April 19, 2004 – How Do You Spell IRAQ? Revisited
For this rant, I decided to go back and revisit an earlier rant on the US war with Iraq. First, I wanted to see whether my ranting in any way looked asinine in hindsight. And, second, I was wondering whether I should send our Commander in Chief a resume and offer my assistance and counsel, because Lord knows (and since Bush has a personal relationship with the Lord), someone needs to give this man some good advice. So, here is a rant from August, of 2003, almost 8 months ago. Let us see who is a better judge of the geo-political landscape of the middle east – Rumsfeld, Cheney and their pasty white “patriots” or some corporate lawyer, more than 15 from here degree in International Relations. My color commentary is added in italics for your consideration.
August 29, 2003 – How Do You Spell IRAQ?
Iraq – who knew a four letter word for a country in the Middle East would become such a mess for the United States? Well, many of us thought the war was ill-advised, and now, we are being proven prophetic. Regardless of whether or not you supported the war, it is hard to find success in our post-war policies. As many feared, while we won the war in smashing fashion, winning the peace has been a whole different, failed, ball of wax. The following is my opinion of why:
I “I” stands for Invaders. We are invaders, not liberators as claimed by the Bush Administration. We did not go in with the support or at the request of the Iraqi people. This fact makes our motives for going to war suspect (would we really care about Iraq if it did not have all of that lovely oil) and our work all the more difficult. For the Bush Administration to believe that the Iraqis would view a foreign power attacking them as liberators is both naïve and short-sighted. Saddam Hussein was a despised dictator, but he was their dictator. We were the outsiders coming into country to exercise our will and might. It may be true that many Iraqis view us as there to help, but the perception that we are something other than liberators I believe is still strong. All I need to see to remind me of this is think of the mutilated and burnt bodies of those 4 dead contractors Score: Deborah: 1 - Neo-cons: 0.
“I” stands for Ill-conceived/Ill-prepared. Apparently, there was no back-up plan for the possibility that we would in fact be viewed as invaders, rather than liberators when we attacked Iraq. Apparently we can make great war, but we suck at making peace. We did not prepare our troops for what was required of them because we did not foresee the problems occupying Iraq would entail. Poor planning, poor vision, poor training = dead Americans and Iraqis. Hmmm . . . so far Deborah: 2- Neo-cons: 0. Who knew that UC Davis was such a bastion of political analysis and forethought?
R “R” stands for Religion. Like it or not, this is being played as a religious war in many parts of the world – and who could blame Muslims for feeling attacked. You have in one corner, as President of the United States, a born-again Christian who believes he is in a mission from God. His supporting cast includes members of a Neo-conservative think tank who basically think that they can colonize the Middle East and reshape it in our political image. In the other corner, you have many of the Middle East countries (Iraq being the exception) either being run by religious leaders or having leaders use religion to justify many of their policies and practices. Hell, if I was a Muslim in the Middle East, I would feel like the US had plans for me to, and the first battle of the new Crusades would be Iraq. (Or, arguably Afghanistan, which has its own problems and failures that are too many and too difficult to spell out . . .). Let me see, that one is a no-brainer. Point for me. Deborah: 3 – Neo-cons: 0.
“R” stands for Resources. The United States is spending one billion dollars a week for the post-war occupation of Iraq. Think about that figure when you pass a school needing books or a road needing repair. Think about that figure when the government says there is no money for programs that would help the needy here at home. That is a lot of money. And no one told us the cost in terms of actual dollars before the bullets started to fly. The government either lied to our faces about the cost of this war, or is completely incompetent in assessing costs and risks. Either way, this administration needs to account to the American people. Well, this is pretty much a draw, no opinion or predictions, just a statement of fact. I will call this one a draw. So it stays Deborah: 3 - Neo-cons: 0.
A “A” stands for Arrogance. George Bush’s foreign policy can only be described as arrogant: we look like an international bully. He has changed the rules of engagement for pre-emptive war, and in the process, made this world a much more dangerous place. This is no longer a world where the United States can “go it alone,” or dictate the actions and reactions of other nations. We are a member of the family of nations. And while we may play a very prominent role in this family, we cannot control all of its members. The unilateral attack on Iraq by the willing, i.e. Great Britain and any one else we could bribe into joining us, reeks of a bully trying to get his way. I got to give myself a point on this one. I could also add that the world does not seem any safer from terrorism now than before the war, and in the near term, all we have done is pissed off a lot of folks who seem more than willing to blow themselves up, surrounded by a collection of nails and bomb. Score – Deborah: 4 - Neo-cons 0.
