On Monday, Feb. 24, as I read the Washington Post online, I stumbled on an interesting article entitled "Bush faces increasingly poor image overseas." This article reported the growing anti-Bush sentiments around the world, stating at some point that in some parts of the world, Bush is seen as a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. Anti-war protestors often carry effigies of Bush in their demonstrations. The pure unadulterated hatred is quite apparent and somewhat shocking. As much as I dislike Bush, his policies, his ascent to the presidency and his oratory abilities (or lack thereof), I would still not consider him "evil" as others around the world seem to perceive him. But apparently, in some countries, Bush has become the enemy and I think he has only himself to blame for it.
Europe is significantly more liberal than the United States, so as it is, Bush has not had terribly strong support or approval from the Europeans, even before the Iraqi situation escalated to a crisis. The circumstances became clear, however, when Bush presented his case in front of the U.N.; the response was far from favorable, as was to be expected from a pacifist Europe. But what I had not expected was that this opposition would not be limited to Bush's policies, but would touch his character, his intentions and his values.
It's kind of ironic, if you think about it. This is the man who ran for president with the ideals of "compassionate conservatism," the man who is arguably one of the most publicly religious presidents of this country, the man who is unafraid to talk about character and values and morals and faith. This is also the man who has eclipsed a known dictator, human rights violator and tyrant as one of the most despised men in the world at this moment. How was such a feat accomplished?
The truth is that a vast majority of the world is against this war. Now you can argue that this is due to a multitude of short-sighted, selfish reasons and so it might be, but the fact remains that it is not a popular war. As much as Bush tries to equate this situation to stopping the next Hitler, world opinion is just not behind him. And neither is a majority of domestic opinion, either. It's a difference of opinion on whether or not Saddam Hussein is a credible threat and there doesn't seem to be any room for any sort of agreement or compromise. And it doesn't help that Bush's personality is so much of an irritant that people almost forget that they disagree with his policies and focus, instead, on how much they hate him.
I think the major problem is Bush's unyielding attitude and his often religious-themed rhetoric, which tends to irk a lot of people. He has managed to present himself as a war hawk, a somewhat callous individual who is more of a recalcitrant child than a world leader. A war on Iraq has almost become identified as Bush's personal agenda, perhaps an attempt to finish what his father started, or maybe just a ploy to get oil. No one seems to believe Bush's claims that Hussein might be a valid threat -- they are all too eager to assign the worst possible motives to him. He has very little credibility when he claims that war is the last possible alternative because for many months now,g it has seemed like the only alternative on his mind.
It is interesting how the global anti-war sentiments have evolved into pervasive anti-Bush sentiments. Why should it matter? It matters because we don't live in isolation -- we live in a shrinking global community and we cannot afford to antagonize rest of the world. Even Bush's most trusted ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, acknowledged the importance of having a dialogue with the one million people who recently demonstrated in an anti-war rally in London. By contrast, Bush's response to the global protests (including ones in New York and Washington) is that he "respectfully disagrees." This stubborn view is equated to a sort of American arrogance that makes it acceptable for the United States to unilaterally disturb world peace, an arrogance that the world both fears and is probably not willing to tolerate.
I'm sure Bush thinks that he is making a courageous choice that will pay off in the long run. I'm sure he thinks that he is avoiding the mistakes of the Neville Chamberlains of the past. But before he goes any further, he should stop and wonder whether he really wants to go down in history as the arrogant American president who chose to go to war instead of exploring more diplomatic methods of solving a crisis? Whether he actually believes that this war will accomplish any of his stated goals? And whether he really wants to be burnt in effigy instead of Saddam Hussein? I don't think Bush is evil, but he has to change something soon or else, I might be one of the few left who still think so.
