I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics, but these are not normal times. US President George W. Bush is endangering the US and the world's safety while undermining American values. For opposing him, I have been demonized by the Bush campaign.
Bush ran in 2000 on a platform promising a "humble" foreign policy. If re-elected, the Bush doctrine of preemptive action -- and the invasion of Iraq -- will be endorsed, and the world will have to live with the consequences. By repudiating Bush's policies at the polls, America will have a chance to regain the respect and support of the world.
The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, required a strong response. But they also led to suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy -- a full and fair discussion of the issues. Bush silenced criticism by calling it unpatriotic. For 18 months after Sept. 11, he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he led America in the wrong direction.
In fact, Bush played right into the hands of Osama bin Laden. Afghanistan's invasion was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and
al-Qaeda had its training camps. Invading Iraq was not. It was Bush's unintended gift to bin Laden.
Immediately after Sept. 11, there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for the US worldwide.
It has given way to widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on Sept. 11.
Bush likes to insist that terrorists hate Americans for what they are -- a freedom-loving people -- not what they do. But war and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of US soldiers -- over 1,000 in Iraq. The wider world also counts the Iraqis who get killed daily, perhaps 20 times more.
Nor was the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison the work of a few bad apples. It was part of a system of dealing with prisoners put in place by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Public opinion condemns the US worldwide, and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.
Bush convinced people that he is good for American security by playing on the fears generated by the Sept. 11 attacks. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag, and Bush exploited this by fostering a sense of danger. His campaign assumes that people do not really care about the truth and will believe almost anything if it is repeated often enough. There must be something wrong with Americans if we fall for it.
For instance, some 40 percent of Americans still believe that former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was connected with Sept. 11, although the 9/11 Commission -- set up by Bush and chaired by a Republican -- definitively established that no such connection existed. I want to shout: "Wake up America. Don't you realize we are being misled?"
The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity. Moreover, the US went to war on false pretenses. Weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al-Qaeda could not be established. Bush then claimed that the US went to war to liberate Iraq. But democracy cannot be imposed by force.
Saddam was a tyrant, and Iraqis -- and the world -- can rejoice in being rid of him. But the US had an obligation to maintain law and order; instead, we stood idly by while Baghdad and other cities were ransacked. If we had cared about the Iraqi people, we should have had more troops available for the occupation. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry, but also other ministries, museums and hospitals.
Worse still, when US soldiers encountered resistance, they employed methods -- invading homes and mistreating prisoners -- that alienated and humiliated the population, generating resentment and rage.
The Bush administration's flip-flops and missteps are legion. First the Iraqi army was dissolved, then the US tried to reconstitute it. First the US tried to eliminate the Baathists, then turned to them for help. When the insurgency became intractable, America installed an Iraqi government. The man chosen to lead it was a protege of the CIA with a reputation for being a strongman -- a far cry from democracy.
Despite the Bush campaign's efforts at spin control, the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the western part of the country has been ceded to insurgents, the prospect of holding free and fair elections in January is fast receding, and civil war looms.
Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the US as well, impairing its military power and undermining the morale of the armed forces. Before the war, the US could project overwhelming force. Not anymore. Afghanistan is slipping out of control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor.
The Bush administration can be criticized for many other policies, but none are as important as Iraq. The war has cost nearly US$200 billion, and costs will continue to mount, because getting into Iraq was much easier than getting out will be. Bush has been taunting Senator John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently. Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently, and that he would be in a better position to extricate us. But it won't be easy for him, either, because the US is caught in a quagmire.
Top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned Bush not to invade Iraq. He ignored them. He suppressed the critical process, arguing that any criticism of the commander-in-chief puts US troops at risk. But this is Bush's war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. Americans should step back for a moment and ask: who got them into this mess?
A moment's reflection should raise another question: does Bush's Texas swagger qualify him to remain America's Commander-in-Chief?
George Soros is president of Soros Fund Management and chairman of the Open Society Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS