Commonly one would think that strategies in world leadership could be loosely based on the moves of a chess board. Chess requires concentration, forward thinking, and alternative move planning and keeping a cool head. Was that the Bush-Cheney game? You would have to liken their game more to the wiles of poker players than to the intelligence of chess players. Strategies of world leadership require a keen sense of what is in the minds of other leaders as well as of history. Basing a nation’s welfare on the principles of games is highly irresponsible.
What Did History Teach Us And Why Did We Not Listen?
History has taught us many times over about wars that can’t be won. Russia has suffered great losses in the Middle East when they tried to conquer Afghanistan. Nine years of conflict brought Russia nearly to its financial knees not to mention the lives that were lost. Viet-Nam was another great teacher of places that cannot be won by our present war strategies. That is what history should have taught us. That is a strategy that would have been better played out on a chess board.
Playing poker does require a certain amount of concentration. It also requires knowledge, experience, perhaps even conservatism if playing with someone else’s money. On the other hand, if not playing with one’s own money, other people’s money can be used to feed the interests that fuel the companies involved in the outcome of the game. It can be quite simple really, even if not to everyone’s advantage.
The Bush-Cheney Poker Game — Who Would Be Sitting At That Table?
Well, Bush and Cheney, of course. Some oil people from Saudi Arabia perhaps. Companies involved in the production of all types of war material would be there. Companies supplying the alimentary welfare of our troops would have a seat. Finance personnel from our own government, and those who report the proceedings of the game to the people. This is quite a diverse group of people. What’s more astounding is that they all seemed to have emerged winners. Which begs the question: Who are the losers?
It should not really be surprising that political poker is the game played during the Bush-Cheney administration; after all, Texas is the Bush state. The game may have been carried over to the Oval Office for sentimental reasons. Perhaps the cards had already been there. Ranking the powers that be, we would probably have a full house: Three cards of the same suit plus two of another same suit. In other words, we may have had three aces or perhaps three kings and two jokers or two queens.
How Does The Game Continue?
Now that everything has changed, from the game players to the occupants of the Oval Office, the game of poker may have been put to rest. History and time will tell which game predominated decision making and what the outcome will be in the end. Some may wish that poker would remain in the realm of the gamblers and stay out of politician’s hands.