Home > Getting Real About Iraq
Wars and conflicts International USA
The saintly Republican idea about Iraq was to depose a horrendous Nazi-like dictator with whom we were already at war over the "no fly zones," the "oil for food" program, nuclear inspections, and the inconclusive end to the previous war. It seemed perfectly obvious given that we were already at war and that we had just failed to preemptively strike Afghanistan (which appeared to be 1000 times less threatening than Iraq) on 9/10 or earlier. This is a simple point but nevertheless beyond the intellectual grasp of Democrats who continue to hallucinate that Iraq was somehow not directly connected to 9/11.
Moreover, not only would striking Iraq remove Saddam’s Nazi-like regime and the huge threat its very existence implied in a post 9/11 world, it would also, hopefully, pave the way for democracy which might then spread throughout the Middle East and the world and thus fulfill our moral duty to the world’s citizens as well as make us and the world safe from another 9/11 type of attack. It was a bold plan to use our position as the world’s moral and military superpower to spread freedom, limit gov’t, and prevent war.
The Democrats had no plan except to flip flop around like spineless jellyfish. John Kerry, the Democrat standard bearer, at first wanted to treat terrorism as a matter merely in need of policing, then, to further clarify after the second two hour debate said, "who’s talking about quitting, we’re talking about winning," and now he’s against the war as he was against Vietnam and as he will be against the next war, no matter who it is against. This leaves the Democrats with an on going problem because 1) they lack the intellect to understand freedom and therefore see the promotion of it anywhere as recrudescent imperialism at best and 2) as the opposition Party they are in a position where they feel compelled to oppose the majority Republicans, rightly or wrongly. In this case it is highly awkward at best since the Republicans are dutifully fighting terrorists who have been authorized to and are in the process of trying to kill 10 million of us while the silly Democrats are opposing and in fact doing more to help the terrorists than the Republicans.
When Bush said "mission accomplished" and it did seem that democracy was immediately spreading to Palestine, Libya, Egypt, and Lebanon. The Democrats were stone cold silent having stood foursquarely in the way of freedom once again. But, once the war started going badly, as wars can, they became instant Bush haters who instantly claimed perfect hindsight. By now most have actually convinced themselves that they knew it all along. They feel no sense of hypocrisy as they proudly exploit the situation for political gain despite having no agenda if they should succeed in achieving political gain.
But still, the war in Iraq has gone badly; primarily because Bush never had a plan to pacify the minority Sunnis who had brutally dominated the less pugnacious Shiite majority. So, rather than give up power to the majority Shiites and become second class citizens or worse, the sweet Sunni Muslims did what they had always done to dominate the majority: they started killing them in brutal fashion. The key mistake was for Bush to de-Bathify the country thus disenfranchising key Sunnis permanently to then become insurgents, almost by default, rather than employing them gainfully as stakeholders in the new country.
But, even if this critical mistake, and others, had not been made, under the Bush plan the majority Shea were to democratically dominate the country anyway. This probably implied eternal war, but more importantly, it did not even imply democracy since the Muslim Shiites insanely hate our Judeo Christian democratic guts, despite our extreme largesse in freeing them. In fact, they are closely allied with Iran who just went to war against us in Lebanon through their proxy: Hizzbollah.
So, for the moment we are Sisyphusianly policing an absurd civil war in which all sides want to kill and behead us as badly as the want to kill and behead each other. It seemingly has no end and seemingly cannot be managed in any realistic or organized fashion, and, even if it did end, it is hard to imagine how, let alone how it would end in a way favorable to us. So what the hell are we doing there?
Firstly, Republicans are staying the course to pretend it was the right course in the first place; secondly, we are remaining loyal to all those Iraqi citizens who would be killed for working with us if we left and who believed our promises that we would be there always despite the cowardly Democrats at home; thirdly, we are praying that a democracy will somehow take hold; fourthly, we are proving to the entire world that we are the imperialists Bin Laden said we were; fifthly, we are creating jihadists by the ton as they see and hear each day headline images of us killing Muslims; sixthly, we are wasting billions that could be spent to improve homeland security and to create small agencies that could compete with the CIA and FBI to disrupt and kill terrorists, seventhly, we are making it impossible to appear as honest brokers in the Palestinian dispute which was, ultimately, at the heart of the 9/11 attacks, eighthly, we are sacrificing the lives of American soldiers, and lastly, we are insanely pretending that without having Muslim fanatics sincerely pledge allegiance to a Jeffersonian Constitution that democracy in the Middle East can have some value beyond mere mob rule.
