Inside america
Returning to America in time of war
Ron Chepesiuk
As the great English bard William Shakespeare once put it: "Parting is such sweet sorrow." That sentiment hit home a few weeks ago when I returned to the U.S. after an exciting ten-month assignment as a Fulbright Scholar at Chittagong University. On one hand, I was sad to leave a country where I had made many new friends and had a chance to experience a fascinating culture and society. On the other, I was excite -- and a little nervous -- about returning to a country that I suspected had changed much since I left. When I embarked upon my foreign adventure last January, the U.S., under the Bush administration, was a confident -- if not arrogant -- nation, secure in the fact that it was the powerful empire in history and in the belief that it could bend the world community to its will and agenda. Given the perception of the American public that Bush was the kind of tough leader it needed in the War on Terrorism, his popularity ratings were sky high. Those of us who viewed a war with Iraq as folly were in the small minority and not eager to express that opinion openly. But it's remarkable what being bogged down in the sands of the Middle East can do to a country's psyche and confidence. The strong mandate that Bush had to lead the War on Terrorism as he saw fit has eroded dramatically since last May 1 when he stood on that aircraft carrier and declared the war to be over. The opinion polls show that now more than half of all Americans say George, Jr. is not the right statesman to lead the country in its War on Terrorism. Coming home has verified this startling about face. I have been stunned by the number of friends and associates, some of whom are Republican Party types, who now openly question the Bush administration's motivation and wisdom in going to war with Saddam. They still feel it's important to support "the boys" in Iraq but aren't so sure that they, our soldiers, are risking their lives for a worthy cause… whatever it is. I say "whatever it is" because it has become increasingly unclear why we went to war with Saddam. Since my return, there has been scant mention in the press or Bush public utterances about those weapons, elusive weapons of mass destruction and the alleged Saddam-Bin Laden link -- the two major reasons why the US went to war with Iraq. Are there still 3,000 weapons of mass destruction inspectors in Iraq and what are they doing there? Have the inspectors made any progress? Found anything? Nary a peep in the press about those important questions. There have been plenty of press reports, though, about the Bush administration's latest justification for the war with Iraq: Uncle Sam's supposedly good intentioned mission to bring democracy to Iraq and the region. Bush's latest spin on the Iraq War mess -- believe it or not -- is to declare that the war was an historical turning point for the future of worldwide democracy. Talk about trying to cover the truth with sand. Moreover, Bush is now warning the American people that the country should commit itself to perhaps a decade-long transformation of the Middle East. Sounds like he might be trying to prepare the nation for a long-haul stay, if the quagmire in Iraq gets deeper. I say 'quagmire' because that's the word the press and the citizenry have been using to describe the US presence in Iraq. Quagmire, you may recall, was the word used to describe aptly the US disaster in Vietnam. The term's use has sparked a debate about whether the Iraq War (that's the war that has been raging since Bush's May 1 declaration) is another Vietnam. Those who dismiss the comparison cite the marginal differences between the two wars to make their point; for instance, the length of the two wars and the relative troop strengths. Well, the US continues to talk about sending more troops to Iraq and rumours have suggested that the military draft may be revived. Besides, there is no guarantee the war will end, even if Saddam is captured or killed. I like to talk about the similarities: the inability to identify the enemy, the evidence of declining troop morale, the tendency of the government to blame the press for its problems, the Bush administration's eagerness to put a cheerful face on events., and oh yes, the rising body count. On one point at least a big difference exists between the two wars and the Texans who lead them. Lyndon B Johnson kept a high profile in dealing with the casualties of the Vietnam War. Bush, meanwhile, keeps out of sight and has said little about the mounting casualties. He writes personal letters of sympathy to the families of deceased soldiers and quietly meets with victims' relatives at military bases. By adopting such a position, Bush risks appearing to be insensitive as well as isolated from the consequences and real pain of war. So is Bush in trouble? Not really. Despite the disaster in making Iraq and the growing questions about his leadership, less than a year away from the 2004 presidential elections, Bush is a strong bet to stay in office. Analysts with no ties to the White House are saying all recent indicators -- including the economic ones -- favour Bush's election. As economist Robert Samuelson put it: "Other factors -- Iraq-terrorism -- could doom Bush. But the business cycle is moving in his direction." The respected Gallup opinion poll predicts that Bush is virtually a cinch to win in 2004. Sure, it's nice to see the economy moving again, but, as I get back to normal here, the thought of Bush serving a second term is a real depressing. A leader who doesn't seem to understand the big mistakes he's made during his first administration will be given a chance to repeat them in the second. Only in America. Ron Chepesiuk is a Rock Hill, South Carolina journalist, a Visiting Professor at Chittagong University, and a former Fulbright Scholar to Bangladesh.
| 
