Power is his only principle

Someone once asked me, doesn’t it seem odd to have agreements about how to fight wars (like the Geneva conventions, etc).  They pointed out, correctly, that war involves simply a lot of killing, and the idea of killing ‘in an orderly manner, according to the rules’ is ludicrous.

Well, mostly they’re (Technically, for all you English teachers out there, it should read ‘mostly he/she is’, but I’m not changing it.  This issue was addressed in a previous post.) right.  War is a horrible activity that the world could do without.  But having certain rules for war is not hypocritical.  These rules are agreements made by civilized nations to prevent needless excesses.  McArthur was relieved of command when he approached Truman with a plan to hit China with thirty nuclear bombs.  “There is no substitute for victory.”  Modern nations tend to disagree with that statement, since the devastation of a nuclear war is something that no one wants.

Similarly, the Geneva conventions laid out important ground rules for treatment of prisoners and banned the use of chemical weapons.  It is extremely important that prisoners be treated humanely.  Not to convince the other side to treat our prisoners better, but simply because any civilized nation should hold themselves up to some standards.

Bush’s war on terror doesn’t involve standards.  He has repeatedly proven that no rules apply when he charges off to battle (or rather, sends brave men and women off to battle for him).  Thank God Almighty the terrorists don’t have a base large enough to nuke, that’s probably the only thing stopping him.  He has thrown out the Geneva Conventions, moving us backwards.  Of course, his argument centers around the fact that the terrorists aren’t using the Conventions either, and that they aren’t really soldiers anyway, but terrorists.  Not soldiers, eh?  Let’s see… they’ve got guns, training, commanders, tactics, and most importantly, YOU DECLARED WAR ON THEM you idiot!  Maybe it’s just me, but my view is that if you declare war on someone, that makes their fighting force soldiers.

So, Bush, make up your bloody mind.  You can either declare war on them and then use that never-ending, unwinnable war as an excuse to steadily increase executive power or you can call your campaigns ‘special ops’ and torture the terrorists to your hearts content.  But you CANNOT DO BOTH.  And, you ought to do neither.  Why?  Because as commander-in-chief (and I use that term very lightly) you should project to the world the image of a principled country.  If you try to defeat the terrorists by becoming them, you’ve already lost.  Just a little FYI, there for ya, Dubya.

Adios cobarde! (btw Bush, that’s Spanish for “bye, Great Leader)