Keeping the War Going
KEEPING THE WAR GOING
Much of the Bush presidential program depends on the continuation of the war on Terrorism [Sometimes identified as the Iraqi war.] The President’s power as Commander-in-Chief during a war enables him to do things he could not do in peacetime. Therefore, the continuation of the war will benefit his desire to have unfettered power to do what he wants to do without hearing questions from Congress or the general public. With this in mind, it is easy to understand why he would wish to keep the war going throughout his tenure as president.
Probably the best device for making it a continuous war was giving it a name like War on Terrorism. There is no group, state or nation that can be identified as the enemy or that can surrender to end the hostilities. In order to win, would it be necessary to bring every terrorist on earth to justice?. While making it easy to claim the war to be ongoing the name also makes it extremely difficult to declare that it has been won.
President Bush has associated the war very closely with his ‘calling’ to make freedom and liberty available to everyone in the world. This association adds to the confusion of the situation and permits the President to contend that neither is over until all aspects of the conflict have been satisfactorily concluded. The President’s announcement of success would need to state that all the terrorists have been brought to justice, the war in Iraq has been won and freedom and justice has been made available to all people.
The President’s public statements have demonstrated how tenaciously he intends to cling to his contentions that he has authority [As Commander-in-Chief in war time] to ignore the Constitution and laws passed by Congress regarding torture of prisoners and ordering wire-tap spying on U S Citizens without court warrants.
It may be too early to consider questions associated with the war on terrorism and the expiration of President’s term in office. However, Mr. Bush’s reluctance to end the war in Iraq indicates a determination to continue the ‘state of war’, whether the enemy is Iraq or Terrorism, as long as he is in office. This cannot help but lead to questions regarding its continuation by the succeeding president.
Would the people demand that the rules be changed to permit Mr. Bush to continue in office “to complete the job” in Iraq? Would a successor President be expected to continue the Iraq war? With the war on terrorism, presumably not won, would the people demand that Mr. Bush stay in office until it is won?
This writer’s purpose does not extend to furnishing answers to any of the questions relating to President Bush’s actions or intentions regarding these matters. We mention these matters as a means of suggesting that the people [all of us] need to think about the long-range consequences of pursuing a war that has no chance of success.
Jerry Clements 1/06/06
Much of the Bush presidential program depends on the continuation of the war on Terrorism [Sometimes identified as the Iraqi war.] The President’s power as Commander-in-Chief during a war enables him to do things he could not do in peacetime. Therefore, the continuation of the war will benefit his desire to have unfettered power to do what he wants to do without hearing questions from Congress or the general public. With this in mind, it is easy to understand why he would wish to keep the war going throughout his tenure as president.
Probably the best device for making it a continuous war was giving it a name like War on Terrorism. There is no group, state or nation that can be identified as the enemy or that can surrender to end the hostilities. In order to win, would it be necessary to bring every terrorist on earth to justice?. While making it easy to claim the war to be ongoing the name also makes it extremely difficult to declare that it has been won.
President Bush has associated the war very closely with his ‘calling’ to make freedom and liberty available to everyone in the world. This association adds to the confusion of the situation and permits the President to contend that neither is over until all aspects of the conflict have been satisfactorily concluded. The President’s announcement of success would need to state that all the terrorists have been brought to justice, the war in Iraq has been won and freedom and justice has been made available to all people.
The President’s public statements have demonstrated how tenaciously he intends to cling to his contentions that he has authority [As Commander-in-Chief in war time] to ignore the Constitution and laws passed by Congress regarding torture of prisoners and ordering wire-tap spying on U S Citizens without court warrants.
It may be too early to consider questions associated with the war on terrorism and the expiration of President’s term in office. However, Mr. Bush’s reluctance to end the war in Iraq indicates a determination to continue the ‘state of war’, whether the enemy is Iraq or Terrorism, as long as he is in office. This cannot help but lead to questions regarding its continuation by the succeeding president.
Would the people demand that the rules be changed to permit Mr. Bush to continue in office “to complete the job” in Iraq? Would a successor President be expected to continue the Iraq war? With the war on terrorism, presumably not won, would the people demand that Mr. Bush stay in office until it is won?
This writer’s purpose does not extend to furnishing answers to any of the questions relating to President Bush’s actions or intentions regarding these matters. We mention these matters as a means of suggesting that the people [all of us] need to think about the long-range consequences of pursuing a war that has no chance of success.
Jerry Clements 1/06/06
posted by Jeremiah | 2:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home