Why didn’t someone tell Bush that we really don’t want Muslim fanatic democracy in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, or Iraq? What we want is allegiance to a Jeffersonian Constitution with a fig leaf of democracy like we have here in the United States. Tragically, we don’t and can’t promote that anywhere in the world because the Democrats are against Jeffersonian freedom. Instead, Republicans compromise with Democrats to come up with the one thing they can agree on: Democracy. Unfortunately, Jeffersonian, Republican, constitutional democracy has nothing in common with Muslim fanatic democracy. We are pretending that the Germans didn’t vote Hitler into power and that the Muslims wouldn’t vote Osama Bin Laden into power. It is insanity but it what we are reduced to because of the Democrats. Wouldn’t it be an incredible tragedy if in the course of fighting Osama we were paving his way to power?
Sadly, the best thing now is for time to pass quickly in order that the Bush Administration come to a merciful end. But when it does what will happen? McCain wants to win the war with more troops and Hillary wants to win the war with better management. Political expediency makes neither seem based in reality. One suspects though that the war can only end much like Vietnam: "so called" peace with honor for us and then war and victory for the Iraqi Shiites and Iran.
The fear is that this will lead to a hostile takeover of Saudi oil but that is doubtful given the military defensibility of the country, which has already began in the form of a $8 billion fence, and its oil fields. But a little real pain at the pump (from some real Mid East instability) and throughout the economy would at long last silence the cowardly Democrats so that Republicans could take care of business any way necessary. But, most importantly, for the moment the consequences on oil prices from retreating in Iraq are unknown, while the current grievous losses we are suffering by staying are not.
So who do we need: a candidate who wants to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians, as Bill Clinton almost was, so as to address the root cause of the protracted conflict, and, someone who is willing to let the Iraqi civil war play out without us, and then try to manage or shape the situation from there. The hope is that the Shiites will see themselves more as Iraqi than Iranian and that Al-Qaeda in Iraq won’t find a permanent home among the Sunni where they seem to be now or among the Shea where they might be in the future. These are just hopes but they are no more or less likely than the hope that the current Al-Maliki gov’t will solidify and take hold as a peaceful democracy. By getting out now we at least spare our troops lives now, and give ourselves time to prepare for and plan tomorrow’s war in the hope it won’t be worse than today’s war.
The next President will be thankfully free of Bush’s face saving need to stay the course, but he also must have the courage for the war that is likely to result from the failure to prosecute this was successfully. One cannot imagine a feckless modern Democrat with the courage to be entrusted with national security during a time of perpetual war, despite the very obvious Republican tactical failures in this war. Under Clinton, (according to Kaplan in Slate) "the training in the military and the motivation were as bad as the post-Vietnam Carter years. The level of invective and outright disrespect for Clinton in the military was astounding. From General Officer to Private, respect for the office of the President was the only thing that kept many from voicing their true feelings about the man. In private, such restraint was less common, and talk around the water fountain was filled with utter contempt for Clinton. With President Bush, the respect and admiration has steadily increased following the collective sigh of relief that occurred when Clinton finally left office."
Having the man’s wife, an unrepentant 1960’s hippie flower child from Smith College and Yale Law School (now masquerading on the Senate Arms Services Committee) as President during wartime is unthinkable and absurd. Hillary should be promoting her socialist childcare and health care schemes and Bill should be sharing his hugely authentic feelings with the world as our good will ambassador, but neither should be in the Whitehouse at a serious time like this. But that still leaves the question of who should be President after Bush? It seems a Republican with the courage to let our enemies and allies know that the end is near, is needed.
Ted Baiamonte
Author of "The Dumb Democrat" blog at
http://thedumbdemocrat.blogspot.com/
Forum posts
20 September 2006, 23:28
So how is removing Saddam’s "Nazi-like regime" and replacing it with Bush’s "Nazi-like regime" supposed to improve the lives of Iraqi’s??? Let’s face it, the whole intent of the Neo-Cons and BUSH"’s War has nothing to do with any love of "democracy", the U.S. empire will and has historically replaced democracies with dictatorships whenever it suited economic opportunities for it’s monied interests. How are rigged elections, killing your own people, state/corporate run media, free speech zones, armies of Robo-cops, the largest prison population in the world,, torture, secret trials with secret evidence, persecuting political disenters, etc.etc. supposed to be viewed as "freedom". How is that different than Saddam’s rule. Like Putin said if Thats ’democracy" we want no part of it.
21 September 2006, 08:55
Well, the writer has aptly named his blogsite, that’s for sure. Too bad America’s politicians aren’t as blatantly honest.
The one beautiful thing about this, what would you call it, wildly misinformed speculation (?), is that it gives us a fairly comprehensive look at just how badly informed Americans are about the sad saga now being called "the War on Terror." No wonder the polls keep reflecting mass confusion. I continue here only with the faintest hope of providing the writer a small degree of remedial information.
First, the leap of logic that ties radical Islam to Hussein’s brand of Nazism - yes it’s true, he idolized and emulated Hitler and Stalin - discredits most of what follows such an assertion, unless of course you’re simply insisting something obvious like the sun’s hot. It falls under the category of Gross Demonization - an exercise that allows ambitious Neocons to pursue their bloodiest fantasies in attempting to right the world’s wrongs.
