A Good Time to Ask, 'Victory Against Whom?'

The behavior of the United States, a 'wounded superpower's response' to September 11, resembles that of a banana republic more than it does the world's greatest nation. Bush's constant repetition of the word 'victory,' according to this article from Bolivia's Bol Press, looked 'as if he needed to first convince himself that success in Iraq is possible.'

By Ted Cordova Claure

Translated By Carly Gatzert

December 12, 2005

Original Article (Spanish)    

President Bush, made a bit desperate by the current situation in Iraq, is speaking of settling for "nothing less than a complete victory." Several times I have written that President Bush's reactions matched those of a "banana republic," as though the United States were being dominated and bullied by foreign powers.

I am willing to admit that my assertion about the President of the great superpower of globalization seemed to have been an exaggeration.  However, after having read and listened to the pre-Christmas analyses from Washington, my comparison now appears quite accurate.

Bush is indeed desperate. In his December 1, 2005 speech at Annapolis before U.S. Naval Academy alumni, Bush reiterated the concept of "victory" fifteen times, as if he needed to first convince himself that success in Iraq is possible. Meanwhile, a recent poll in Newsweek magazine indicates that Bush has a 30% or less approval rating regarding the way in which he has handled the war in Iraq.

So it seems an appropriate moment to question, "victory against whom?" According to what we read, this is a "victory" against Iraqi insurgents, a hodgepodge of rebels resisting the foreign occupation of their land, coupled with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group fighting a holy war that would have no reason to exist had Bush not invaded Iraq in the first place.

Ultimately, behind all the fighting words, the truth is simple: this is the wounded superpower's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Whether or not the image of the twin towers in flames was the beginning of World War III still remains to be seen. Clearly, Americans are becoming increasingly critical of the motives behind the Iraq War and want more and more to bring the troops home.  Bush, on the other hand, who did everything possible to avoid going to the Vietnam War himself, wants to continue sending young Americans to fight a war with no end in sight. 


Newspapers on December 4 reported that Peter D. Feaver, a Duke University political scientist and recent addition as special advisor to the National Security Council, suggested to Bush that Americans would be more willing to support the war in Iraq if they ultimately believe it will be successful.  Following Feaver's rationale, Bush immediately began speaking of "victory" despite the fact that the very same day, twenty more American soldiers died at the hands of insurgents and Iraqi terrorists.

It is no wonder that just a few days before, in her criticism of Vice President Dick Cheney, who considers himself to be "the voice behind the throne," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd cunningly titled her article in reference to the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez: The Autumn of the Patriarchy.  Or, as I would say, "banana country."

© Watching America and WatchingAmerica.com. All Rights Reserved. 2005

Site Design v1.0 & v2.0:
Fifth Wall Media Design