The Ugly Un-American: Iraq, Iraq
Posted by Ray Church on 06.22.2006
This week, the political state of the Iraq war, declaring war on abstracts, how to really win in Iraq and polling on George Bush. Plus, a two for one special on "Shut the Hell Up" Awards, a new segment giving props to people I disagree with and a look at everyone's favourite Turd Blossom.
The Country So Nice, You Bombed It Twice
It all seemed so idiotic / all the accusations so unpatriotic / the fallen will always remember / capitulating silence / election November
Winter of the Long Hot Summer – Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy
Damn, Michael Franti makes it into my columns again. You could read that entire song and think it was written about the current war in Iraq. Unfortunately, in a perfect example of history repeating itself, it rings true today as well.
Iraq has been both the argument and the counter argument to the war on terror in this last week, so I guess it's time to finally take on the behemoth.
So here are some thoughts on the latest news from Iraq.
Defining the Abstract
For those not in the know, the House of Representatives debated and passed a bill that would define the war in Iraq as part of the War on Terror. Remember that fact, I will come back to this in a second.
For those who haven't sent me an email, my handle is Edgukator, which apart from being a reference to an Adam Copeland finisher, is also a reference to my occupation. I'm an English teacher by trade. One of the first things I always have to do in class is define the difference between an abstract and a concrete word. A concrete word is one that can be sensed in some fashion. You can see, touch, taste, hear or smell it. An abstract word is one that defines an idea, such as a feeling, a concept or a value.
What does that mean? Bill O'Reilly's "big giant head" is concrete, while the Bush Administrations definition of truth is abstract.
Boy, what a lot of work for a couple of one-liners.
Back to the point, a country, an organization or a place is concrete; Germany, the Communist Party and Grand Central Station are all concrete places, while feelings, values and ideas are abstract; hate, Communism and terrorism are abstract ideas.
The reason I bring this ideas up is because a war against and abstract idea is impossible to fight with weapons. Look at the war on poverty. How do you fight poverty? Do you kill poor people? No, what you are really fighting is the causes of poverty, which are not concrete things either. The fact is that the war on poverty has nothing to do with war itself, and while the war on drugs may often turn violent, the use of force has not prevented or stopped the use of drugs in any meaningful way. Why? Because you cannot use force to kill a concept.
Forgive me for not remembering the name of the person who wrote this, but it comes from a poem called "Definition of an Idea".
You can call an idea an anathema to 999,999 and the millionth person will reach for a dictionary. / You can nail it to a cross and it will rise again after three days.
You cannot defeat an idea with a war, and the idea that any physical war is part of a War against Terrorism is just stupid. You can kill one person who uses terrorism, but not kill terrorism itself. Just ask the United Kingdom and its 80 year war against terrorism in Northern Ireland. If it was just about killing the right number of people there would have been peace in Ireland much earlier. The reality is that use of violence reinforced the use of terrorism in Ireland. Children grew up believing that terrorism was the right way to go about things because the reaction of the British reinforced the views of the IRA.
There is another abstract that has not been defined here. What does "winning" look like? How will you know when you have "won" in Iraq? How will you know when you have "won" the War of Terrorism? At least the War on Poverty has some form of measurable goal. You can say you have won when below X% of people live below the poverty line.
But can you say that about the War on Terrorism? No one questioned George Bush when he said the US will win the war on Terror. No one asked what that will look like. No one asked how we will measure it. A similar prospect faces the US in Iraq. What will success look like? How do you measure it? There is no army to surrender. In fact the army has already surrendered and George Bush flew in under a big banner that said "Mission Accomplished". Now George Bush flies over in the middle of the night, holds a party and gets the hell out of Dodge before anyone notices.
George Bush has defined a win as (when) every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. The question it raises is how many more terrorists groups will be formed in response to the War on Terror. Zarqawi, for example, was not part of Al-Qaeda when Bush invaded Iraq. Was he a terrorist? Sure, but he was a member of a vaguely allied group that only pledged its allegiance to Bin Laden in 2004.
In another example, according to Ron Suskind, the CIA concluded that Bin Laden timed his 2004 video release to help get Bush elected. Why? Because Bush was great for his recruiting. The War on Terror has been a boon for Terrorist organisations.
The real answer is you have to find the root of the idea. Why do these people see terrorism as their only weapon? I'm not being touchy-feely "sleep in for peace" about it. There are times that violence is the necessary vehicle. But the only weapon against an idea is another idea, and the only weapon against fear is education. You can't kill terrorism.
