November 2003

November 24, 2003

Why Not?

This entry posted by Joel Turnipseed

I have been opposed to the war in/on Iraq since I first heard its stirrings in the Clinton administration. Hell, since I first heard some of the guys I was with in the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf war yell "All the way to Baghdad!" -- even as the bodies were smoking on the highway from Kuwait City to Basra. Still, a part of me has always thought, "But man, wouldn't it be great if we DID liberate Iraq; if we did bring it back to its famous former wealth and tolerance?"

As the insurgency grows, and the casualties mount, that question is getting harder and harder to ignore. Yeah, Bush sounds overly simplistic when he flies off to Britain and talks about our long-shared tradition of civil liberties and rule of law (which, for all their erosion, are still strongest right here where we are), but I have to admit that as much as I dislike our Commander in Chief, I was moved when he asked this week, "And why not these for the Iraqi people?"

Two great pieces have caught my eye on this question. The first is Mark Follman's Salon.com interview with Amnesty International director William Schulz. Schulz warns that the left needs to rethink just how unencroachable civil liberties must be in the age of advanced technology and sophisticated, state-free terrorist organizations: imagine, if you will, how few your liberties would be after a decade's succession of 9/11s? Remember, in the decade previous to 9/11, we had a first WTC bombing and an Oklahoma City bombing, marking 9/11 as a change in degree, not kind, of a long succession.

As for breeding grounds of terror -- those who wish we would just get the hell out of Iraq should read George Packer's 28-page monster in this week's New Yorker, accompanied by incredible photographs by Gilles Peress. Sadly, it is not available online, but the New Yorker has put together a superb slide-show of Peress' photos with an accompanying voice-account by Packer. If you don't subscribe to the print edition, run out to a newstand today: this is the best article written on postwar Iraq. It will allow you to spend a lot of time gloating over what wishful-thinkers and strategic fuck-ups Wolfowitz and Cheney and Rumsfeld are, while at the same time forcing you to ask yourself: "And why not for the Iraqi people?"

It's easy enough -- I find myself there all the time -- to hope that we fail in Iraq: our national hubris will be checked, our bullying armies shown up, our gloating administration choking down their arrogance. But it should be possible to argue that the Bush Administration was grossly mistaken in its rhetoric and its actions while at the same time agreeing with its better aims for Iraq: because if Iraq fails, terrorists (and they're not just Neo-Con bogeymen) will have yet another broken state within which they can operate, and we will have betrayed both the Iraqi people and our own future liberties.

November 10, 2003

Is This What "Liberation" Looks Like?

As we know, the U.S. military has responded to the latest downing of one of its helicopters by sweeping through Tikrit and blasting abandoned buildings suspected of being used by insurgents as hideouts, and menacing that, "This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them."

More generally, "We are on offensive operations. You can expect to see an increase in the level of intensity and the amount of activity that is occurring, especially in those 'challenging' areas."

Some notes on these latest developments.

• Though eyewitnesses reported seeing the helicopter having been fired upon, the U.S. didn't confirm until 24 hours after the event that it had indeed been shot down. Yet, the "retaliation" began before dawn Saturday -- in other words, well before confirmation that it hadn't been an accident. Granted, the initial evasiveness was surely just a PR maneouvre. But if we take the military at its own word, it launched its "retaliation" before even knowing what it was "retaliating" against.

• As this blogger has noted before now, it is entirely within the rights of those under foreign occupation to engage in resistance. General Assembly Resolution 37/43, passed in December of 1982, "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."

To put it in terms the Bush Administration seems to understand: the "coalition" forces are the "bad guys". The resistance may or may not be at least partially comprised of "bad" guys as well, but these bad guys at least have the right to defend their own country.

• The "retaliation" destroyed suspected hideouts. Is this how military "justice" works -- by acting upon suspicions? Yeah, that was a rhetorical question (just ask the victims -- numbering into the tens of thousands, by some accounts -- of Bill Clinton's 1998 destruction of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory).

• Why, if the U.S. truly suspected these abandoned buildings (and if they really were abandoned) of being insurgent hideouts, did it wait until after the downing of the helicopter to take them out? The "retaliation" may play well on the teevee, but that's clearly what it's designed for: to reassure the viewing public that the "coalition" knows what the fuck it's doing, even while it's perfectly obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue.

• In justifying the newest rampages, one anonymous U.S. official helpfully reminds us that, "Part of warfare is coercion and affecting the hearts and minds of the enemy and certainly a show of force is a tool that can be used by commander." So we're no longer trying to win hearts and minds, but rather to "affect" them? And we're still at war? And freedom is slavery? Got it.

November 05, 2003

We Have A Winner For The Big First Prize

A few months ago, this blogger surmised that the Bush Administration's harebrained scheme to run a "futures" market for geopolitical events might have seen speculators putting down some serious cash on Dubya reinstating the draft.

Holders of draft futures would today be giddily licking their lips: "The Selective Service System wants to hear from men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board."

How low can The Superbrain's popularity go? Hang on to your hats, boys 'n' girls: we're about to find out.

Can you say "giant sucking sound"? I knew you could!

November 02, 2003

It Was Twenty Years Ago Today

The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity that's available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become. -- George W. Bush, October 27, 2003

To answer those who ask if we're serving any purpose in being there, let me answer a question with a question. Would the terrorists have launched their suicide attacks against the multinational force if it were not doing its job? The multinational force was attacked precisely because it is doing the job it was sent to do in Beirut. It is accomplishing its mission. -- Ronald W. Reagan, October 27, 1983

Plus ça change...