The Aerie
I actually don't have a problem with the idea of an army of some sort
going in and waxing Hussein, and that's a lot coming from someone who
drove to D.C. to protest the Gulf war.
However, what I need before I'll back such an effort is one or more
trusted voices authenticating evidence linking Saddam to the terrorist
activities of recent years -- either WTC bombing, or the Yemen port
bombing, or any of it. I wish I could say I trusted our President on
this, but I'm sorry to say I can't. He has had an agenda from the
first day of his presidential campaign, and I need someone slightly
impartial. Who? I don't know, but I'd say a nice bipartisan
congressional committee might be a start.
I can't help it that I don't trust the man, or the cabal that got him
elected. If they were smart, they'd've addressed the question of
national trust by now... but if they were smart they wouldn't have let
Bush deny needing congressional approval for an Iraqi invasion one day
before seeking it from the Saudi Ambassador. Kinda ticked me off, that
did.
I don't have a problem with us attacking militarily any head-of-state
who heard "Let's go bomb the Americans" and replied "Sounds good,
here's $2 million American dollars since my own currency is worth
shit."
The problem is, I suspect that it's as likely that the Saudi royal
family (or some faction thereof) is behind these bombings as that
Hussein is. And that's what sticks in my craw: that the Saudi's are
probably laughing up their sleeves as they sell us oil on the one
hand, and fund Al Qaeda and Hamas on the other.
The real question is, were that the case, would America the crude-oil
junkie be able to shake the addiction in order to kick its dealer's
ass?
And if we did, would we do it the RIGHT way -- which in my opinion
means planting ourselves in the Mideast for the long haul and shoving
education, democracy, women's rights and health care down their
feudal, misogynistic 12th-Century throats? That's what gets me
nervous. I don't know if we have the political will for something with
more than a six-month horizon, 9/11/2001 notwithstanding.
I think we are culturally capable of doing it: being willing to
sacrifice lives, money, and effort to bootstrap an important region of
the world into the 20th (if not 21st) century. It would take at least
20 years, maybe more, but in the end I can see a Mideast where the
actual tenets of Islam hold sway rather than the mad ravings of those
who would pervert it.
The alternative is that in 20 years it will be much the same as today,
althought possibly more radioactive.
I don't see it as classic imperialism, I see it as cultural
imperialism. I see us leaving their nation-states in place, but
forcing their culture to change. I see it as a cultural clash, brought
to us by the Mideast itself. THEY came here and bombed New York -- so
we go there and educate their kids that such things are wrong. Is our
culture perfect? No. But I'm willing to say ours is BETTER than
theirs, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
Now, "better" alone does not entitle us to act against them. And
they're welcome to their culture if they leave us in peace. But if
their culture WON'T leave ours in peace -- if, for example it suddenly
starts adopting jihad against the U.S. as a way of life -- then we are
justified in taking action.
Which, coming back around to Hussein, means simply this: if America is
asked to invade Iraq, with no more explanation than "George Bush said
so," to destroy with no intention of nation-building afterwards, then
I'm against it. If we do that, we'll simply cause more trouble for
ourselves later.
But if we go in there with proof of Iraqi complicity in terror against
the U.S.; intending to set up a real democracy; and are willing to
invest for the long haul (in the face of real opposition from many
sectors), then I'm for it. While our efforts in Afghanistan are not up
to my criteria for success yet, we at least haven't pulled completely
out of there and left them to feud among themselves.
I doubt the situation will be so clearly set forth for review,
however.
One thing we'll want to be careful about, too, if we do this, is Iran.
They're taking baby steps towards US reconciliation, but I would
hardly blame them for being nervous when they find the US invading
their neighbors on both sides. If France invaded Canada and Mexico, I
doubt the US would feel really comfortable with the idea. Well,
assuming France actually had some military capabilities...
[1]Last
Posted by Albatross at September 6, 2002 12:00 AM