Forget the Snake, Let's Talk about the Hydra
Well, Zarqawi has been killed and news reports around America are touting a massive spike in his approval ratings. Well, sort of. The Washington Post stated that this is a 7% jump since May, stating this week was a major reason (see the facts below), ABC noted that this was the "best week ever" and Joe Scarborough touted the increase as "a 20% increase when you're sitting at 31%". (Word to Joe, if he had a 1% approval rating, and it went to 2%, that would obviously mean he had a 100% increase in his approval. This logic is just, well, illogical).
OK, the facts. Only one poll showed a greater than 3% leap in Bush support. The Pew report showed a 3% jump, CNN a 1% jump, NBC / Wall Street Journal? 1%, all, to my estimation, within the margin of error. The USA Today / Gallup poll does show an increase of 7% if you read from May. If you go back to February it reads as no change. If you check from before this "trifecta of good news" (Karl Rove, Zarqawi and the new Iraqi government), it reads as 2%. Again, within the Margin of Error.
The only poll to show a jump? Fox news.
Killing Zarqawi, the GOP claimed, was cutting the head off the snake, which is a bad analogy for people who are trying to prove that they are in touch with the situation on the ground. If it is cutting the head off the snake, then what do you say when the next bomb goes off? It's a new snake? What do you say when two US soldiers are kidnapped, tortured and mutilated?
They might have gone for the idea of cutting the head off the chicken. For those who don't know, chickens, reportedly, can run around for up to 20 minutes after they have their head removed. (Having never seen this personally, I can't vouch for the veracity of such a claim). Back to the point, that analogy would at least make sense out of the senselessness that followed.
The truest analogy, however, is that they cut the head off the hydra. Again, for those not in the know, the hydra was a legendary beast that Hercules, as one of his twelve legendary tasks, had to kill. A dragon with 7 heads, the hydra was unique in that when one head was removed, two took its place.
One head has already risen to replace Zarqawi, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (AKA Big Nose, in the words of Mathew D.S.), who is now the official leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. It must be noted that, if I were the real number one man in Al Qaeda, I wouldn't go around publicizing the fact. I might let someone else take all of the credit, and assassination attempts, and do my planning and directing quietly out of harms way.
So, less than a week after Zarqawi is killed, Al Qaeda unleashes its new leader and beheads to US soldiers, as well as kidnapping 4 Russian diplomats. Bear in mind that the Russian Diplomats are not mentioned anywhere near as often as the two US soldiers, even before the beheading.
So has the US cut the head off the snake? No, it's a hydra.
What's Wrong with the Democratic Party?
OK, so the other issue to come out of this is the Democrats response to it. Why don't the Democrats have a single unified vision to get out of Iraq? Where's the plan?
Well, I'm not a Democrat. I tend to side with them just because the GOP are so incompetent, but I believe this is a no win situation. America made this mess. America went into a dysfunctional, corrupt country and turned it into an anarchic civil war. You have a duty to clean the mess up because you are responsible for it.
At the same time there may well be no way for America to clean up the mess because their presence is making the whole situation worse. It becomes an impossible situation.
The real answer is one that no American politician can put forward. Like it or not, it means admitting that the US was wrong, and admitting that the United Nations, as the only existing world forum for such things, has jurisdiction here and asking for help in putting it straight. Why? Because America is an occupying army. What Iraq needs now is peacekeepers.
Now the rest of the world may turn round and say "tough", but quite frankly it is the only way America will climb out of the hole.
"Shut the Hell Up" Award
OK, a two for one, as this has been the culmination of two weeks of work, so first up, my last word on the current Anne Coulter affair.
Jack Burkman pisses me off.
It's one thing to be a vitriolic nutcase who attacks the innocent to sell more books, but to be a moron who defends the sick and perverted takes a special type of prick. Never have I seen a man who has a more appropriate last name.
You know, Joe, the one thing I would ask—let‘s make some news tonight here. Nobody is asking the basic factual question. The focus is on Ann Coulter, and I certainly support everything she‘s saying. But let‘s have some questions about these widows, these witches of New Brunswick. Is it the case that they hired PR agents in the days after? How long did they wait? Did they wait two days? Did they wait a month? I think it was done in the first week, and I think there‘s evidence that they had lawyers, PR people, literary agents, all of these folks telling them to go out there.
Less than three days later he reappears on Scarborough Country and repeats the same point.
Now, some people may be sitting and asking why the Jersey Girls don't just answer this question so let me put a very clear rule of thumb for debating and arguing here: It is the burden of the accuser to provide the evidence.
Rewind the event and try it again. If Anne Coulter, or Jack Burkman, had walked into these interview with proof or evidence that the Jersey Girls had done just that, then there would be no issue here, but they didn't. They muddied the issue and threw insults. They provided "suppose" and "maybe" and "how do we know they weren't".
The absence of proof is not the proof of absence, so there is nothing the Jersey Girls can supply to prove their innocence, and even if they did get lawyers or PR agents it is not proof of guilt.
