George Bush är en besynnerlig man. Å ena sidan drar han sig inte för att starta ett krig utan att någon detaljplanering och utan något klart mål. Men å den andra är han inte det minsta intresserad av att vinna kriget. han hade lätt kunnat vinna Irakkriget genom att höja skatterna och mobilisera några miljoner amerikaner.
När Churchill ställdes mot väggen av Hitler 1940 så mobiliserade han hela den brittiska nationen. Hitler däremot, liksom Bush, vågade inte införa allmän mobilisering eftersom han var risk att folket skulle resa sig mot regeringen. Så Bush sänker skatterna och mobiliserar inte, och resultatet ser vi idag i Irak. Samma sak verkar nu inträffa i Israel och som den ansedde David S. Broder skriver i Washington Post Doubling Two Bad Bets? så börjar de två krigen likna varandra.
Frågan är om USA och Israel inte snart kommer att ställas inför ett allvarligt strategiskt dilemma. USA har redan förlorat kriget i Irak och man står nu inför ett Iran som till varje pris verkar försöka skaffa sig atomvapen. Men om Bush inte är beredd till ett storkrig så kommer Iran att göra som man vill.
Och det är Bushs dilemma. Han vill ha sina krig men han vill inte betala för dom och han planerar inte ens för konsekvenserna. Resultatet är att världen idag står inför en mycket farlig framtid.
Här är David Broder:
If you think there is an echo in the air when officials discuss the twin crises in Iraq and Lebanon, you’re not hearing things. In both cases the argument for carrying on the destructive current policy comes down to a claim that “we can’t afford to let the other guy win.”
President Bush says over and over that cutting short the occupation of Iraq would turn that country over to the terrorists and embolden them to carry their wicked plots ever closer to our shores. He also endorses — implicitly — Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s view that an early cease-fire with Lebanon would strengthen Hezbollah and make its prime sponsor, Iran, even more of a threat to its neighbors. That political support enables Olmert to wage the kind of campaign he has in Lebanon.
In both cases, the argument is not that continuing on the present course will necessarily or probably yield a positive result. On the contrary, it is basically a claim that it is unacceptable to change — because the other side will claim a victory.
But if Hezbollah in Lebanon and the insurgents in Iraq really are deadly threats to Israel and the United States, respectively, then those nations should have used their full military might — which is overwhelming — to deal with the menace.
For Israel, that would have meant a large-scale ground and air offensive aimed at driving the Hezbollah forces far from the border and eliminating their missile sites. But Olmert stopped short of making the full commitment to eliminating the enemy, instead waging an effort largely from the air, using U.S.-supplied munitions, that is wreaking havoc on the civilian population of Lebanon.
For the United States, it would have meant moving into Iraq with a large enough force to control the country after Saddam Hussein was toppled, not the pared-down deployment that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted would be adequate. And, as Tom Ricks of The Post describes in deadly detail in his book “Fiasco,” it would have meant serious planning for the occupation. That planning never took place, making it impossible for Iraqis to live their lives with hope.
In both cases, the leaders of government failed to make the kind of commitment that could have produced a lasting victory.
Now they are reduced to saying that they cannot accept defeat. That is a terrible turn.
But once the hope for victory is gone, the issue remains: What do you do? The answer from Bush and from Olmert is: Carry on. Do not waver. And do not question the logic of prolonging the agony.
[tags] USA, Israel, Iran, Irak, Kriget mot Terrorismen [/tags]