12/14/03
So the American forces "caught" Saddam Hussein today. Would it be too rude to say "big fucking deal"? The only people I'm happy for are the families stationed in Fort Bragg, or some other small military town in down-east North Carolina, a wife or a son who might be able to breathe 1/9th easier on the off-chance that this event may un-inspire a terrorist or two from taking out one of their husbands or fathers. As for the rest of this sorry spectacle, it's just embarrassing all around.
The worst thing, of course, is that Americans are so stupid that this capture may make them more likely to vote for George W. Bush again. There he was on television, his monkey smiley-face, talking about how the world can finally relax 'cuz "we got 'im." His glee was barely contained. But really, it was Bush and his neo-con cronies that got us into this goddamn war, and now we're supposed to feel all jubilant because he finally found the leader of Iraq after killing 8,850 civilians? He looked like a little kid that wanted credit for cleaning up his own pee.
While we're lost in this momentary haze of drunken giddiness, let's not forget that nabbing this tyrant has not altered why so many of us were against this war. Saddam Hussein not only has no weapons of mass destruction, he not only has no ties to Al Qaeda, he doesn't even have a goddamn lice comb. And don't get started about how he gassed his own people, because we all know there is only one country who has used the most horrific weapon of mass destruction on another, and it ain't Iraq. And if we're all supposed to be glad that this murderous dictator is no longer running a country, then we should get going on the other ones – take a number, the line starts right behind Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il.
Yes, this day has dealt a blow to the Democrats, which is another reason for sorrow. I'm man enough to admit that I cry out in anguish every time something strengthens the power of the Bush Administration. At least I'm coming right out and saying it – other leftist bloggers might dance a foxtrot around the subject. I'll go even one better: doesn't it seem like the timing was just awful good? Right in time for Christmas. I will be stunned if we don't "find" WMD in Iraq in time for the election; not in October, because that would be too obvious. More like September or late July.
Certainly the world is a better place with Saddam locked up, right? Well, a casual observer might think so, but the world is always more complicated. You get always get payback eventually. I wonder how Bush feels about those 15 Afghan kids they blew into little bits last week. I wonder what their payback will be.
My sentiments exactly. I *hope* that his capture will lead to less bloodshed in Iraq, but I see no reason why it should. We continue to arrogantly assume that our way is always the *right* way and run roughshod over anyone who dares to disagree. I'm sure that Bush somehow sees this capture as further evidence that his mission to "democratize" and "bring freedom" to the Middle East has divine backing. Too bad most of our fellow Americans are too wrapped in the flag to open their eyes and see what a terrible path we're being led down.
BTW, my anonymity is coming from pure cowardice - I work for a defence contractor and fear that publishing my real thoughts with my name attached would probably jeapordize my job. Free speech can be very expensive if you disagree with your employers.
"So does this mean Bush is a hero again?"... was my outloud slightly sarcastic comment yesterday as I watched Meet the Press. I don't consider myself anti-George-W by the way. I also decided I want Lieberman to be the democratic candidate. I don't have a good feeling about Dean. http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3710459&p1=01%7C%7C%7C%7C004
I think you're a tadd too bitter this time, Ian. At least they didn't find Hussein on Halloween 2004, which would really have been hay for the Republicans. And this is only a blow to the Democrats if they want it that way--can't we rejoice with the rest of America because, at the very least, we removed a badass (even a little tinpot badass) from power and so our troops haven't been shot at for nothing? After all--we can always point out later if, funny, there are still no WMDs to be found and, gee whiz, the region isn't automatically stabilized the way they said it would be. You mean Saddam Hussein isn't the one doing all those suicide bombings after all? And if you want to make a Christmas wish--remember how Saddam was propped up by Reagan and Bush the Elected in the 1980s? What if he happens to know a few dirty secrets? What if he decides to talk, eh? What if Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft have him conveniently die soon under suspicious circumstances and dig themselves a nice deep hole in the election year trying to cover it up?
I think we ought to wave the flag a bit just now. You know and I know that liberals love America at least as much as any conservative. Let's not give ammo to those who say we hate our own country by pissing and moaning over what really is a piece of good news. It's not as if we hoped he'd get away, now.
Here's a joke. It's pretty lame, but I though of it myself: What's the difference between Saddam Hussein and a weapon of mass destruction? Answer, Saddam Hussein was actually there to be found in Iraq.
btw, Ian, you might want to go visit your old stomping grounds at alt.society.generation-x --you'll see that even some people you knew as right wing kooks are mad as hell at George Duh (that's short for "Dubya") and want to get him the fuck out of the White House.
wasn't Saddam already a genocidal maniac already before we accused him of having more WMD's that he could use? Cut&paste: Around 300,000 Iranians were killed in the eight-year war, including thousands in chemical weapons attacks by the Iraqi army. U.S.-led troops ousted Saddam, the Iraqi dictator, in April and captured him Saturday.
