State Of the Union

On the evening of January 31st, George W. Bush delivered his annual state of the Union Address - basically, his report to the US on what has happened in the US over the last year, because Congress and the rest of the US's population is far too busy doing other things to err, see what's been going on in their own country. In reality, the State of the Union is the President putting his own spin on event past and setting out what he wants doing in the future.

Bush's Presidency has been flagging somewhat recently - as a result of political scandals at home and the small matter of Iraq abroad. The State of the Union address was Bush's chance to try and make the last year of his Presidency a positive one, and perhaps try and leave a legacy that isn't a world destabilised by war - and in dire environment striates. Recent reports by many eminent scientists suggest that the world is nearing, or has already passed, the point of no return when it comes to global warming. This means that Bush can no longer ignore the alarm bells over the environment. With Tony Blair under attack in Prime Ministers Question Time today for not going far enough with the UK's efforts to help tackle this growing problem, and Al Gore producing a film highlighting the dangers facing America if they continue to burn resources like no tomorrow, it comes as something of a relief to see Bush finally facing up to the fact if he doesn't act there many very well be just that - no tomorrow. The presidents promise to develop new technology might just become a reality - when you consider it, it is in the interest of Bush to find an alternative to oil not just for the good of the environment, but for the good of his own pocket. A source of fuel that doesn't come from the conflict regions of the middle east, Nigeria etc. would not only ensure power security for the West, but also make it's inventor one rich man. Big business has got us into the position we are in now - perhaps it can pull us out again.

Unfortunately, the environment was somewhat drowned out by the key focus of Bush's State of the Union - war. According to Bush, the US is fighting two wars now - the war on terror and the war on Iraq. However, it is hard to see how the two are really separated - what is the difference between counter terrorism and counter insurgency (or for that matter, a terrorist and an insurgent)? Again, Bush is standing strong against the forces of evil in the world - at home and abroad. The question is can the USA take the pressure? Today, the US government announced it is making plans to fight a new kind of war. In the past, US strategy had been to be able to fight two large-scale wars at once. Now, the plan is that they will be able to fight one of these wars, as well as a more long-term conflict - a war on terror. How long could such a conflict go on for? As long as the Cold War at least, according to one spokesman. Such a "war" (if it can really be called one) does seem very close to the idea of America acting as an international police force. This seems a very negative, and very scary prospect at first - but wouldn't a far more scary one be where the US simply pulls out of all international action - and leaves the world to fend for itself? Perhaps we need America to step up its international presence, to give aid workers and other people the security to go in and fix the damage the USA has done.

However, if the USA really is going to prepare itself for such a "war", then it first needs to radically alter its attitude concerning war. In the modern world, where positive media coverage of a war effort is almost more valuable than the guns, bombs, planes etc. being used, the public in the USA (and in it's allies in any long term conflict) need to realise that in a war there will be casualties. Bush may have taken a step in the right direction by bracing the US for casualties, and presenting American with the reality they will have to "tough it out" - but if the West really does want to win the hearts and minds of those people are fighting - not just in Iraq, but in all other modern conflicts, then we are going to have to start putting more soldiers on the ground, more effort into protecting civilians - rather than relying on hugely powerful air strikes to wipe out the enemy before the ground troops get anywhere near.

So what will the world be like when the next President delivers his (or her) first State of the Union address? Will we be living in a more stable world? A world at war? A world under water? The State of the Union may sound like Bush is setting out what will happen in the coming months, but in reality it is only what he would like to happen - a action plan not a post action report. What we need now is for Bush to stick to his guns in bringing about a change in America's policy towards resources, and in his efforts to really make the USA a safer place. Whether this is indeed the end result, we will just have to wait and see.

For a full transcript and video of Bush's speech, see the link below:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html /2002/01/20020129-11.html

Or if the sight of so much pro-bushism offends you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3415361.stm

God Bless America. God Bless us all.