I had a great response to the "Happy Liberal Blogger Scavenger Hunt," held in the wake (and we do mean WAKE) of recent events in Iraq. The full list is up at our "Carnival of the Obituaries" today, but this one was definitely the most interesting. It came direct from a U.S. soldier, who will remain anonymous per request. People like these are liberals, too.
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 19:36:00 +0200
From: "Gimpy"
Joe, How are you.
I'll take the bet, but I'll lose. I didn't blog the deaths of the Dynamic Duo. I was too busy punching the air in joy. Tried, in my humble ways, to do my piece when I thought, wrongly, that we had gotten Sadman Insane himself, when we struck the convoy over by the Syrian border.
By way of introduction, I maintain a mostly private, collaborative blog [deleted]. It's purpose? My friends and I are spread from some very bad places (Balad) to some very nice places (Europe and America). For us, the GWOT(Global War On Terror) has been like a college graduation: something we have prepared for, trained for and were ready for, but now necessitates our separation.
We've had good times, among good friends. But we all agreed, when we signed, that one day, we had to be prepared. Afghanistan was the beginning. Iraq, perhaps the end of that beginning. There is more to be done.
I remember attending a conference after 9/11, and our Great Operator, COL(Colonel) T (Ret) asked for volunteers, to go around the world (my specialty is not the tip of the spear; I'm somewhere along the fat middle of it---but we are important, and do our part to support the war fighter.) We all raised our hands. It was like the Eddie Murphy character in Shrek, a sort of "Pick me, Pick me." COL T looked around the room and said, in effect, "settle down, Marys. There's going to be plenty to go around. We're talking about fifteen years, here."
After reading Steven Den Beste's article in today's WSJ Opinion Journal, (based on an earlier post), I'm glad to see that message finally make it into the mainstream. This is not, has never been, about yellowcake, WMD or even Saddam. It has always been about putting and end to the Arab Civil War. A war which began with Ataturk's abolition of the Caliphate, a war which involved the American people most directly on 9/11 and a war which continues to this day.
I grew up in a city. Maybe that's why I like this analogy. What the Arab world is experiencing today is like a crack (oil) addiction. Remember when that hit our streets in the eighties? First, there was talk of treatment. Then it was war. Say what you will about the war on drugs, as you smoke a joint and talk about how harmless it is. I've seen what hard drugs do. I've seen it in my family. The problem could never be dealt with by going after the crack addicts (the terrorists), or shutting down the crack houses (the Muslim Brotherhood which seems to beget the terrorists). Ultimately, you have to go after the purveyors of the crack (the Nationalists/Imams who preach/teach the hate and the money which supports them). I think about a meme that's gathering steam, and I want to reference I portion of Mr. Den Beste's article, about the use of nuclear weapons on an American city. The meme goes something like this: "why is everyone overreacting about terrorism, sure it's bad, but it can't truly destroy America."
Let me mention two words. Intentions and capabilities.
Capabilities follow intentions, not the other way around. In Austria, was a particularly bitter little man, with some evil intentions. He worked over the next fifteen years to gather the capabilities. He was Hitler. Or let's be farcical. Here's Osama, nice guy, really. Likes to tend sheep. One day, he comes across a low yield nuclear device. Now he has capabilities. Does he then turn the device over to competent authorities, or does he sit down and begin to develop intentions. Hmmm, he thinks. Let's start with the Jews, or maybe the US? Capabilities follow intentions. Our race is to head them off before they reach those capabilities. We all grieved for 9/11. Imagine a random date, the day we lose a city. Or if you're shallow, watch "Dark Angel".
But why Iraq?
Let me put this in context. Too much going around in my head. I remember a Zimbabwean commenting that he wished they had oil, so President Bush could come in, bomb them, and remove Mugabe. A war for oil (WMD, oppression, freedom, etc.) is really a simplistic way of looking at it. It makes for great slogans. Syndical-anarchists can design bizarre outfits and block traffic protesting about the issue. When, I talk to my friends (and they are tired of hearing about it) about Zimbabwe (or Liberia, Iran, etc..) I've come to this realization. But to paraphrase Tony Blair, "I wish we could. But we can't."
What made Saddam the low hanging fruit in the axis of evil , and what was intended to build support were these factors:
# Ongoing violation of sanctions.
# An oppressive regime.
# Direct, immediate threat to his neighbors were said "baby-killing" sanctions removed. (conventional)
# Support of terrorism (not necessarily Al Qaeda--although those the links are there) such as Fatah's Al Aqsa's Martyrs Brigade (does being a splinter group of Fatah mean that they have to pay two sets of dues?).
Saddam set himself up as a target, and Osama pulled the trigger. Let me be clear. Arab Nationalist, using the vehicle of Islamic Fundamentalism, involved America in the Arab Civil War -- the fight between the Dictators in power, and the radicals who want control.
