Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Four More Years?

with 6 comments

usn_jolly_roger.jpg
A thousand words.

Four years today since the Bush crossed the Rubicon and invaded Iraq. I was amazed by the folly of it then, and amazed to this day. One of the things that amazes me the most about the destruction Bush has wrought in Iraq, is how blase most Americans are about the war. Probably because for domestic political reasons Bush has refused to instate a draft. The draft is what energized the antiwar movement during Vietnam, it gave the whole war an undeniable domestic impact and a rallying point. Without the draft, it has been relatively easy to marginalize the antiwar movement. And without a highly visible antiwar movement, it’s so much easier to pretend that everything is going just fine.

Of course, not having a draft means that after four years in Iraq we are no better off than when we started. Not having a draft was like Roosevelt telling Eisenhower the day after D-Day: “Well, no more troops, you have to liberate France with the 175,000 troops that landed on D-Day.” It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out how that would have turned out. (Hint: There were over 700,000 German troops in France alone.) Yet for the sake of domestic politics, Bush has given the US military an impossible task in Iraq. Of course as is almost always the case when one tries to have one’s cake and eat it too, Bush has accomplished neither goal. His domestic popularity is at record lows, and the conversion of Iraq into a western style state is going nowhere fast. And he’s managing to wreck the US military in the process, not to mention America’s international reputation.

And we haven’t even gotten our hands on all the oil that was supposed to pay for this. Yes, there’s more black gold in Iraq than all the conquistadors and pirates in history ever dreamt of. Fortunately, salvation is at hand, the quisling Iraqi government has almost signed the law giving Iraq’s oil to US oil companies. How the USA plans to pump all that oil in a country riven with insurgency and sectarian strife is still a mystery, but I’m sure there’s a plan. Already nearly one out of five Iraqis is dead or displaced, at this rate in another sixteen years everyone in Iraq will be homeless or dead. Surely it will be easy to pump the oil then. Is this the plan? Is this what Secretary of Defense Gates meant when he said the US will be in the region for decades?

At least the anti-war movement is growing, and is spreading to many sectors of society. There is a strong Iraq veterans against the war movement now for example. Still, it’s disturbing to me how mainstream the idea that “violence is the only solution” has become. It’s almost as if many in America are uncomfortable with the idea of peace. Maybe forty years of the Cold War was so comforting that people can’t imagine not having some enemy lurking in the corners. What’s so bad about being at peace? Why is it wrong to want to be at peace? Wouldn’t we all be better off if we weren’t spending so much money on weapons?

Four years in Iraq, and all I have are questions. I wish I had answers. I know the Democrats don’t, all they do is suggest lite versions of Bush’s answers. And Bush and the war party have been wrong about everything so far, at least they are consistent. Maybe that does suggest a way out after all. The people who said invading Iraq was a good idea also say withdrawing from Iraq is a bad idea…I’m willing to bet they’re wrong as before and pull out our troops.

If we’re brave enough to risk a war, are we not brave enough to risk a peace?

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. It is central to illustrating the post and it is not being used for profit. It has not been altered in any way, a US Navy squadron does proudly display a death’s head insignia on their aircraft.)

Written by unitedcats

March 19, 2007 at 9:15 am

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Indeed, sadly advocating peace is now seen as extremism in the eyes of the mainstream media.

    Dave On Fire

    March 19, 2007 at 9:29 am

  2. On the contrary, Dave on Fire, the media seems to supporting “peace.” If there is a peace protest of any size, you can bet that the headline will be “masses march for peace” or something of a similar ilk.

    If the peace that you want is peace where we have to tremble because we never know if a terrorist is lurking around the next corner to blow himself up, than no, I’m not brave enough to risk a peace. Terrorists don’t talk, they kill. And if terrorism comes to America in the way that it has come to Europe and Israel and Africa and the Southeast Pacific, believe me, they won’t be talking to you either.

    “They say: Peace, peace, but there is no peace.”
    A man wiser than you or I.

    thelonedrifter

    March 19, 2007 at 9:42 am

  3. America must change something in its policy. Oil is important, but human lifes are even more important than oil.
    Alas, I do not see much difference between Republicans and Democrats when Iraq is concerned.
    And I do not believe Iraq will ever be the country like Americe, if that is what Bush thinks it will be.

    balkanbalkan

    March 19, 2007 at 10:04 am

  4. lonedrifter, you seem to be under the impression that bombing Muslim countries to oblivion in some way protects us from terrorism. A quick look at the levels of Western civilian victims of terrorist attacks, or at the fertile recruting ground and stable base of operations that Al Qaeda has now found in Iraq, will perhaps convince you otherwise.

    While we’re quoting men “wiser than you or I”, how about Albert Einstein, who said that “Peace cannot be brought about by force, only by understanding”? For ever terrorist you kill, you create many more.

    Dave On Fire

    March 19, 2007 at 10:05 am

  5. @Dave: So what if we leave Iraq and the “bad guys” burn the whole place to the ground and take Iran and Syria with them. Or start a war with Israel, provoking a possible nuclear response.

    The West keeps telling the Muslim world that they want peace with the Muslims, and the Muslims keep telling the West to submit to Allah. Or die.

    Not much of a choice at all. I will keep fighting.

    Stephen/Shoulung

    March 21, 2007 at 10:46 am

  6. @Stephen/Shoulung:

    The only accurate things in your comment were the inverted commas.

    Studies consistently show that most of the damage in Iraq is being done by the occupying coalition. By brutalising all the Iraqis, we create both a need for militant resistance and a fertile recruitment base, and legitimise groups that would otherwise get little support. Most importantly, if there is any truth to the whole democracy rhetoric, it should not be up to us what happens in Iraq, but up to the Iraqis – and the Iraqis want us to leave.

    It is the US and Israel who are threatening Iran with (potentially nuclear) war, certainly not the other way around. And I can only hope that this statement…

    The West keeps telling the Muslim world that they want peace with the Muslims, and the Muslims keep telling the West to submit to Allah. Or die.

    … is a joke. “the Muslim world” does not act and speak as one. The world’s Muslims have as diverse views and interests as the world’s Christians or the world’s atheists. If you could generalise the demands of Muslims (and especially of those we label as Islamists) to the West, it’s mainly a demand to stop bombing, shooting, imprisoning, torturing, dispossessing, disenfranchising and demonising Muslims.

    Dave On Fire

    March 21, 2007 at 11:00 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: