Bush's Changing World: Analysis by Claude Salhani

  • News
  • Thread starter pelastration
  • Start date
In summary, this week has been marked by unprecedented violence in Iraq, with over 80 American soldiers and approximately 700 Iraqis killed in a few days. The second-largest armed force in the country, after the US military, is composed of civilian contractors, whose exact numbers and casualty figures remain unknown. Amidst this violence, President George W. Bush maintained his belief that his mission in Iraq is to "change the world" and reiterated this phrase multiple times in a recent press conference. However, his strong support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and annexation of West Bank settlements has been met with criticism from Palestinian leaders and other parts of the Arab world, who view it as a threat to peace and stability in the
  • #1
Analysis: Bush's changing world

By Claude Salhani
UPI International Editor
Published 4/16/2004 6:34 PM

WASHINGTON, April 16 (UPI) -- Oh, what a week this has been. With just over 70 days left before the June 30 much-anticipated Great Handover of sovereignty back to Iraqis, the country erupted in unprecedented violence.

In fighting in the rebellious town of Fallujah as well as in other parts of the country with both Sunnis and Shiites, U.S. troops suffered more casualties in a few days than during the three-weeks of fighting it took them to reach Baghdad a year ago. More than 80 American GIs and probably as many as 700 Iraqis were killed. And we don't know how many "civilian contractors" have been caught in the deadly crossfire.

Foreign contractors working in Iraq constitute the second-largest foreign force in the country after the U.S. military, now numbering at about 135,000 troops.

There are -- or at least there were before the recent outbreak of fighting -- somewhere between 20,000 and 40,000 civilian workers in Iraq. Those civilians were brought in, lured by high financial incentives, to carry out a combination of tasks that include everything from driving supply trucks, building housing facilities for troops to provide security for other civilians driving the supply trucks, and building the houses.

In other wars, such as in Africa's colonial conflicts during the late 1950s and early 1960, these civilian contractors were simply called mercenaries. In today's more politically correct world, the term mercenary has been sidelined for the more acceptable PC "civilian contractor."

While the Pentagon or Britain's Ministry of Defense can provide exact breakdowns of their military personnel serving in Iraq, no one seems able to offer any exact figures on how many civilian contractors are engaged in the conflict. Nor does anyone seem able to offer any casualty figures for them.

One Pentagon source puts the number of security contractors -- that would be the ones carrying guns and doing military or protection-related assignments -- at about 20,000. An astounding figure indeed. That makes these "civilian contractors" the second-largest armed force operating in Iraq after the U.S. Army, placing them well ahead of even the British contingent who constitute the second-most important military group in the U.S.-led coalition. There are currently about 10,000 British troops serving in Iraq.

Almost all U.S. agencies -- the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Commerce Department, the Defense Department and the U.S. Army -- all have contractors working for them, or are administering contracts that have contractors working for them.

The four ill-fated Americans who were ruthlessly slain outside Fallujah earlier this month worked for Blackwater -- one such civilian contracting company.

As did the unfortunate truck driver, whose kidnapping was witnessed on CNN.

Meanwhile, as the violence continued, President George W. Bush maintained that this is proof that things are improving in the country and that the violence is the attempt by "terrorists" and agitators to upset the apple cart.

In his nationally televised press conference last week Bush reiterated over and over that he believed his task was to "change the world." The president feels so strongly about his mission that he repeated the phrase no less than four times during his 17-minute opening statement.

-- "A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change."

-- "I also know that there is an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better."

-- "It will change the world. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security."

The president's optimism is to be applauded. However, one can't help questioning whether the increased violence in Iraq along with another important event that transpired this past week -- the president's unwavering support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the de facto annexation of a number of West Bank settlements -- will change the world, but in the wrong way.

If the president believes his unilateral support of Sharon's plan -- acting outside of the "road map" framework put together by the Quartet (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations) -- is going to speed up peace in the Middle East, he forgot to ask the Palestinians, without whom, peace in the Middle East is hardly possible.

Here is what Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia had to say: "No one can renounce Palestinians' rights such as the right of return and the right to establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders. This is a flagrant bias toward Israel."

Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat pointed out, "Neither Bush nor Sharon has the right to negotiate on behalf of Palestinians, and they cannot simply change the international resolutions and legitimacies and signed agreements."

And the Islamic Jihad representative Khaled al-Batsh stated, "Neglecting the Palestinian refugees' right of return and legalizing the establishment and expansion of Jewish settlements on Palestinians' lands is just a declaration of war against our people."

The Islamic Resistance Movement, or Hamas, said that Bush's statements proved that hopes of reaching a comprehensive resolution with Israel under U.S. sponsorship were "mere illusions," adding that they were right about opposing peace agreements in the first place.

