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.