Now that the war with Iraq is coming to a close, the summer is drawing nearer and college basketball is sadly over, what else does President Bush have to do than attack Syria? The war with Iraq is not yet checked off Bush's \to do"" list, yet officials warned Syria to report all weapons of mass destruction and terrorism if the country wishes to remain at peace. Before the Bush campaign attempts another frontier attack, they should finish the repairs in Iraq and turn their heads to view the economic plunder of this nation.
CNN news quotes Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal as stating that he (and the Bush campaign) ""anticipate that the major combat engagements are over"" in Iraq. Although this is most likely true, the dangerous threat from Hussein and his loyalists has not passed. American intelligence said it is possible that Hussein was killed in a bombing of an Iraqi leader conference but this is the same intelligence that reported Osama bin Laden was probably killed in a cave bomb somewhere in Afghanistan. The coalition should remain weary as to Hussein's existence; I am sure Iraqi officials did not leave Hussein sitting on a chair at the fourth floor window of his palace awaiting a sniper shot to his head. If any country declared an attack on America and had a goal to capture Bush, American officials would keep him hidden in secrecy for years after the war was over-why would the Iraqi regime do any different? Coalition troops have marched into Baghdad square with ease, but before they light their victory cigars, troops should beware of an air raid or bombardment from hidden Iraqi forces.
CBS news took a survey showing 62 percent of respondents feel the Bush campaign is now on the right track; another 57 percent feel the American economy is the next priority. Bush mentions repeatedly that the purpose of the war is to rid Iraq of ""weapons of mass destruction."" When the country invaded Afghanistan the mission was a ""war on terrorism."" Officials need to stop brainstorming reasons for war and pay heed to domestic problems. Syria is currently accused of holding weapons of mass destruction and supporting terrorism and the United States is ready to spread more diplomacy. Before they consider any more assaults, Bush and his good friend British Prime Minister Tony Blair need to clean up the mess they made in Iraq.
Contrary to popular belief, Iraq's oil-and a national war-is not enough to cover the economic price tag. In U.S. history, World War II helped save the economy from depression because women entered the work force, production increased tenfold and stocks rose. Times have changed, and have the possibility of improving the economy due to a war. I feel Bush's reasons for raiding Iraq were not based on suppression of weapons of mass destruction or elimination of terror. Rather, his mission was to control the oil export of Iraq to improve the U.S. economy. Indeed, this is a bold statement, but a logical one nonetheless.
The problem in today's society is that the war costs more than it benefits the economy; production of wartime weapons and equipment was already complete before the war, and deploying troops is not an inexpensive ordeal. There are those who argue the economy will now improve because all the goods used for the war need replacement. This theory will hold true to an extent, but there are now 25 million ""free"" Iraqis and a broken country that needs a mother like the United States to baby it into a stable adulthood.
Many people argue President Bush has already won re-election after running a great campaign against the war on terror and evil. I feel Bush needs to improve the economy before he can get a head start in the election race. The president's father faced a similar economic hurricane and we all know he did not win another term in the office. Of course, the president is not to blame for the poor economic status; however, come election day the ballot will read ""George W. Bush,"" not ""U.S. economy.""