The view from other parts of the Arab world was not much brighter. The United Arab Emirates' al-Khaleej newspaper accused the U.S. president of having hammered the "last nail in the coffin of the peace process, put(ing) the entire region once again in danger, and (of loosing) ... minimum credibility, responsibility and morals."

London's al-Quds al-Arabi blasted Bush and accused him of "destroying all hopes for peace and stability in the region and the world."

The world is indeed changed this week, maybe not as the president expect, but it is changed nevertheless

Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yeah, but this will satisfy his "lunatic Christian" base.
  • #3
Blair's changing world

Also Blair is facing a lot of opposition in Europe. :-p And I like that.
Today BONO became the new Spanish Defense Minister and he must arrange the return of the Spanish troops from Iraq. So there will be serious animation in future European defense meetings!
Read this:

Spanish politician labels Blair an 'imbecile' on live television
By Isambard Wilkinson in Madrid
(Filed: 16/01/2004)
(ADDED: This happened BEFORE the elections)

Tony Blair has been called "a complete dickhead" by a leading Spanish politician live on television. The comment was made by Jose Bono, one of the three most powerful figures in the Socialist Party. His remarks were not intended to be heard, but were recorded by a television team while he was talking to Joaquin Almunia, a former Socialist leader.

Mr Bono said: "Hey, and our colleague Blair? He's a complete dickhead (un gilipollas integral). He's an imbecile."

The comments contrast with the Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar's carefully cultivated friendship with Mr Blair and will embarrass the Socialists.

The party is irritated by Mr Blair's friendship with Mr Aznar and dislikes the resulting Anglo-Spanish alliance.

There is little question that were Spain's conservatives to lose power, the London-Madrid axis would collapse.

Mr Bono, a staunch Catholic, is regarded as a potential leader of the Socialist Party of Spanish Workers.

The present leader, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, could be dropped if Mr Aznar's centre-Right People's Party wins a predicted third successive victory in the March 14 elections. That would mirror the upheaval in the Popular Party where Mr Aznar will step down at the election and make way for his successor Mariano Rajoy.

Mr Rajoy will visit Downing Street this week to cement the relationship with Britain.

Spanish minister writes to Blair, the "jerk"

58 minutes ago

MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's new Defence Minister Jose Bono, best known abroad for calling Tony Blair (news - web sites) a "complete jerk", has written to the prime minister to say it is time to put the comments behind them, a Spanish source says.

But Bono tells Blair in the letter he still feels the same about him, according to a source close to the Castille-La Mancha government he headed until his new appointment.

Bono, a Spanish Socialist party heavyweight, was named defence minister on Saturday by new Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

Bono made the comment -- "gilipollas integral" in Spanish -- in January in frustration after Blair hosted a meeting at his Downing Street office with conservative Spanish politician Mariano Rajoy, Zapatero's rival.

The private comment to a colleague was picked up by television microphones and broadcast. It received wide publicity in Britain.

"He sent him a letter, in his role as defence minister, putting himself at his disposal and expressing his good intentions," the source said. "He doesn't think (the comments) should be given any more importance."

"But he says he still thinks the same as he did the day he made those comments," said the source, who did not say whether Bono's letter was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.

Newspaper El Mundo reported the letter also contained fulsome praise of the prime minister.

Last edited by a moderator:

Related to Bush's Changing World: Analysis by Claude Salhani

What is the main argument of Claude Salhani's analysis "Bush's Changing World"?

The main argument of Claude Salhani's analysis is that President George W. Bush's policies and actions have significantly impacted the global political landscape, bringing about major changes and challenges.

What are some of the key changes in the world that Salhani discusses in his analysis?

Salhani discusses several key changes in the world, including the rise of China as a global superpower, the emergence of non-state actors as major players in international affairs, and the spread of terrorism and extremism.

How does Salhani analyze the impact of Bush's policies on the Middle East?

Salhani argues that Bush's policies in the Middle East, particularly the invasion of Iraq and the War on Terror, have had a destabilizing effect and worsened tensions in the region. He also examines the consequences of these policies on US relations with other countries in the region.

What are some of the criticisms of Bush's policies that Salhani presents in his analysis?

Salhani presents several criticisms of Bush's policies, including the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the use of torture and other controversial methods in the War on Terror, and the negative impact on America's reputation and credibility in the international community.

What are some potential solutions or recommendations offered by Salhani in response to the changes brought about by Bush's policies?

Salhani suggests that a more collaborative and diplomatic approach should be taken in international relations, and that the US should work towards rebuilding its relationships with other countries. He also emphasizes the need for addressing global issues such as poverty and climate change, rather than solely focusing on military interventions.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion
  • General Discussion