What is unfathomable, when looking at Iraq, is that no one in the Bush Administration
took seriously how those states fabricated by empire would disintegrate once the cold
war was over. This was predicted in the old Yugoslavia and we know the results there.
It seems that it could be the same way in Iraq. The irony may be, in the end, that Hussein
was the only figure who could hold "Iraq" together.
Doesn't it mean something to those in the Bush Administration, that the only way a
nation can be held together is by the strong-arm of one man? Doesn't that clue them as
to the entity they are dealing with?
All they had to do was look at this
interactive piece by the Associated Press on the Tribes of Iraq.
And looking at the eyes of the people, they are not
prepared for democracy, they are not prepared for self-rule. We may want them to have it,
to savor it and transform their misbegotten state into something rich and strange. We would if
we could. But, the only way to have a real democracy is by having a secular state where religion is balanced by the independent fact-finding of other institutions.
Therefore, they will have caretakers in the form of a small group of people, war lords,
religious leaders who seem to be itching for a fight. Any constitution they sign will be
worth less than the paper it is written on.
I can't believe that an average American citizen can figure this out but all the ivy
league types running behind the beltway can not. It tells me they, not we the normal Americans, live in a fantasy world of incredible shallowness.
The group that got us involved in this mess need to leave the stage in disgrace.
Thomas Friedman had a pretty good assessment in the NY Times today. Politics won
out over a lot of soul-searching about what to do in Iraq. His criticism was that the Bush
team is more interested in defeating liberal democrats than terrorists.
The reality of war exposes the fatal flaw everytime. It can't be done. Either you have a
good plan, with good leadership or you don't. And if you don't, you're screwed.
What does not change is the threat of terrorism and the nature of this being a war.
We have to continually assess the nature of this war and the nature of the threat. And,
personally, I don't trust the group in power who run up different colored flags occasionally
to alert me that I should, do what? Spy on my neighbor? Jump out of my skin when I see a
middle-eastern type coming my way?
And despite all the false intelligence when I read that Al-Queda has 18,000 operatives
around the world ready to pounce on some order by Bin-Laden I tend to believe it. And
18,000 madmen with weapons of mass destruction could hurt this Earth in a bad way. So, the
threat is still the problem. But, another problem is getting the leadership necessary to solve the dilemma. And Bush,
as was stated from the very beginning, alienated world leadership and so others have balked
in what is assuredly their best interest and duty.
President Bush showed some leadership in the aftermath of the attacks. But, ever since
that time he has hidden away, has not engaged himself, is a weak president and not fit for
troubles that lay ahead.
When you are in a war, declare that it is a war, the judgment should be that cruel and unforgiving.
May God bless America.
Posted May 13, 2004
I invite comments on this column. Use
the convenient form below and thanks!
Back to War on Terrorism
Previous impressions on the war on Terrorism:
"Most reasonable accounts and analysis see Iraq, now, as a slogging, painful,
impossible sort of conflict in which the U.S. can't possibly win."
"If you are a poet, a madman even, certainly a thinking person, the last place
you want to be is in the backwaters of history."
"We are patriots and for the good that America can produce..."
"We are neither fear-mongers or prophets..."
"Dissent is one thing that keeps free people honest..."
"The first question to ask is, "Is it worth the killing?"
"The core issue still remains this: How real is the threat of terrorism?"
"Can a good citizen agonize over the policy but love the country and still believe in its future?"
"President Bush's credibility wanes for some simple, clear-cut reasons..."
"The idea that the U.S. can "rule the world," is an absurd notion..."
"Common intuition says that the U.S. is at a cross-roads, a threshold point..."
"The most fascinating and awful thing to confront is this..."
"Our fears did not start in September of 2001..."
"In foreign affairs, the citizen is sucked into the final drop of calculation the
state is capable of..."
"The loyal opposition of the Democrats may have disintegrated in Iraq..."
"Listening to the good, heart-felt discussion about diversity and affirmative action..."
"We have two perspectives..."
Go to War in Iraq
Back to Events
Trent Lott Affair
the Democrats are in Trouble
The Uncertain Decade
Back to Media Resource page
March 27, 2003