraq's point of view are even
bigger: years more of violence and death before the insurgents
finally drive American troops out, which would probably do major
damage to Iraqis' long-term hope of living together in peace.
It is Hobson's choice, and I am almost glad I do not have a vote
in this election: it saves me from the responsibility of
choice.
If I were an American, however, I suspect that I would probably
abandon all these "tactical" voting calculations in the end.
One look at Vice-President Dick Cheney, and you know that it's
just not worth the risk.
* Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose
articles are published in 45 countries.
1 ROOTING FOR BUSH? ...
Some firmly believe that Osama bin Laden would relish the
prospect of US President George W Bush winning another four years
in office.
2 ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH ...
Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is displaying increasingly
autocratic tendencies, is backing Bush.
Nampa-Reuters 3 AT THE CENTRE OF A CLOUDED ISSUE ...
President Bush (right) and first lady Laura Bush walk through a
cloud of smoke as they arrive at a campaign rally at Space Coast
Stadium on Saturday in Melbourne, Florida.
Nampa-AP
'BUSH MUST CARRY CAN' This nameless offspring of mine has never
worked for the KGB, planned terrorist attacks or been nominated as
a member of the Axis of Evil, but he does share with the three
gentlemen above a rather Machiavellian turn of mind.His point is
that Iraq will go to hell and the US economy will run into heavy
weather in the next four years no matter who is president.Those
things are already practically set in stone -- so let the man who
actually caused them carry the can.There is no way that Iraqi
hostility to the American occupation can be turned around at this
point, and the current outbreak of fiscal irresponsibility in the
US -- a huge budget deficit and a huge trade deficit, amounting to
almost half a trillion dollars each -- will certainly result in a
great deal of economic pain and misery for ordinary Americans in
the coming years. We all know who got the US into Iraq and who
created the budget deficit, but the man who is president when
military defeat and economic crisis can no longer be denied will
bear the political blame.The main concern of Nameless was that a
Kerry election victory, followed by a humiliating scuttle from Iraq
and a crash in the US dollar at home, would generate a 'Dolchstoss'
myth on the American right.He was referring to the alleged "stab in
the back" by the German left that was used to explain away
Germany's defeat in the First World War.(In fact, the left had
loyally supported the war, but had little say in its conduct --
until, after Germany's generals admitted irretrievable military
defeat on the Western Front, the government was swiftly handed over
to the Social Democrats so they could surrender and take the
blame.) The 'Dolchstoss' myth, which denied that it had been a
mistake to start the war and blamed Germany's defeat on a failure
of will, poisoned all subsequent efforts to create a healthy
democratic republic on German soil.No analogy is perfect, but
similar myths already exist in US politics.Many on the American
right still believe that the Vietnam war that could have been won
if only the spineless traitors of the left had not weakened
American "resolve" -- and they say this even though President
Richard Nixon, who was elected on a promise to end the Vietnam war
and presided over the whole latter phase of it, was a
Republican.What could they do with a lost war on a Democratic
president's watch? IRAQ WAR 'UNWINNABLE' The war in Iraq is
unwinnable for the same reason as the Vietnam war, and all the
other wars of the 50s, 60s and 70s in which Western armies tried to
beat local resistance movements.The Western armies won almost all
the battles and imposed casualties on the insurgents at a ratio of
ten-to-one or even more, but the locals had an inexhaustible supply
of angry young men who were willing to die.The Western occupiers
had to contend with voters at home who could not see why their
children should be killed in faraway places in wars fought for
imperial power, economic advantage, or obviously misconceived
"strategic" reasons. As the casualty toll rose, eventually they
would rebel at the cost of the war and force the government of the
day to bring the army home.It will happen that way in Iraq, too --
unless Senator John Kerry is lying and secretly intends to pull
American troops out right away if he is elected.That would minimise
the humiliation suffered by the United States, but it would still
be seen by most Americans as a humiliation, and the Democratic
Party would pay a high price for it politically unless
post-occupation Iraq miraculously turned into a Middle Eastern
Switzerland.Staying longer would only make the eventual humiliation
greater, so Senator Kerry has no good options.Except, maybe, to
lose the election.HOBSON'S CHOICE My son's point was that the mess
created by the last administration cannot be fixed and forgotten
before the 2008 election no matter who wins next month -- so why
not vote for George W.Bush to ensure that the blame is pinned on
the right man? That way, there can be no "stab-in-the-back" legend
to haunt the Democratic Party in years to come, and to fuel a drive
by hard-right radicals flying the Republican banner to regain the
White House in 2008.The down-side of this, from a Democratic point
of view, is four more years out of executive power, a Supreme Court
packed with Bush appointees, and significant damage to both
America's reputation and the US economy.The negative consequences
from Iraq's point of view are even bigger: years more of violence
and death before the insurgents finally drive American troops out,
which would probably do major damage to Iraqis' long-term hope of
living together in peace.It is Hobson's choice, and I am almost
glad I do not have a vote in this election: it saves me from the
responsibility of choice. If I were an American, however, I suspect
that I would probably abandon all these "tactical" voting
calculations in the end.One look at Vice-President Dick Cheney, and
you know that it's just not worth the risk.* Gwynne Dyer is a
London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in
45 countries. 1 ROOTING FOR BUSH? ...Some firmly believe that Osama
bin Laden would relish the prospect of US President George W Bush
winning another four years in office.2 ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH
...Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is displaying increasingly
autocratic tendencies, is backing Bush.Nampa-Reuters 3 AT THE
CENTRE OF A CLOUDED ISSUE ...President Bush (right) and first lady
Laura Bush walk through a cloud of smoke as they arrive at a
campaign rally at Space Coast Stadium on Saturday in Melbourne,
Florida.Nampa-AP