Bush's State of the Union = Disarray

Today, there will be a large proportion of rants and raves dedicated to Bush's State of the Nation speech, given yesterday during prime-time.

And with good reason. While debates still rage as to whether Bush really is in control (and whether or not he's a strategic genius) the speech does provide further insight into an administration hell-bent on justifying past and current actions.

As a result, President Bush spent at least one-fifth of his address justifying the safety of the United States on the "success" of the war in Iraq. While his arguments continue to be trite sound-bites, he, once again, relied on his link of the current Iraqi siege to the battle between civilizations.

"It is a struggle for civilisation. We are fighting to maintain a way of life enjoyed by free nations."

It is a line that political scientists, theorists and analyists have dismissed for years. The fact is the argument was put forth by Samuel Huntington over a decade ago. While the argument, at the time, was a fresh(er) perspective on the global problem of insurgencies and civil wars, it was found to be based on faulty logic and inaccurate historical data. Huntington, himself, conceded that there were holes in his theory (though, he did defend the theory as sound, despite not being able to account for the inconsistencies).

The main theory behind Huntington's argument was that geopolitics (ie: world politics) revolved around cultures not nation-states. As such, geographical borders were arbitrary and irrelevant and as a result there is an increase in inter and intra-state wars. Huntington argued that the main civilizations (comprised of: Islam, Hindu, Western and Sinic cultures) would battle until a victor was established.

Now, Bush is using this logic and rhetoric to justify America's war on Iraq. According to Bush, we are in a state of uncertainty and danger because the 'other-side' is still fighting for supremecy. Unless this 'other' is tamed and suppressed the American people will never be safe. As a result he used a good portion of his speech to convince a growing skeptical population that the was in Iraq was part of that civilizational war on al-Queda.

"I'm often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat... and after 9/11 Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take," Mr Bush said. "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."

The sad fact is the world is not safer with Saddam ousted from power. While a portion of the Kurds (and even Iraqi's) may have benefitted from Hussein's removal from militant office, the rest of the world has suffered.
According to Peter Singer of the Brookings Institute: "In the five years since 9/11, we've had two major ground wars, spent over a trillion dollars, and suffered more than 20,000 American casualties to prevent [a] repeat."

Not only is America sending soldiers to their death, they are also contributing to the CREATED culture of opportunism and hate.

Singer continues by saying: "The 9/11 attacks have created a new prism of global affairs, a tension between a state and a religion that plays out on an international level as never before. Now, nearly 90% of [people] in Muslim states view the U.S. as the primary security threat to their country. Around 60% have said in polls that weakening the Muslim world was a primary objective of the United States. At the same time, the number of Americans who have a negative view of the religion of Islam itself has grown each year since the 9/11 attacks, to now constitute nearly half of the American body politic. We are in the midst of a building schism driven by themes of hurt, fear, and suspicion that feeds both the forces of terrorism and our own resulting insecurity."

The reality is we cannot control another man's thoughts, deeds and actions; what we can control is our response (rather than our reaction). To attempt to re-educate (indoctrinate) an entire nation has already failed in the 20th century -- for examples see the collapse of Stalinistic communism in the USSR, China's economic rebellion, Northern Ireland's persistence for independence, Pol Pot's failure to recreate rural Cambodia, Sri Lanka's continued civil war among the Sinhalese and Tamils, America's war on booze along with the McCarthy Red Scare and, finally, the removal and re-education of First Nation's youth in Canada. All of these situations had some component of indoctrination. All of them (and more) failed miserably with long-lasting and powerful effects.

In the final analysis, Bush probably believes the rational he espouses. Considering what Einstein -- arguably the greatest mind of the 20th century -- had to say -- "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war" -- it would be wise for Bush to begin seeking guidance from those outside his strategic alliance. However, for all intents and purposes Bush's speech clearly shows that he has no intention of backing down, or, in otherwords: bullshit baffles brains.

As such, I leave you with another of Einstein's pithy quotes:
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

For more information on Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations go to Wikipedia and search using his name: www.wikipedia.org

For more information on a summit held in Washington DC over the past weekend to bridge the divide between America and Islam go to: http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/singer20060907.htm

For more information on Bush's speech go to CBC:
www.cbc.ca