AN INTERNATIONAL VIEW: The American Presidential Election and the Iraq War
By Julia Zhu
The American presidential campaign has moved into the last critical moments. We can easily see that having suffered 9.11, Afghanistan and the Iraqi war, Americans are becoming more and more concerned and sensitive about their homeland security defenses. The Iraqi issue, which is just lying before their eyes, is no doubt also an important concern of American voters.
Personally speaking, I see the Iraqi war as another way of saying “cruelty” and “ridicule.” I can’t help asking myself: why did they force this war? What was their purpose? For bureaucratic reasons, the U.S.-led invasion hinged on one issue: weapons of mass destruction. This was of course a perfect excuse since most parts of the world, especially the United States, were under the shadow of terrorism and therefore everyone should agree with their plan to get rid of this great danger. But now, when looking back, we can easily find how weak this reasoning was. So far, what we have seen is not evidence for it but only scenes full of blood and tears.
According to the Iraq Survey Group’s Final Report by Charles Duelfer, Iraq had not resumed production of dangerous weapons after the first Gulf War and that Saddam Hussein himself, together with other former Iraqi officials, have admitted there were no WMD in Iraq. What then was the reason for this war? A game involving human life or something? Just to reach the conclusion mentioned above now, some 1,196 coalition personnel have been killed since the start of the war. Of those, 1,060 are American, 67 British and 69 are from other coalition countries.
Unknown numbers of Iraqis have also died on both sides of the conflict. What a cost! Yet to this, George W. Bush simply explained that they were avoiding a risk which people could not afford to take. My question is: can we send soldiers off to die just because we suspect another nation is guilty of planning imminent aggression? As far as I am concerned, the U.S.-led invasion was just such a situation and therefore a tremendous mistake.
Back to the present American presidential campaign, since the Iraqi issue is now the core of it, how it plays its role is of great concern. In my opinion, it is more of a two-edged knife to both sides than a simple advantage to either Bush or Kerry.
Bush, of course, is being blamed for the current awkward situation in Iraq and is being severely questioned about his real intention for taking military action against Iraq. Many voters, however, are willing to vote for him due just to this issue. Considering his previous course of action, they draw the conclusion that he is more predictable than his opponent Kerry, though they are also worried about where Bush will lead their country next, in both war and economics.
As for Kerry, he could make good use of the mess in Iraq caused by the invasion and the awful situation the United States is sinking into to attack Bush. On the other hand, he has not really challenged the president with a better solution to this issue. His shaky stand towards it leads many people to doubt the wisdom of making a change for change sake alone.
In a word, if one side fails to cope with the problem of Iraq properly and successfully, the other side can seize the opportunity and win the edge. Neither side can be slack at it.
The American presidential campaign has moved into the last critical moments. We can easily see that having suffered 9.11, Afghanistan and the Iraqi war, Americans are becoming more and more concerned and sensitive about their homeland security defenses. The Iraqi issue, which is just lying before their eyes, is no doubt also an important concern of American voters.
Personally speaking, I see the Iraqi war as another way of saying “cruelty” and “ridicule.” I can’t help asking myself: why did they force this war? What was their purpose? For bureaucratic reasons, the U.S.-led invasion hinged on one issue: weapons of mass destruction. This was of course a perfect excuse since most parts of the world, especially the United States, were under the shadow of terrorism and therefore everyone should agree with their plan to get rid of this great danger. But now, when looking back, we can easily find how weak this reasoning was. So far, what we have seen is not evidence for it but only scenes full of blood and tears.
According to the Iraq Survey Group’s Final Report by Charles Duelfer, Iraq had not resumed production of dangerous weapons after the first Gulf War and that Saddam Hussein himself, together with other former Iraqi officials, have admitted there were no WMD in Iraq. What then was the reason for this war? A game involving human life or something? Just to reach the conclusion mentioned above now, some 1,196 coalition personnel have been killed since the start of the war. Of those, 1,060 are American, 67 British and 69 are from other coalition countries.
Unknown numbers of Iraqis have also died on both sides of the conflict. What a cost! Yet to this, George W. Bush simply explained that they were avoiding a risk which people could not afford to take. My question is: can we send soldiers off to die just because we suspect another nation is guilty of planning imminent aggression? As far as I am concerned, the U.S.-led invasion was just such a situation and therefore a tremendous mistake.
Back to the present American presidential campaign, since the Iraqi issue is now the core of it, how it plays its role is of great concern. In my opinion, it is more of a two-edged knife to both sides than a simple advantage to either Bush or Kerry.
Bush, of course, is being blamed for the current awkward situation in Iraq and is being severely questioned about his real intention for taking military action against Iraq. Many voters, however, are willing to vote for him due just to this issue. Considering his previous course of action, they draw the conclusion that he is more predictable than his opponent Kerry, though they are also worried about where Bush will lead their country next, in both war and economics.
As for Kerry, he could make good use of the mess in Iraq caused by the invasion and the awful situation the United States is sinking into to attack Bush. On the other hand, he has not really challenged the president with a better solution to this issue. His shaky stand towards it leads many people to doubt the wisdom of making a change for change sake alone.
In a word, if one side fails to cope with the problem of Iraq properly and successfully, the other side can seize the opportunity and win the edge. Neither side can be slack at it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home