Did they speak to lawyers within days after the death of their husbands? Probably. There are thousands of legal issues surrounding the deaths of their husbands. I've been to enough funerals to know that even in the most mundane course of death there are legal issues involved.
Did they speak to PR agents? I have no idea, but realize that the widows were probably being approached by the press from the moment their names were released. I've had to talk to the press and media before and it is very easy to say the wrong thing. One small thing can be twisted and misinterpreted.
But back to the point, it is not their job to defend themselves against these charges. It is the job of those who would attack them to provide evidence of wrongdoing. Until you have the evidence, shut up.
Michael Smirconish
My apologies, but I couldn't think of a witty title for this.
OK, Smirconish steps in to replace Joe Scaborough on Tuesday and what does he do?
I have to ask myself where are the people who worked themselves into a lather about the naked pyramid pictures at Abu Ghraib or those who wanted trials at The Hague because we played Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud for the detainees down at Gitmo. Tonight in America, some are no doubt sitting in barcaloungers kvetching over which American soldiers will next be put on trial for alleged war atrocities, and meanwhile, these dirtbags—they‘re thinking about whose head they want to chop off next.
First up, no one is arguing that the Al Qaeda operatives are not the lowest form of scum. No one is saying that this isn't a horrible tragedy. No one is excusing this behaviour.
At the same time, there are those that we have a moral responsibility to and those we don't. I am not responsible if the man next door is having an affair. I'm not responsible for his behaviour. But I am responsible if I am having an affair. I am not responsible if my next door neighbour's child is a sick little kid who drowns puppies, although I have a responsibility to protect the puppies if I see it. If my own daughter decides to skin a kitten, then I am responsible.
In the same way, America has no moral responsibility for the actions of these sickos in Iraq. They do not have any moral authority to them or over them. But the sickos who "played Christina Aguilera music a bit too loud" are people we have an obligation towards. (I'm talking as the Democratic West now, I have the same moral responsibility as you do). Not to even mention how the atrocities of Gitmo are grossly underplayed here. The naked pyramid that he later brings up was not the sum of all things that happened. It was an example of the power trip that was played out. It was also one of the less offensive photos that could have been shown.
This is like saying Mussolini was a good guy because he was not as bad as Hitler. Criticise and vilify Al Qaeda, by all means, but don't use it to excuse the actions of sick and demented US troops.
Short Shot: Ole Ole Olson Free
Karl Rove is a free man, and he celebrated by blasting the Democrats as cowards. Way to go brainiac, you beat the rap.
The problem is that this is being played up as a vindication, something that the facts don't bear out. Was he indicted? No. Did he do anything criminal? This is not so clear, as it was more about how his crimes could not be proved, but because I believe in innocent until proven guilty we'll say "no".
Did he do anything immoral or unethical? Yes. The fact is, under oath and proven in a court of law, that Rove did release the name of Valerie Plame to the media, that he did out a covert CIA agent. Was that unethical? Yes.
Yup, brainiac is walking free but it is criminal that there is not intense pressure on the white house and the GOP to fire him. The guy should not be allowed within a kilometer of any sort of privileged or classified information.
All I can hope is that his involvement with the GOP backfires and he becomes an albatross around their neck. This is not the first lack of ethics to be evidenced from Mr. Rove. I think I've already mentioned his push poll on John McCain in a previous column. His list of bad ethics goes right back to when he was in college and he trained other students to root through people's garbage and look for dirt on them. He tried to frame the Democrats by bugging his own office. He was fired twice by George H. W. Bush for leaking stories to the press.
If the GOP want to salvage their reputation, Rove should be fired and forbidden from anywhere near a GOP office.
Cheap Props
Just a small addition here, as I am finding that no matter how much I disagree with people, there is always something somebody says that I agree with. So, this week, props to:
Bill O'Reilly for verbally slapping Michelle Malkin when she couldn't see the similarity between a democratic insult and a republican insult.
John McCain for refusing to use the jingo "cut and run", despite it being the norm for the rest of the Republican Party.
Tucker Carlson for actually using facts, quoting British polls of Iraqis, to counter Brad Blakeman's claim that the Iraq wanted peace. He reminded Blakeman that there were no WMD's. He slapped down the World War II analogy. I may not agree with his conclusions, but at least he used reasoned argument and facts to counter talking points and jingoism.
Shout Outs
I get the chance to meet the famous Brandon Crow in the flesh in the next couple of days, but in the meantime, Krystal Hernandez had a good look at Bush's Christianity.
Want more about Iraq? Check out Joe Rivett's latest column He also give me props here, although the egomaniac in me is a little disappointed he linked Josh's column and not mine.
STAY CURRENT