(First, I'd say thanks to Biscuitsjam for starting this thread. A civil debate. Let's hear it for that concept. This thread dropped down the list quite a bit, but when I thought where I could best post an Iraq war rant/polemic, I couldn't think of a better place to put it-- also didn't want to clutter up some of the more recent, more specific threads. Also, I don't expect to somehow revive this thread...and it probably doesn't even qualify as civil debate...mostly I'm just getting this out of my system!)

I'm not entirely sure that this will qualify as a polemic -- that term connotes (to me, anway!) that you know what you are talking about. My meager collections of opinions may not qualify. In the polemic vein, though, I will offer this opinion: Saddam has won. Yes, it is only the 18th of March, and the brigadiers of the 3rd Infantry Division have not yet fired off their flares, but I think Saddam has won. I'll come back to that.

I won't lay claim to being some high-end philosopher. Much of what I have to say is the product of received opinion. Soooo, much of what I have to put in to this post includes links to other, smarter folks and to news bits that I thought were informative.....and boy will it ramble...

The Philosophy Gap

I hardly think that I am the only person who asks "What is GW Bush's obsession with Iraq?" As I try to understand that -- and whether my extremely low opinion of "Shrub" is justified -- I have earnestly tried to understand what makes him/them tick. A while back, I linked to a radio program on this subject and, in deference to folks who can't/won't play Real media, I'll sum up that show like this:

- A Gallup pollster (Frank Newport) says that if you are a white, evangelical Christian you are much more likely to support Bush in general and "the war" in particular.
- A long-time Bush observer (Wayne Slater of the Dallas Morning News) says that, while there is no indication that GW Bush thinks that God (tm) speaks to him in his dreams (saying things like "Invade Iraq, Georgie!"), Bush *does* have some sense that he is on a divine mission -- or that his being in office is part of a divine plan -- so that any decision he makes *must* be the right one (I am oversimplifying and encourage anyone so interested to listen to Slater's explanation...)
- A journalist from the BBC (Nicholas Fraser) says (more or less!) "Holy Crap! If voters in Europe encountered a politician who seemed to be so religiously inspired, they would run 180 degrees in the opposite direction."

The Middle East Gap

From my limited perspective in the U.S., it had seemed that the attitude of Christians (at least fundamentalist Christians) toward Jews was not always very positive. The term "Christ killers" comes to mind. I like to stay as far away from free-floating conspiracy theories as I can, but one remarkable aspect of the past year's debates and discussions about the on-going Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the very surprisingly high degree of support for Israel among evangelical/fundamentalist Christians.

(parenthetically, I will say that I almost felt that this was a place where I had some sympathy for Shrub: When what you have to work with are Arafat and Sharon, why should I be surprised if he turns up his nose and avoids the whole situation for as long as possible?)

*Anyhow*, if I am trying to make sense out of the high degree of support for Israel's excesses coming from American (meaning U.S.) Christians, the only thing that I have been able to latch on to as a tool is a recent novel by Robert Stone called "Damascus Gate". Not sure that this novel qualifies as history, but it seemed to hint at some of the possible cross-connections between various Judeo-Christian apocalyptic strains.

Anyhow, even allowing for Palestinian suicide-bomb atrocities, for reasons that I don't come close to understanding, there seems to be an unprecedented level of support for Israeli Jews -- some higher alignment of interests -- among U.S. Christians (OK, perhaps I wasn't paying attention before) at a time when the Israeli government has swung as far to the right as I can remember and is engaged in as controversial a wave of ultra-reciprocal killing as I can recall (naive 23 year-old leftist, peacenik Washington State student among the recent dead.). Stone's novel laid out this alignment of interests in religious, apocalyptic terms (I may have to read it again). I open the floor here to any Christians (or other folks) to dispel my notions -- explain the recent demonstrations of support for Israel on other grounds.

My sense, though, is that one thing this apparent alignment seems to do (and maybe this should be no surprise) is to increase the antagonism not just to Palestinians but Arabs in general and Muslims in general. So for anyone who wondered or cared where I was going with this, I suppose I can sum up the proposition: Recent increased support for Israel among evangelical Christians also translates into more support for invasion of Iraq.