“A” stands for Armed Forces. Our men and women in uniform are bearing the real cost of the fiasco in Iraq: they are dying. Now that we have attacked Iraq, destroyed its infrastructure, and claimed ourselves to be liberators, we have placed our men and women in harms way in an effort to keep the peace that we failed to deliver. And, the truth is, we cannot abandon Iraq at this point because all it will do is make things much worse in both the near and long term. Our fighting forces deserve better from us. Donald Rumsfeld should spend some time in the dessert, walking around like a target for a couple of months before he can send any more troops into war. Based upon the more than 100 dead in the past month, I think I also get a point here. More importantly, what is even more disgusting is that the army has failed to provide our soldiers with the real resources it needs to protect itself – i.e. body armor is not provided to all soldiers, and a large portion of the Humvees currently in Iraq have not yet been retrofitted to replace the fabric doors with ones protected by armor or steel. I guess we can pay Halliburton all of that money, but cannot find the cash to really protect the men and women serving and dying. Now that I think about it, this one is a double bonus – and I get 2. Score – Deborah: 6 - Neo-cons: 0.
Q “Q” stands for Question. WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? Oh yeah, they don’t matter any more, we really went into Iraq to liberate its people from a horrible dictator, the weapon thing, well it was just an easy way to sell the war to the American people. Well, as P.T. Barnum would say, “a sucker is born every minute”. Iraq was supposed to be a clear and present danger to the United States – that is why we attacked them. Clearly, our intelligence was either wrong, or distorted by those who wanted to attack Iraq. I believe it was the later. Attacking Iraq was part of a larger plan by the Neo-Conservatives and they had to sell the American people on the Iraqi threat before they could go to war. Intelligence data was manipulated, and we were lied to in order to justify a war that was unnecessary. There needs to be an investigation by some independent third party – we can spend millions to investigate Clinton’s penis, but nothing to investigate this manipulation of information? Hmmm – there still are no Weapons of Mass Destruction, other than our own bomb which so effectively tore apart Iraq. That’s another point. Score: Deborah: 7 - Neo-cons: 0.
“Q” stands for Quagmire. We are sinking deep into Iraqi quicksand, and the United States must recognize that it does not have legitimacy as “liberators:” it cannot rebuild and remake Iraq without either sending in many, many more troops, or getting help from international organizations and other countries. This truth seems to be slowly sinking into the Bush Administration’s thick skull. We are seen as occupiers, invaders, conquerors, and until we are in fact perceived to be liberators, things will not get better in Iraq. I suggest George Bush start eating some humble pie, and reach out to those long-time allies he thoughtlessly discarded, discredited, and dismissed during the pre-war buildup. Well, I guess I get another point here, because George Bush is now begging the United Nations, hat in hand, to help us figure out a way to resolve the mess that has become Iraq. That is another point. That makes it Deborah: 8 - Neo-cons: 0. Talk about an ass whopping.
So, that is how you spell Iraq. I hope for both our sake, and the sake of Iraqis seeking peace that the Bush Administration learns from its spelling mistakes and finds creative, thoughtful ways to win the peace. Otherwise, you, and me, and many other people will be paying the price for this war for many years to come. Nope – these arrogant fools will not even admit to making a mistake.
Kind of scary isn't it: some mid-level corporate lawyer, more that 15 years beyond her B.A. in International Relations doing a better job at assessing the risk and the terrain of Iraq than all of those political "professionals" surrounding George Bush. If this was not so frightening, it would be pathetic. It is almost funny and ironic in hindsight that while I passed the written exam to become a member of the Foreign Service, I did not meet the mark on the oral interviews, in part, because I was too sympathetic to the "locals." This "assessment" took place during the first George Bush's administration. Perhaps if the Bush Administration were a little more sympathetic to the "locals" they would not be in the mess they currently finds itself in.
Please, someone with some ingenuity and creativity capture George Bush’s ear and try to right the ship in Iraq. The men and women who are serving their country there deserve better from our government and from all of us. It is not a time to save face, it is time to save the lives and future of those in Iraq, whether they be the “us” or “them” who are fighting and dying in a number and in a manner that while a few of us anticipated, none of us wanted. While we cannot abandon Iraq, as it is a mess of our own creation, we must find a way to change the course of our conduct and our policy in order to not only save the lives of our men and women in uniform, but to protect and defend those Iraqis who are now innocent victims in the ongoing war zone we created.