Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

Where Should Bush Drop His Bombs Next?

Bhuwan Thapaliya - 6/18/2007

After Iraq, what next? The plainest answer to that question is that much depends on how the war on Iraq and Afghanistan proceeds. But after years of bombing, the campaign it seems is merely in its early stages because of America's inability to win any war dating back to its confrontation with Vietnam. There is no Saddam in Iraq, and no Taliban regime in Afghanistan, but so far, it is more striking how little has happened in the war than how much more is expected of America and its allies.

No army wants its soldiers to die, but America has lost thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. America has risked its soldiers in its bid to achieve its three aims of capturing or killing al-Qaeda leaders, dislodging their Taliban protectors and crushing the insurgency in Iraq. But paradoxically, after years of war, America has not yet achieved its goal, and its troops are further sinking into chaos and uncertainty. The potential worry, which may be premature, is that America has not yet shown signs of its war supremacy, which was challenged by bin Laden when he stated that the America "superpower" is really no power at all.


The bombing and ground war has weakened the Taliban, but neither America nor its Afghan allies have gained total control of Afghanistan. The Taliban, though beaten severely in 2002 and 2003 are rising again, and they are willing to risk casualties in the cause of unsettling the American allies in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, in Iraq, the situation is far worse for American troops than in Afghanistan. America is finding it almost impossible to curb the urban warfare aimed against them by the extremist insurgents.

In the midst of this realism, let us go back our initial question in the discussion. Where will Bush drop his bombs now? Probably Iran, but the unexpected swiftness of the American failure in Iraq and to some extent in Afghanistan has left different parts of the administration scrambling for an answer. Not only the Bush administration, but the American public and the whole world is searching for an answer to the question posed by America's "war against terror." The dilemma this poses for the United States is well understood. Pentagon officials are growing concerned that their enemy is becoming more elusive, as evinced by the latest series of uprisings in Iraq.

While insisting that American troops are doing what they can to organize a resistance and launch counterattacks on the insurgents in their own backyard, most ordinary Iraqis expressed frustration that a solid American military presence has yet to materialize. But still they believe and hope that, some day in near future, the extremists could collapse "like house of cards." Amid these difficulties, the crucial tactical question is this: how far can America go in Iraq and how far soon? All this while the possibility of yet another round of tribal warfare and geopolitical competition looks rife in Iraq. This suggests the future of Iraq looks uncertain, as uncertain as the presence of American troops in Iraq.

Meanwhile, there have been accusations that the Bush administration is struggling to survive wave after wave of fiascos and controversy. Sept. 11 changed American foreign policy: Instead of diplomatic repercussions it centered more on the American military might (and the global "war on terrorism"). The consensus among analysts is that American diplomacy failed. Had America acted with a little patience and diplomatic austerity, then things would have been different, foreign policy pundits say.

To be clear, let us go back to the year 1991 and summon up some facts from the history.

"After its victory in the Gulf war in 1991, the first Bush administration plunked down the political capital it won in the Muslim world on an effort to restart the Arab- Israelis peace process," according to a report published by The Economist. Hence, immediately after the battle was won, Bush senior abandoned military might for diplomatic measures. Many thought that Bush junior, too, would follow his father's footstep after the overthrow of the Saddam regime in Iraq. But the Bush administration did exactly opposite. He tried to solve the political riddle with American military might. Critics say, from here American diplomacy took a downward turn, a turn that led many of its allies to decamp from its umbrella.

Had Bush, been more diplomatic then the American forces would not haven been humiliated in Iraq, most analysts are saying. Nonetheless, it is history now. But Mr. President is not wise enough till date to learn from the history. He still believes in the American military might, that very might, which has completely left him in the middle of a political sea, with no boat, but with only an oar to sail home.

What Mr. Bush failed to understand then is that retaliation alone cannot solve every problem as exemplified furthermore by Iraq and Afghanistan. Diplomacy could be the best alternative, if practiced with the motto of solidarity and peace. But unfortunately it seems that American foreign policy is in a mess these days. And why not. America's military policy and its diplomatic policy are in war with each other.

And finally to the question of where Bush should put his bombs. I have an answer: He should drop the bombs on his own military-might-based foreign policy, completely dismantle it and build another American foreign policy model that suits the interests of the world (including America) if it is to regain its lost glory.