Non Sequitur

So...according to George Bush, the fact that he was re-elected last November means that there is no need to hold people accountable for their actions in Iraq.

There's a non-sequitur here. Bush can freely look upon his recent election victory as an endorsement of his actions. Frankly, I wouldn't blame him for doing so.

However, there's a few things that need to be questioned in any sane assessment of Bush's "policy" on Iraq.

1. Where are the WMDs? Bush and his cohorts claimed rather stridently that Saddam Hussein had all kinds of nasty weapons in reserve. Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations in February 2003 perpetuated that myth. Earlier this month, the US stopped searching for those weapons in Iraq.

Applying a little bit of 'Occam's Razor' to this, there's a limited number of possible explanations:

1. There never were any WMDs in Iraq
2. The search was conducted incompetently
3. Bush, Powell and others knowing lied to the American public, and the world at large.

The simplest explanation is #3. Tell a lie, and repeat it - sooner or later it becomes "truth".

2. Where is the command accountability for what happened at Abu Ghraib? We are seeing lots of highly publicized trials of the low level troops involved, but nobody has made any public attempt to pursue the command issues that are at the root of the problem.

So, while Charles Graner, and others, serve their sentences in military prisons, the interactions between the military, the intelligence people and other players in the Abu Ghraib scandal remain unquestioned and unchallenged.

It is hard to imagine any military command structure allowing events like Abu Ghraib to happen without (at least) tacit approval of the officers in charge.

Yes, in war, ugly things happen. I cannot imagine anyone who would call the Abu Ghraib events "acceptable" behaviour on the part of any military. (I believe the United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and has not (yet) renounced them)

3. What ever happened to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? The United States continues to detain several hundred people at the Guantanamo Bay facility with no access to due process. Whatever intelligence value these people had is long past relevant, and the US continues to hold them without charge and access to legal counsel and trial.

4. For all of the troops currently occupying Iraq, why is it that the US seems unable to begin to stabilize that country? (I think the reasons for this are obvious - the question is somewhat rhetorical) The recent attack on Fallujah to "root out" the militants had exactly the expected effect - none. All that attack did was create more recruits for those that oppose the American presence in Iraq.

Mr. Bush - you say there is no reason to hold people accountable for your Iraq policy? I think history will judge differently. Under your watch, people have died needlessly; lies have been used to justify an invasion of a foreign land; prisoners of war are being held outside of the established conventions - for a country that purports to be the "leader of the free world", that's a pretty sad indictment.