War is often looked at as a battle between two opposing sides. Good versus evil. That is appropriate to our context, but is by no means the rule. Political Commissars and Propagandists try to make it true, but history reveals their lies. Sometimes, morally repugnant battles truly evil. The Soviet Union versus Nazi Germany. The Arab dictators versus the Arab nationalists. The Afghan Arabs versus the Soviet Union. The Communists Chinese versus the Soviet Union. The Russian Oligarchy versus the Chechen Separatists. Liberia. There are wars neither side should win.
Yet, invariably, one side does.
Unless.
And this is the third side of the battle. Who stands for liberty, for freedom, for the rule of law. I'm not going to be an apologist for the past wrongs of the United States. Tony Blair says I don't have to be. This gets into my feelings on politics and truth. Linked off of Instapundit onto something called "social constructivism" and the nature of truth. Hurt my head. I'm not a smart gomer. But for me, the issue comes down to this. There is truth, and there are politics. One side (the Leftists of today, the Far Right of the early nineties) believes politics are firm, and truth is malleable. The other side (the Liberals of the early nineties, and the Conservatives of today) believe truth is firm, and politics are malleable (often opening themselves to charges of changing course in midstream, "tossing out" plans or waffling). One side (Lib/Con) believes that the US is fundamentally good, her people honest, yet, from time to time, does something stupid. Yet this side works to improve America. The other side (Leftist/Far Rightist) believes the United States is fundamentally flawed, her people venal and decadent and works to replace this "evil".
When I think about the war we are in today, I need to bring all these things together. Asymmetry. Not a new word. Indeed. Asymmetric warfare has been talked about, debated and planned for since the early nineties. But, being asymmetric, it didn't turn out the way we thought. I always believed it would involve U.S. versus state actors utilizing unconventional (war fighting) means. Shallow thinking. What we see today is a nearly unplanned confluence of Ideology, Individual and Organization. The not nearly enough discredited Leftist/Far Right philosophies, Terrorists, and Rogue States. Placed in a pit by twos, they would most certainly fight each other. But they seem to have almost unconsciously determined to link up, and fight that other force. The third one I mentioned earlier. Once it's out of the way, then they can settle things between themselves.
Then Lord help us all.
Thank you for your time.
He forgot 5. A reason for that particular country to matter to the "west / USA" in terms of economy, trade or serious geo-political implications.
Which in Iraq's case was oil, and in Afghanistan's or Kosovo's case was human rights / geo-political importance / terrorist Osama, and in South Korea's case was the political defense against "dem reds under the bed" and the potential domino in the far east, an expanding area of trade interest for the US.
Sorry, but it IS in the arguement - if only because otherwise we would be in Zimbabwe, who have supported anti-western trade policies, but aren't a big eough area of investment / competition to matter.
Well, no blog entry can be exhaustive (Gawd knows I've tried); it's a really good post making excellent points overall.
Porphy,
Yes, you have and yes, it is.
Are we . . . neo-liberals?
“This is not, has never been, about yellowcake, WMD or even Saddam.”
I think we need to keep clear that WMD in that context means WMD that 21st-Century Saddam had ready or not far from ready to rumble. WMD as a general issue — the nuking, irradiating, poisoning, or plaguing of an American city for instance — is the kind of thing it’s been about all along. A big picture, a big swamp to clean out. Saddam & regime, as one less variable to worry about, & the removal thereof ramifying in many a happy way. Lessening the size, complexity, & opacity of the swamp.
Having argued here a few days ago for the importance of the big-dissonant-picture view, where a one-size-fits-all approach to the pieces would be peculiarly out of place, I hope nobody misunderstands when I say that we must continue to do justice to the more particular justifications given for dealing with invading Iraq. The Administration’s credibility is important, & the Administration has obviously taken care all along to maintain that credibility. Difference of emphasis should not be allowed to be regarded as, say, diplomatic fictions. It was fine & well for Jim Baker to say of the first Gulf War “it’s about oil” as long as this was understood to mean oil in strategically significant combination with other issues — e.g., Saddam had shown a dangerous, curb-demanding ambitiousness by his Kuwait invasion & perparation to invade the rest of the Arabian peninsula, which in turn ramifies back to the question of what he’d have done with all that extra oil money, etc., etc.
I don’t want to rehearse all the past justifications for the recent invasion, but just want to point out that once we clearly set course for a confrontation with Iraq, we were locked in, & this being locked in now ramified to the farthest reaches of the big picture. To back down would have signaled to other despotisms that they could proceed with WMD programs no matter what the US, much less the UN, said.
Got that off my chest for now. Thanks.
P.S. “which in turn ramifies back to the question of what he’d have done with all that extra oil money, etc., etc.” AND what he’d have done wielding control of so much oil — to bring it closer to what Baker said. Sorry, after this, I’ll stop, really!