The Towel-head Gap

I am going to go out on a limb here: In the mind of the American public, I don't think that the life of some poor innocent non-combatant farmer in Afghanistan or his innocent non-combatant farmer cousin in Iraq is worth much. In the Vietnam era, I remember a chip-on-the-shoulder bumper sticker (and more vividly a tatoo) to the effect of "Kill 'em all...let God sort 'em out". I get the sense that we are willing to take this approach. Oh, if we puree 100 people at an Iraqui wedding party with an AC-130 gun run? I think we'll manage to forget it pretty quickly.

Where did this feeling of mine come from? Well, for one, the 48 Afghans who were previously killed by an ill-considered AC-130 burst don't exactly seem to be sticking in our collective memory, never mind the many other civilian casualties. Call me judgemental, but I also have the sense that there's a certain element of "all Arabs are pretty much alike" that contributes to the "average" opinion here.

Please consider this snippet from a recent on-air survey of some Rotarians in Missouri (from an NPR news bit):

Mr. HARRY MURRELL (Rotarian): We could do it alone. We don't need the United Nations' approval. We don't need France's approval. We don't need Germany's approval. You know, historically France has always been against us. I think a lot of people have forgotten September 11th already. They just plain forgot about it.

WERTHEIMER: Going to the UN in the beginning was wise, says Realtor Shirley Sallenshooter(ph), but it's taken too long.

Ms. SHIRLEY SALLENSHOOTER (Rotarian): I think we need to go ahead and start the war, because while we're waiting, trying to get world opinion on our side, the terrorists could be in our country waiting to attack us the minute we start war. So I am very concerned that we need to start this now and get it over with.

What I take away from this -- "a lot of people have forgotten about September 11th" and "the terrorists could be in our country waiting to attack us" in the context of interviews that were specifically about an impending war with Iraq -- is that "average" Americans (Rotarians at least!) don't make any great distinctions between Iraquis and Al-Quaeda terrorists and that it is all one big, dark, evil world full of sinister Arabs east of St. Louis... (and they are making their way west to Kansas City!!).

The Propaganda Gap

From the beginning I was skeptical of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Iraq war rationale. One day it was terrorism, the next day it was WMD, then it was terrorism. I smelled Tonkin Gulf. For all of you who are clinging to the various aluminum tube rationales cited by the Bush administration, I have a prediction: some day in the future most of the world is going to look back at those tubes (if they haven't already) and consider them a big, fat lie -- another Gulf of Tonkin Incident.

Dissident voices are pretty hard to come by in the current CNN-Fox media rainbow. One interview I recently enjoyed was with John "Rick" McArthur of Harpers. Oh, aluminum tubes? Baloney? Oh, the IAEC statement that Iraq was 6 months away from nuke capability? Ummmmm, they never said anything like that. Once it is over, what else will we discover that Bush's folks invented?

Y'know, I would think I was cynical and overly pessimistic about this whole adventure if it were not for letters from State Department professionals like this gent (oh, or like this gent). The former I think is really striking.


The Turkey Gap

The point was recently made about the U.S. "making Turkey our bitch". Whatever exception was taken to this phrasing, I have to say that I think it is very apt and correct. On of the most horrifying aspects of this whole Iraq war thing is just how cavalier U.S. politicos can be with regard to very tenuous situations like Turkey and the Kurds. I don't pretend to know what the most just resolution of the whole Turkey-Kurds-Iraq relationship is, but it is my opinion that the current administration *isn't even thinking about it*. "Hey, Turkey, yeah we've been supporting Kurds against Iraq, but howsa 'bout we invade Iraq through Turkey and Kurdistan?". I don't know what this all means except that we seem *very* willing to offer 23 billion to a country like Turkey so they will play along, but we don't seem very attuned to the possible destabilizing consequences of our expedient desires (Oh, why should we care? We'll be back at Fort Benning before the Turks and Kurds *really* start killing each other!)

The Crusade Gap

Some of you may have already played the Flash game Gulf War 2 cited by genixia previouly in this thread. For anyone who hasn't played this "game", I highly recommend it. I have returned to it every 5-6 days and it seems to get more real every time...

