Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Lie we don't believe any more
The Clarion has heard from many continued supporters of the invasion of Iraq.
"It didn't matter that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction."
"It didn't matter that Iraq didn't have ballistic missiles with the range to reach North America."
"It didn't matter that (this time) Iraq had not attacked any of its sovereign neighbors."
"It didn't matter that the United Nations didn't support the invasion."
"It didn't matter than many of America's allies from the first Gulf War, didn't support the invasion."
"It didn't matter that Iraq was in no way connected with the attacks of September 11, 2001."
"It didn't matter that Iraq was not allied with Al-Qeda."
"It didn't matter Iraq was not harboring any Al-Qeda operatives."
Why didn't it matter? What is the rationale? (ex post facto, of course.)
"Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator. The man was unfairly imprisoning, torturing, mass murdering his own people. Such evil had to go. It was America's duty and right, alone, if necessary."
Where are these supporters of the Iraq invasion today? Why are they not clamoring for an American invasion of Zimbabwe? Robert Mugabe is an evil dictator. He is imprisoning, toruring and mass murdering his own people in an effort to maintain his personal power. His exploitation of the country has been without limits, almost without parallel, this side of Kim Jong-il.
Where is the outrage? Where is hue and cry for the imminent invasion of Zimbabwe on behalf of its suffering people? Does the color of the skin of most of Zimbabwe's citizens somehow make them less valuable to America? Is it their country's lack of fossil fuels? Pre-Mugabe, Zimbabwe was once the "Breadbasket of Africa."
Why is it less valued?
King George?
Viceroy Cheney?
Senator Lieberman?
Senator McCain?
Senator Obama? (Who opposing the Iraq invasion, from the beginning, has an opportunity to weigh in differently...)
The Clarion's view, on both Iraq and Zimbabwe, war is admission of failure. Victory is peace.
Labels: Middle East, Politics, thought
Comments:
I was just thinking that about Mugabe: he is monumnetally cruel, and some really good "fiction" has been written about his horrific treatment of people (see Stone Virgins by Yvonne Vera). He actually treats his own country people worse than Sadam did, by far, and they have a better infastructure (spelling) to succeed post Mugabe than Iraq did post Sadam.
Do you think it is because Zimbabwe is a "black" country? Or is it about the oil and Iraq's geopolitical relevance?
Black and white statements (no pun intended) like 'War is failure' indicate the same sort of mentality Chamberlain had in '36.
War is horrible. But peace is not always victory.
War is horrible. But peace is not always victory.
dio- hmmm... My take would be unless the goal of a war is nefarious; eg. land, booty, glory, annihilation of the other, then the goal of war is ultimately peace.
Is it ultimately sometimes necessary to fight back to achieve peace? Well, I wouldn't deny that, but when a state is engaged in doing the total opposite of the goal to achieve the goal, then the state is failing on some level.
Chamberlain is an interesting example because likely he was too late in the game to avoid war. But had the makers World War I's peace been a little more reasonable and rationale in their settlements and treaty making, then there might have been an opportunity to avoid World War II. There was certainly a generation of common folks fatigued with war who were not excited to fight another war, that ultimately had to do so and send their children to do so because of their leaders failure to make a just peace.
Is it ultimately sometimes necessary to fight back to achieve peace? Well, I wouldn't deny that, but when a state is engaged in doing the total opposite of the goal to achieve the goal, then the state is failing on some level.
Chamberlain is an interesting example because likely he was too late in the game to avoid war. But had the makers World War I's peace been a little more reasonable and rationale in their settlements and treaty making, then there might have been an opportunity to avoid World War II. There was certainly a generation of common folks fatigued with war who were not excited to fight another war, that ultimately had to do so and send their children to do so because of their leaders failure to make a just peace.
Probably a little of both but more the oil and the geopolitical. Both play to what has been clear priorities for this administration -- for example: Katrina. That is, this administration has never shown any real affinity for blacks. It's a blanket statement, sure, but I don't have any problems making it.
I guess I am still a little flummoxed that as a country we were lured into Iraq. Psychologically it baffles. I remember the opposition, including my own, getting excoriated. People were killing the Dixie Chicks.
Maybe the first Gulf War made it seem like it would be easy, but I can hardly, even in retrospect, believe people were convinced it was necessary or right.
Now the outcry over Zimbabwe is muffled because it is assumed that it would all but impossible to accomplish something useful. Is that supposition really any more logical than the one that Iraq would be easy?
Hmmmmmmm. Dunno, just musing.
Surely you are right the administration has had no concern for blacks. I don't think it is pro-actively antagonistic, they just lump the black American into a demographic of "people who vote against us" anyway. From election night in Florida 2000 forward, this administration has viewed African-Americans as "on the other side."
Post a Comment
Maybe the first Gulf War made it seem like it would be easy, but I can hardly, even in retrospect, believe people were convinced it was necessary or right.
Now the outcry over Zimbabwe is muffled because it is assumed that it would all but impossible to accomplish something useful. Is that supposition really any more logical than the one that Iraq would be easy?
Hmmmmmmm. Dunno, just musing.
Surely you are right the administration has had no concern for blacks. I don't think it is pro-actively antagonistic, they just lump the black American into a demographic of "people who vote against us" anyway. From election night in Florida 2000 forward, this administration has viewed African-Americans as "on the other side."
