Like Bush, but in Reverse

Published in El País
(Spain) on 5 May 2013
by Lluís Bassets (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Esther French. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
A mediocre president can leave a powerful footprint and influence the future of his country as much or even more than other more brilliant presidents. This is the case with Bush, as his successor Barack Obama is proving at every moment. In addition to the difficulty of ending the wars left open in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is the legal mess that served to launch his global war on terror: Obama still has not succeeded in disentangling himself, something that causes him many headaches, as is being demonstrated with the Guantanamo Bay prison where 100 prisoners on hunger strike have obliged him to resuscitate his promise of closing it.

The ideas that shape the era weigh into the presidential legacy more than the legal changes and getting out of difficult wars do. The United States, thanks to Bush and in spite of Obama, continues its war against terror, an indefinite war that keeps authorizing the commander-in-chief to take actions against international law, or even national law, such as assassinating fellow citizens suspected of terrorism from a distance.

The shadow of the ex-president casts itself over his successor even when the latter is going in the opposite direction, as is happening with the Syrian crisis and Bashar al-Assad, in comparison with the Iraq of Saddam Hussein. The same theoretical principle — that the use of chemical weapons by the regime could justify a military intervention by the United States — is taken as rationale. But where Bush declared a smoking gun to be unnecessary in order to have evidence of the crime, the current president demands full certainty that this type of weapon has been used and even wants to know exactly who it was used on, in case it was the fault of the resistance and the blast was carried out on the regime.

All that were conditions for facilitating going to war in one are difficulties in the other. Bush did not have the patience to wait for the complete results from the investigations of United Nations inspectors. The false evidence fabricated by the CIA was enough for him; he organized a coalition of volunteers in which Blair and Aznar accompanied him, without the need for approval from the U.N. Security Council. Obama will take into account the U.N. inspections; he wants the international community to have the certainty that there is a smoking gun and that the decision deduced is not unilateral, that is to say, that it has international legal coverage.

Obama does not want to stick his country in a war for the third time in this explosive zone after the disastrous experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan. The adventure of war requires an intense appetite that the U.S. has completely lost after sacrificing so many lives and so much money on two wars whose results are debatable. Thus he would prefer to limit his commitment to supplying weapons to the most pro-West opposition forces against the Syrian regime — like Bush, but in reverse.


Un presidente mediocre puede dejar una poderosa huella y condicionar el futuro de su país tanto o más que otros presidentes más brillantes. Este es el caso de Bush, como está comprobando su sucesor, Barack Obama, a cada momento. A la dificultad de terminar las guerras que dejó abiertas en Irak y Afganistán se añade la maraña legal que le sirvió para lanzar su guerra global contra el terror: Obama todavía no ha conseguido desenredarla, cosa que le ocasiona no pocos dolores de cabeza, como se está demostrando con el campo de detención de Guantánamo, donde tiene a un centenar de presos en huelga de hambre que le han obligado a resucitar la promesa de clausurarlo.

Más que las guerras libradas y los cambios legales, en el legado presidencial pesan las ideas que amoldan la época. Estados Unidos, gracias a Bush y a pesar de Obama, sigue en guerra contra el terror, una guerra indefinida que sigue autorizando al comandante en jefe a realizar acciones fuera de la legalidad internacional, o incluso nacional, como asesinar a distancia a conciudadanos sospechosos de terrorismo.

La sombra del expresidente se proyecta sobre su sucesor incluso cuando este último va en dirección contraria, como sucede con la crisis de la Siria de Bachar el Asad, en comparación con el Irak de Sadam Husein. Se parte del mismo principio teórico de que el uso de armas químicas por parte del régimen podría justificar una intervención militar de Estados Unidos. Pero si Bush declaraba innecesaria una pistola humeante para tener la evidencia del crimen, el actual presidente exige la plena seguridad de que se ha utilizado este tipo de armas e incluso quiere conocer exactamente quién las ha utilizado, no fuera caso que la culpa sea de la resistencia y el bombazo se lo llevara el régimen.

Todo lo que eran facilidades para ir a la guerra en uno son dificultades en el otro. Bush no tuvo paciencia para esperar los resultados completos de las investigaciones de los inspectores de Naciones Unidas. Le bastaron las pruebas falsas fabricadas por la CIA y organizó una coalición de voluntarios en la que le acompañaron Blair y Aznar, sin necesidad de la aprobación del Consejo de Seguridad. Obama atenderá a las inspecciones de Naciones Unidas, quiere que la comunidad internacional tenga la seguridad de que hay una pistola humeante y que la decisión que se deduzca no sea multilateral, es decir, con cobertura legal internacional.

Obama no quiere meter a su país por tercera vez en una guerra en esta zona explosiva tras las pésimas experiencias de Irak y Afganistán. La aventura de la guerra requiere un intenso apetito que EE UU ha perdido del todo después de sacrificar tantas vidas y dinero en dos guerras de resultados discutibles. De ahí que prefiera dejar su compromiso en el suministro de armas a la oposición más prooccidental contra el régimen sirio. Como Bush, pero al revés.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Ukraine: Why Washington Failed To End the Russian Ukrainian War

Palestine: Ceasefire Not Peace: How Netanyahu and AIPAC Outsourced Israel’s War to Trump

Nigeria: The Global Fallout of Trump’s Travel Bans

Austria: Trump, the Bulldozer of NATO

     

Mauritius: The US-Israel-Iran Triangle: from Obliteration to Mediation

Topics

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Canada: Canada’s Retaliatory Tariffs Hurt Canadians

Related Articles

Spain: Spain’s Defense against Trump’s Tariffs

Spain: Shooting Yourself in the Foot

Spain: King Trump: ‘America Is Back’

Spain: Trump Changes Sides

Spain: Narcissists Trump and Musk: 2 Sides of the Same Coin?