The Gulf War and Today

I listened to a podcast today from a history lecture at UC Berkeley called "9/11 and Beyond." it made me like H.W. better. He got lambasted for saying "it wouldn't be prudent" to invade Iraq and depose Saddam, and even blamed for the current war. The professor (Jennifer Burns) characterized H.W. as a cautious, experienced man who was a consensus-builder. The U.N. passed a resolution to defend Kuwait, America went in with 20 other nations, and our military still had Soviet-era military build-up, which Bush used to swiftly win the war. Significantly, Bush refused to pursue the war any further than Kuwait's border.

The main reason he might be blamed for the current war is because he gave in to the Saudis and left American troops in Saudi Arabia to guard against Iraq. This incensed Bin Ladin, who is a Saudi, for nationalist reasons and because much of Saudi Arabia is holy land. Of course, Bin Ladin and other extremists also have their panties in a twist over our defense of Israel against Palestine, and because of our marketing of items they see as immoral, such as Coca-Cola and scantily-clad women (I like capitalism, but I also believe the government and the corporations are often in an unholy alliance to pry open new markets).

George W. is NOT a consensus builder, but acts on his own beliefs. There has always been a segment of the Republican party, according to Burns, that has wanted to invade Iraq and force a regime change since the end of the Gulf War. 9/11 provided sufficient paranoia to be an impetus against any threats. Bush also acted based on his own interpretation of a past U.N. sanction on Iraq. The Security Council would not approve these actions.

So, essentially, George W. has come up with a new foreign policy: for the safety of the U.S., force a complete regime change in countries that appear hostile. This is similar, but not completely like, the policy of containment during the Cold War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Spanish-American War (both times in Cuba, of course, we were facing off against another superpower; not attempting the regime change of a national government. In both Vietnam and the Philippines there was a fledgling provisional government that we were "supporting.") The question is, of course, should a "hyper-power" like America embrace this role of arbiter of other countries' national governments, or should we attempt to lessen our presence in other countries, thereby perhaps reducing their reasons for hating us?

Anyway...I would highly recommend listening to the podcast. I just recently discovered all the lectures you can get from Princeton...Berkeley...etc. on almost any subject.