It occurs to me that Tommy Franks' little army may just drive to Baghdad in short order, vaporize Saddam, and impress the *hell* out of CNN with aggressive tactics. This seems like a case, though, where we can win the war, but lose the war. D'uh! What this mean? I think there's a reasonable chance that we can win the immediate war against Saddam but set the stage to tilt the scales against ourselves in any continuing attmpt to protect ourselves (like from terrorism).

This seems like a case where the U.S. administration can't manage to see the forest for the trees. This puzzling, aluminum tube-fueled idee fixee of war against Iraq is oblivious to the historical images of The Crusades that it evokes. A while back I read an article and book by Bernard Lewis entitled "What Went Wrong?"; among other points, I think it offered a reasonable explanation of how it is that many Islamic states and societies resent and suspect "The West" in general and the U.S. in particular. In practical terms, this war will only make matters worse and will lay the foundation for many Mohammed Attas of the future. We should dread this outcome, yet we, as a country, seem intent on the "gated community" approach (as referred to in this essay by Brian Eno).

Further, I think here in the U.S. we have managed to consider issues of "East versus West" in fairly selfish, US-centric terms. Issues such as those brought out by Lewis' books -- Islam's (including radical Islam's) relations to Western societies and values -- exist in many, many countries, yet we seem to be focused only on U.S. interests.

On we go, sword in hand. When Bush used the term "crusade" some time ago, the media characterized it as a slip. I did not buy that explanation. At first I attributed it to Bush's ignorance of the full meaning of the term -- and that his handlers had to explain it to him. Recently, I am more convinced that Bush and his people truly view this as a Crusade -- that the divine guidance toward some crypto-Armageddon really does make this a Crusade for them -- just that it is considered impolitic to say that openly.

The President Gap

So, more and more political commentators portray Bush's stance on Iraq as a matter of deep, nearly religious, personal conviction, but as much satisfaction and admiration as Bush's simple, basic Crusade messages evoke in some quarters, I predict that history will view his presidency quite harshly. No heroic Roosevelt or Lincoln as some would hope, rather a Franklin Pierce or Herbert Hoover. Much of this historical opinion will be founded on the inept and arrogant foreign/military policies and the damage done to the U.S.'s reputation, to important relationships, and to important institutions (the U.N.).

I don't necessarily think that this mistaken war will result in a one-term presidency. The timing of the war is such that the tendency to line up behind "support our troops" will likely carry Bush/Cheney to a 2nd term. Only then will it become clear that everything else is completely farked up and Bush's popularity numbers will begin a steady decline.

The Two-Party Gap

Bush *could* be a one-term president if the main opposition party had *anything* to say that distinguished them from the Republicans. Aside from the rare dissenting voice like Robert Byrd, the Dems seem intent on lining up a la: Democrats Criticize Failed Diplomacy, but Call for Unity Before War so that no one can call them unpatriotic. WRT the 2004 election, I think they are doomed. If this article represents the party line, *I'm* not voting for them (again!).

The Beacon Gap

I think this is a sad day to be an American, IMO. The notion of the U.S. of A. as a beacon of democracy, even if it hasn't always been supported by our behavior, has been a nice ideal. Things *are* better here than many other places. Look, I can post this under my own name without police knocking at my door (so far, anyway!). I won't go to bed hungry tonight. I didn't die at age 1 from dysentery. My hands have not been chopped off by rebel forces. The accident of my birth -- that I was born in this country -- is something that I am always thankful for. The notion of a liberal democracy that other countries admire, the country of the Marshall Plan is something I cherish. Well, I think while we were busy working on new walls and gates for the Rotarians, we forgot to clean the lens in our beacon.

Saddam's victory

This megalo-sociopath has really learned how to manipulate "the staff" during his "institutionalization" in Iraq. I doubt that any options to bow out -- exile on St Helena or in the Seychelles or somewhere -- hold any appeal. The guy seems sick enough to ride the bomb all the way even if if takes thousands of innocents and supporters with him.

If I accept that notion, then I'd have to look at what Saddam might think he has accomplished. Well, by walking a behavioral tightrope, it appears that he has maneuvered us into the role of the reviled crusader in a way that will *decrease* our own security going forward. He has managed to separate us from our friends. Even at the moment that he is vaporized by a smart bomb, I have the very sorry feeling that he will have had the last laugh.


[edit: "student", singular]