Tears from a Fool: Notes on the President and the Iraq War
May 10, 2003
R L Norman Jr
Jmkeynes@Secularstagnation.Com
'You cannot beat something with nothing.'
Bogdan Denitch, Democratic Socialists of America
The United States opposes the emergence in Iraq of an Iranian-style theocracy
influenced by Tehran, with which Washington has strained relations. The Shiite
sect of Islam, a minority in the Islamic world, is in the majority in both Iraq
and Iran and had been suppressed by Saddam.
'New U.S. administrator arrives in Iraq, world leaders call for UN role'
Ted Anthony, Canadian Press, May 12, 2003
Beirut, Lebanon; Sprinkled with rose petals and rice, President Mohammad Khatami
of Iran arrived here today to a glowing embrace from the Lebanese government
and tens of thousands of chanting and cheering Lebanese Shiites. His visit was
the first by an Iranian president since the 1979 Islamic revolution. It represents
a major diplomatic reaction in Islam to the United States military action in
Iraq.
'Iranian Leader Visits Beirut in Display of Shiite Solidarity',
By Daniel J. Wakin, The New York Times, May 12, 2003
______________________________________________________________________
A Gallipoli-level disaster in the Iraq war has been avoided, although over 130 American deaths have resulted thus far. Still, there is no likely political replacement in Iraq for the admittedly poor version of modernization represented by Saddam's Baathist Party and it may be a matter of time before the United States leaves and permits the rise of a pro-Iranian Shiite government in Iraq. The only remaining alternative is for the Pentagon's man, Ahmed Chalabi, to make a deal with the still strong Baathist Party and try to have Baathism without Saddam. The recent 'dissolution' of the Baath Party by the United States is little more than a joke.
In newspapers during the war, tearful couples were often seen receiving flags from young American soldiers. These people had placed the continued good health of their children in the hands of a fool, the current president of the United States and their payments have been to receive a folded flag. It hardly seems a fair trade. And if those tearful people could be asked for the reason that their sons and daughters had paid the final price, I doubt that very many could give a reasonable answer or at least a reason, which would correspond roughly with the current facts on the ground in Iraq. More importantly, the man who sent their children to Iraq and hence to early graves, President of the United States George W. Bush; probably could not give a good answer either. The supposed reasons for the war have varied over the last two years.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
The main reason which Bush and his associates had touted for several months just prior to the war, was Saddam's supposed possession of large amounts of the dreaded - WMD or 'weapons of mass destruction'. There should be little question that Saddam has had such weapons in the past, since these weapons may well have originated from the United States itself in the 1980s. In the 1980s war to contain Iran's Islamic fundamentalism, the United States viewed Saddam as the lesser of the evils and this may have been the source of at least some of the WMD formulas. Since the United States Cold War on the Soviet Union succeeded in the late 1980s, another source of WMD materials opened up as well. So Saddam could have easily possessed such weapons at various times.
Still, thus far very few barrels of the WMD have been located and while the search has just begun; there is a fair possibility that Saddam never had the quantities of WMD in 2002 as claimed by the President. Bush just claimed that it was so, for convenience's sake, but he really did not know for sure either way and nor did he care. The 'truth' for President Bush seems to be whatever needs to be said at any given moment. This tendency to prevaricate has been noticed by much of the rest of the world and Bush at this point has very low personal credibility abroad.
Weapons of Tax Destruction (WTD)
This is just like the beginning of his administration, when Bush wanted to give the top one percent of the rich a very large tax cut. His reasons for giving the rich a tax cut have shifted with the changes in the tides, but Bush's desire to give the rich a trillion dollar tax cut has remained constant. Bush himself knows very little economics or practical business and came by his money largely from his father's connections. He obtained his job as governor of Texas the same way and the very rich Texans who got him his year 2000 presidential nomination; seem to still be looking for a good return on that investment. What these rich people probably did not count on, was that the Middle East upon which so much of American energy derives, would send over a batch of suicide bombers and that George Bush would have to try to formulate a political and military response. The Iraq War is what happens when a rookie is sent in to become president of the world's greatest power.
Evil Dictators of the World Unite ?
The last month, the Bush 'message of the day' on Iraq seems to have been what an evil dictator Saddam was and how cruel he had been to his own people. He had been an evil dictator and he had treated his own people and others cruelly; but he been an evil, cruel dictator when the United States had sent him billions of dollars in the 1980s war with Iran. And Saddam had been just as evil during a 1980s meeting with current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And there are easily another fifty or so dictators around the world, who have been cruel to their people, sometimes with the consent of the United States, or at least with a 'blind eye'.
A number of these dictators are in our own American hemisphere, but if the United States gets into the habit of sending the Army after every cruel dictator, there will be a lot more tearful couples receiving American flags. At some point, either the not-yet-tearful couples may rebel against the unnecessary war-mongering by this president and begin sending messages to their congressional representatives; or some of the untearful couples will begin to again meet in the streets of this still partially democratic nation, as in the late 1960s and begin sending this president the kind of message which he may understand better- hundreds of thousands of people screaming for him to retire to Texas or wherever and to retrieve their sons and now daughters from those God-forsaken lands where he has sent them.
This is what happens when a rookie tries to do a professional's job. In the ongoing international political balance between intervention and 'watchful waiting' in problem areas, Bush has simply fallen apart. Bush could undo fifty years of admittedly poor American foreign policy and compel a new worse era of isolationism, which neither the United States nor the world can afford at this time.
Peace, Democracy and the New Islamic Emirate of Iraq in 2004
The 'peace' may or may not continue well for the American Army, but the political foundation for the actual war was not made by Bush and in the absence of a good political foundation, war is often for nothing. Those who doubt this, should simply ask themselves which group is mostly likely to obtain a victory in a 'free' Iraqi election, if one is ever held. Currently the odds-on favorite would be the Shiite Islamic parties supported by Iran's fundamentalist mullahs and by the Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon. And extending Iran's reach all the war across the Arabian Peninsula may become the legacy of this war, not the establishment of a new Switzerland in the Middle East.
Peace, Democracy and an Honest Election in the United States in 2004
War is the extension of politics and diplomacy according to von Clauswitz, not a substitution for them. At his time, Mr. Bush has no political solution for the collapse of Saddam and the Baath party and America's political position in Iraq is now very risky. With the global economy drifting into deflation and the entire Middle East situation up for grabs, this nation's only hope is that we can survive until the year 2004 election and that a reasonable Democrat may obtain the nomination or that a primary battle in the Republican Party may send in a fresh face or at least a different one.