The WMD angle is being used as a strike against THE PRESIDENT but I thought the war was declared in the name of freedom from ruthless dictatorship, not JUST to protect scared Americans reeling from 9/11. And by the way, I am honestly scared of the political know-it-alls who comment here... I fear being sweared at but oh well... may I be cured of my wusness.
Steph---Please don't worry about being sweared at just for asking questions. It's the Bill O'Reillys and Ann Coulters of the world who do that; liberals are much more respectful.
My understanding is that, yes, Hussein was a genocidal tyrant even without WMDs. However, since Iran was our enemy during the eight year war, Hussein was called a GOOD genocidal tyrant at that time, and was even given military aid by the Reagan Administration. Many Americans, like Molly Ivins, pointed out Hussein's deplorable record on human rights at the time, but the Republicans didn't consider it important.
I suspect that war was really declared in the name of getting Iraq's oil and giving it to Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush Administration, but not everyone sees it that way. I do, however, think you'll find that nobody in the Administration said much about freeing Iraq from dictatorship until it became clear that there were no WMDs to be found.
"The WMD angle is being used as a strike against THE PRESIDENT but I thought the war was declared in the name of freedom from ruthless dictatorship, not JUST to protect scared Americans reeling from 9/11."
You may have thought it, but THE ADMINISTRATION said JUST the opposite.
I can't think why you were afraid of being cursed at JUST for presenting your well-informed views in an UN-INFLAMMATORY way, Shit-for-brains.
Just kiddin' about the Shit-for-brains stuff. Couldn't resist.
My real reaction:
I'm unabashedly psyched they got Hussein. And bringing him to a fair and public trial, could rank up there with the Milosevic trial and the Havel and Mandela presidencies as proof that good things do happen on a global level occasionally. And unlike Ian, I think that you can topple one brutal dictator without it being seen as self-serving that you haven't toppled every ruthless dictator.
But that's not the war they sold us. It was about one thing and one thing only: WMD's. Now that it looks like there may not be any, the White House is backpedaling to highlight the years of brutality (many of which were done as a US ally, as Ian points out). The backpedaling makes me think that the Administration must have also lost confidence in finding WMD's and that the whole thing was a cynical oversell which is now being revised like a movie after a test audience.
I'm still happy they caught him, but the White House can't make this stuff up as they go along. If you promise WMD's and barely mention liberation you can't claim to have fulfilled that promise based on liberation and no WMD's.
Hussein's capture no big deal? Which pundits have you been talking to? The number of Americans and Iraqis who die can't help but have a lot to do with the willingness of Iraqi's to participate in the American project and the zeal of militant holdouts. These factors are 99% psychosocial. So how could Hussein's capture not be a big deal? Ex posteriori, did our news sources manufacture the appearance of jubilation in the streets of Baghdad? Was the quote I read, about so much celebration not having been seen since the end of the war with Iran, totally unrepresentative? Although it surprises me to discover this, I'm not so cynical as to think so. I don't know what the deal will be, but I'm sure it's big.
It was called Operation Iraqi Freedom from the start so I heard that sales pitch but of course was leary. Sure, the powers-that-be were looking for additional reasons to strike with the WMD's in question. I don't think I am so naive to think that it couldn't have been about OIL, I am sure it was part of the equation.(And yes I know..WAR over OIL=BAD.) The US underreacted to the threat of terrorism under Bush once, (or was that really Clinton's "fault"?) Seems natural that an overreaction could occur, or perhaps millions of future lives were saved. Can't say I would want to be one of the people who died for the greater good. I am curious to know the opinion of an actual soldier fighting for this cause- whatever the cause may be. Do they struggle with patriotism or know that they are perhaps making a difference in what will happen to the world. I hope they are proud to be an American because I certainly struggle with the notion. Bums me out that my favorite President is an actor called Martin Sheen and/or Michael Douglas. Sorry Ian for barging into your blog, but you are providing a nice service to POLY SCI idiots like myself. I would love to have my own blog especially since I claim to know a little HTML now.
To rehash my blog entry from Sunday:
Capturing Saddam Hussein is very good.
I've never heard anyone say he was a good man, nor did anyone oppose the war because they supported him.
But -- his capture doesn't magically turn an unjust war into a just one.
And now it's put-up-or-shut-up time for the Bush administration. If they don't turn things around in Iraq now--and in a hurry--it'll be (even more) glaringly obvious that their sales pitch was complete bullshit.
As for the soldiers over there, I'd hope they did believe in what they're doing, even if a lot of us back home don't believe. However, I don't think that their faith would prove much, or in any way give this unjust war any more street cred.
In the words of George Santayana, "To delight in war is a merit in the soldier, a dangerous quality in the captain, and a positive crime in the statesman."
It's a bit of a stretch to call Bush a statesman though, isn't it?