I disagree with Bush being some iconoclastic purveyor of “freedom.” I’ve seen a number of arguments that the Iraqis aren’t “ready” for democracy, that they don’t really want freedom. I recall that similar things were once said about black South Africans. I don’t think it’s unnatural or surprising that Iraqis want to be free – it strikes me as being very condescending to believe that any group of people wouldn’t prefer freedom and self-determination over the alternatives – especially if they’ve suffered under them.

Measuring Bush and the US administration’s success by Iraq’s success implies that the ends justify the means – any means, and I think that’s wrong. Again, people completely ignore the opportunity cost, the fact that any and every fault in the occupation (arrogance, incompetence, good military policy subordinate to political expediency) has translated into MORE lives being lost that could have been avoided, and Bush and his administration deserve to be condemned for each of those unnecessarily lost lives. Yes, that’s a simplistic statement, but I do believe that when people start saying “hey, Bush was right all along,” that they be reminded of the cost and compelled to consider whether they’d be so accepting of that cost if they or their families were part of the casualty lists.

Good point. So even if Iraq does work out the matter of undertaking the invasion and the loss of life will be as contentious as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As was the case there both scenarios were dirty ones and full of loss of life.

It also raises a matter that I think a lot of intellectuals worry about on a certain level – that if Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq are indeed followed by stable and more or less imprefect democratic administrations than it gives justification to his actions. Perhaps they fear for what that may mean elsewhere too.

There are several problems with what Bush did:

Firstly, he either lied or misunderstood intelligence given in a huge capacity. This alone casts doubt on whether this type of action should be allowed.

Secondly the old nut – do the end justify the means? This is often so with radical motives, but history proves time and time again that these things never hold for long.

Thirdly, despite his actions, he has made the world a more dangerous place. Granted, we are in a war-like situation, but then he claims the world is a safer place. Even if what Bush does is good, should we endorse the actions of a man who willingly lies about it?

Under the Bush administration and indirectly motivated by the war on terror, several laws that restrict and hurt civil liberties, such as the infamous Patriot Act, have been passed. These laws remain after Bush goes – if more hawkish presidents emerge with even less care for individual freedom, these laws could aid them a lot.

There’s the matter of Al Qaeda. Bush uses these and WMDs as his reasons for the War on Terror. The problem is, specifically, that there is a seriosu lack of evidence to back teh notion that Al Qaeda is an international terror network and not a small group of radicals who fund other small groups. This misconception could easily lead to mass panic amongst nations, because suddenly isolated terrorist attacks are being profiled as an ongoing, organized war by terrorists who stand in solidarity. This notion alone could be far worse than any set of terror attacks in terms of our social wellbeing, but the Bush administration seems to have no qualms in aggravating the situation. Is this healthy int eh long run?

It’s impossible to call Bush evil, since he has some good intention and he might do a few good things for us along the way. But his motives and techniques are dangerous and leave a lot to be desired. There’s no point in chasing the crows away if you burn the corn field in the process.

it is a great read and most of my comments have already been made but for one thing.

Remember Vietnam also had a US helped/hyped election in 1967!

Gabbahead: I think the matters of Bush have to split out and discussed separately compared to the matter of Iraq. For one, while I didn’t agree about them going in there and doubted whether it would really combat AL-Qaeda aligned groups, I do agree that there is a War on Terror and I did support the attack on Afghanistan.

I’ve stated this before – that while I support globalisation I also recognise one of its inherent ills – that it allows terrorism to flourish and spread far more easily than it did under the Cold War. The financial industry itself is under tremendous pressure globally to track laundered money that fuels this phenomenon (hence local acts like FICA and the ECT) while there has also been substantial intrigue around the manner in which diamonds can be used to launder funds for arms. These are also potentially multi-billion dollar sources with existing concern about contagion with organised crime.

The Economist also noted why the war on terror in itself will take a very long time – that the highly federated structure of the terrorists make them a multi-headed hydra and one that is beyond just a small group but a global one. Remember the Passport fraud going on at home recently? Such groups have tended to attach their flag to the Al-Qaeda banner for prestige and money – as well as the transfer of various resources. Transfer facilitated by what I noted above.

zaBlogger: I agree that the example of 1967 is important – hence my caution – but at the same time if the Sunday Independent’s extracts from the Los Angeles times over the weekend are anything to go by it does look increasingly positive.

People thought that Ron Reagan was stupid, yet Maggie Thatcher siad he did more to hasten the demise of communism than anyone else.

What amazes me is that this is being played out again. The recent Inauguration Address was criticized by many people, too simplistic view of the world, etc etc. And after the voting it turns out that Bush made some very valid points.

The stupid Texan cowboy seems to win a lot of the time. Ann Richards, John McCain, Al Gore, John Kerry, Afghanistan. Iraq, well time will tell.

Say,James, are you the James Frances from SA comupter magazine who did the article on bittorents?