George Bush's "Splendid Little War"

Dr. Bernard L. Brock

Over 100 year after President Teddy Roosevelt, with the help of media magnet William Randolph Hearst, led American into the "Splendid Little" Spain-American War, President George W Bush almost single handedly is leading the world into his version of a "Splendid Little War."

The two wars have some similarities. Both were to be conducted miles from our shores. Both posed little direct and immediate threat to the United States. Both were thought to be won with quick victories.

However, the differences between the two wars are dramatic. While Teddy Roosevelt led a horse charge up San Juan hill in his war, Bush's war will require blanket, saturation bombing of military targets, often near civilian population centers and possibly house to house combat as American troops attempt to occupy and control a hostile population.

Instead of Iraq being a "gentleman's war," it will be a sophisticated, high tech war potentially followed by American soldiers being exposed to deadly chemicals and gases as they enter a mine field to ultimately occupy the country. Teddy Roosevelt's war carried a small cost in money and casualties, while in Bush's war the cost will probably be as much a trillion dollars spread over a number of years with the military and civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands.

Bush's justification for the war is Saddam Hussein's violations of UN Resolutions following his father's "Persian Gulf War," and a "Madman's potential use of weapons of mass destruction against the US and his neighbors. It's important to note that many countries, including the U.S., are in violation of UN Resolutions, and it's interesting that these reasons are merely definitional and future rather than substantive and immediate.

In contrast, many people see Bush's motives behind the war as control of Middle East oil, vindication of his father's reputation and maintaining his political popularity - personal and political rather than societal and humanitarian.

Then when millions of anti-war demonstrators were held throughout the world to influence Bush to re-consider his policy, especially against taking unilateral action, rather than take them seriously, Bush commented that he wasn't going to run the government by focus groups. That statement was especially amusing when we consider that he was elected by a "focus" group, seven Supreme Court members, after losing the nation's popular vote.

Because his rhetoric focuses on the war's justification, Bush never seriously discusses the war's significant future consequences. Instead of building upon the worldwide sympathy and form a cooperative effort to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice, Bush announced his "War on Terrorism." Then, by demanding that other nations are either for us or against us, he is isolating the US from some of its imortant allies and world powers. France, Russia and China have announced they won't allow the second UN Resolution to pass.

Isolation has turned into polarization and overwhelming anti-Americanism as Bush shifted his "War on Terrorism" from Ben Laden and the el Quaeda to Iraq's Saddam Hussein, without even reporting on the progress of the first stage. It's important to note that world and American public opinion are turning more and more away from Bush's policies.

However, unless Bush changes his course quickly, instead going down in history as having pursued a "Splendid Little War," he will be blamed for having caused the greatest carnage, the largest deficits and the most anti-American feeling than any other president in American history. George W. Bush is certainly making his mark in history.

Dr. Bernard L. Brock teaches political communication at Oakland and Wayne State Universities.

Return to Commentary