The logic’s based somewhat on religious condemnation, albeit performed on a secular basis. See: the native Americans are pagans, let’s burn their homes; African Americans are subhuman, let’s lynch them; the Irish are stupid Micks, let’s keep them in the mines. And thus, Hussein is a Nazi, let’s kill him. With such simplistic logic why is there a need for real understanding? It could only get in the way.
If a list of the world’s brutal dictators of the past 50 years were assembled here, the writer, no doubt, would either be shocked by or in complete denial of how many of them were propped up by America over the years. Yes, America has been no stranger to perpetuating the fate of Nazi-like leaders, including Hussein who was amply equipped with American made chemical weapons. So if you’re going to choose to unseat Hussein, why not be consistent and work methodically down the list. Why stop there? Maybe because you don’t have the budget for such an ambitious enterprise? Maybe because it would be stupid even if you did?
You have to love the armchair enthusiasts - the chicken hawks as they’re commonly called - who are quick to point to all the post 9/11 "dangers," like Hussein, that necessarily required armed conflict. Where in Hussein’s record is there evidence of a viable threat to a major power? He bungled the Iranian war so badly on many occasions, that it would be safe to say he had virtually no military expertise. Yes, he did kill Kurds and Shiites, and the troops protecting him were fierce, but outside of those circumstances, he was, strategically speaking, a nincompoop.
Annexing Kuwait was hardly a demonstration of any real geopolitical threat. And who knows, if you’re not a Kuwaiti, the added resources could’ve provided the world with a Iraqi fascist bulwark against radical Islam, a group that had frequently voiced their disapproval of Hussein’s secular ways. One set of bad guys putting another set in check.
Now, unfortunately, much, if not most, of the Islamic world is sympathetic with at least some of radical Islam. That’s a direct result of "making the world safer" by getting rid of Hussein. If that’s the kind of "safe" the writer had in mind, most of us would take our chances with the good old "dangers" of keeping Hussein in power.
He did, of course, threaten Israel, but the rhetoric gave him street cred so he used it to bolster his image more than for making a tangible threat. After Hussein was attacked in ’91, the world saw that his feeble Scud launches were far more bark than bite. And, for the sake of argument, let’s say Hussein was seething with hatred of America and would’ve helped fuel terrorism, which made him a danger. Was the only choice to remove him? How about making a deal? How about selling him a few gizmos or stocking his cabinets with fine Cuban cigars or, perhaps, outfitting his palaces with new Dell systems? These were the ways that kept many a banana republic in business throughout much of the 20th century, promoting dictators who detested the U.S.
And the bit about de-Baathification is laughable. Yes, in retropsect, sustaining a Baathist leadership would’ve in all likelihood minimized the sectarian violence, subordinated the Shia fundamentalism, and provided a smoother transition. But who were the candidates next in line? Hussein’s sons. And they probably would’ve been worse than the father. The way to go, if you ask an old CIA operative, was a well planned coup. It was the one regime change that, through time, America has perfromed quite well, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. And there were bountiful factions, even within the Baathist party, who might’ve entertained such a play.
But all this was far too sophisticated for a party and its Neocons to work out behind the scenes. Not enough drama, fear, hysteria - you know the kind of mindset that gets people voting right, or should I say wrong, instead of left.
Were the Democrats better prepared? Contrary to the writer’s view, they were, not because they had elaborate PNAC-like plans on how to transfrom the world, but because they had no plans. They didn’t have the Neocons sitting in the back office barking out misguided strategies. That’s not to say Kerry wouldn’t have gone to war. But if he had it couldn’t possibly have been as much of a disaster as this one’s been. And if you’re comparing the Republican transgressions to the Democrat’s omission, you’re really looking at apples and oranges.
Sadly, the Democrats ain’t a helluva lot better, especially since they backed the war, but they certainly aren’t as bad. And in ’06, if you’re actually enthused enough to hit the polls, there’s no choice. Voting to support this Adminsitration any longer just isn’t ridiculously stupid, it’s immoral. To those who do, look down at your hands. There’s blood on them.
28 September 2006, 16:14
Interesting and weighty comments by Mr Didier. To the author of the article, one can say humorously, any curse might help, against this war criminal regime, which is oozing from illegality and immorality, ever since they were selected and indeed much earlier, when they cooked up their devilish plans at PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute and other elite financed ’think tanks’.
Although anywhere one look presently, may causes desperation, it’s good to keep in mind, that there are abundance of evidence, that the Empire is not sustainable. Indeed, it is in an accelerated self-destructive path, at the end of, where the Leviathan will demise. So in my mind, the question is not, if the American electorate will continue forever, to support this criminal follie, but rather, will they have the courage and foresight to depose those, who usurping power and will place America into the International System, where it will become a peaceful player, or history will do it for them, by exhausting and destroying the States? (With the World together, or without by chance).
Tom