Saturday, October 31, 2009

Nobel prize for Bush and Obama

Recently former American president, the "famous" George W. Bush was in India. The usually reserved Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, called Bush as "India's Great Friend" [1]. As ironical it may seem, but in reality the image of Bush as a dumb leader has been highly over exaggerated.

There is a thin line between humor and pain. All the skill, of comedians, is used to locate that line and present things in a lighter vein. In today's world, where almost anything can fall in category of racist, sexist, and many more ists, it is hard to find some mascot on which much of Hilarity can be based. Thus the world caught on the image of George W. Bush and thrashed it left and right. Today, there is hardly any household where the word Bush means only the thing growing on the ground. Majority of conversations invoke Bush to get a laugh.

In such an atmosphere, it is hard to make an objective evaluation of Bush's decisions and "wisdom." No one can hail him as a great statesman or world leader but the treatment he gets worldwide is also unjustified [2]. I cant help but see the similarity between Bush and Lepidus in Julius Caesar. After Brutus runs away from Rome, the triumvirate, of Antony, Lepidus and Octavius, starts killing the sympathizers of Brutus. For Antony, Lepidus was a donkey which is but used to carry the burden of gold. Lepidus would be used and respected as a donkey which carries gold. Lepidus would be used while he is useful and like a donkey will be put out to pasture (retired) once he is no longer needed (Lines 17- 27)[3] .

No good justification can be given for the decision to invade Iraq. But the criticism of this decision spilled over to many other issues. It in a way liberated Bush from the bondage that keeps a well respected person from making any bold moves, which may jeopardize his/her repute. With nothing to loose, Bush took on many elephants in the rooms of White House.

The decision to invade Afganistan and launch a broader war on terror was the first source of his unpopularity in the Arab worlds, which spread fast to the rest of the world and America. Could America have done without the war on terror, with holes exposed in the once impregnable American security? I would say, the answer is no. Though, I do not support the argument that to protect yourself, you need to harm others. But Bush was dealing with the anti american sentiment built up for over half a century of American hegemony in political and economic affairs of the world. It is my belief, that when every policy of a nation is based on the evaluation of its own strength and the weakness of others, it forms a elastic wall around its interests which can only be supported by its milliatry/ economic strength and opposed by the feelings aroused by unfair deals meeted out to the weaker nations. Thus any hole in this wall invites the influx of that hostility. A better example to validate this theory would be Israel, which would not be looked upon kindly by its neighbors if it weakens militarily.

The Bush era hit the rock bottom when it came to popularity of US in the world. Thus the Nobel Obama had a cake walk. No matter what he did, it made him look like a better president than Bush even if he pushes more and more troops in Afganistan, and the civilian causalities in Af-Pak peak. The work of Bush basically enables Obama to play the Nobel role. Yet one is Judas, the other is Jesus.

1 comment:

  1. yea. people take sides. all the time.
    well said. after all, why is jesus _jesus_ ?