I missed the Bush address last night. I heard radio snippets of it on the way home from Alpha, and have seen a few video bits this morning. He sounded good, though looked his usual deer-in-the-headlights self when you saw him. I don’t think that’s the reality, but it’s a damned unfortunate personal characteristic.
As I was watching the pre-reaction to the final ultimatum yesterday, I kept reading some common rhetorical trends, many of them a bit evolved from previous weeks. Each, though, was misleading, and, since I’ve been nattering relatively non-stop all through this crisis, I might as well natter about this, too.
Diplomacy hasn’t failed — it’s never been tried! Well, not exactly. After all, most of the last twelve years have been a diplomatic dance with Iraq, trying to hold Saddam to the conditions of the cease-fire he signed, under UN auspices. There have been — how many UN resolutions, the results of how much further negotiation and debate?
And, heck, it’s not like over the weekend, Dubya suddenly decided to attack Iraq. Bush made it clear that the current regime needed to be finally confronted a lot earlier than last fall, and he’s been putting the screws on heavily for months. Obviously, it’s been diplomacy with armed forces lurking in the wings — but, just as obviously, that’s been the only thing that’s gotten even token concessions from Iraq.
Diplomacy has been tried. But diplomacy is not an end in itself. If you’re not clearly willing to go the extra step to actually back up talk with action, then nobody will listen to you.
The other problem with diplomacy is that folks expect there will be give and take, a compromise reached between competing starting positions. But that only works when both actors are sincere in a desire to compromise (“sincerity” and “Saddam” only appear together in a dictionary). And it only works when there is a reasonable middle ground; if the alternative is full strategic disarmament of Iraq or non-disarmament, there’s not a lot of room to maneuver. Only Saddam would be happy to destroy just some of his Al Samoud missiles.
Well, you know, this is all just, falsely, about 9/11. This rhetoric usually has two parts: the Bushies know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but have used Fear Talk to convince the general public that Saddam personally gave the word to the terrorists.
The tie between Iraq and al-Qa’eda has been the weakest part of the Administration’s case. It’s possible that they may have overemphasized it, just to garner support. It’s also possible that they still have information that is sufficient to convince them, but not a smoking gun that would be worth revealing.
But concerns over Iraq — and the need to take a firm, even military, hand in dealing with Saddam’s flouting of the 1991 cease-fire (a result, not to forget, of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait), did not suddenly spring, full-grown, from George W. Bush’s forehead, or even mysteroius Neocon Think Tanks. Bill Clinton publically stated the same need, but was paralyzed by his own scandals and accusations of “Wag the Dog” diversions; instead, he just lobbed some cruise missiles, which were both destructive and unpersuasive.
If nothing else, though, and even if no other firm connection is ever found or revealed, 9/11 was an obvious wake-up call for the Administration (as well as the rest of the US). Bush had shown every sign of being an isolationist president before that day, more focused on a domestic agenda than an international one. Forced to pay attention to the rest of the world, it was clear that one of the biggest threats in the Middle East, al-Qa’eda link or not, was Iraq — a conclusion shared by his two predecessors.
If the general public in the US thinks that all or most of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi (they weren’t), then shame on them. But that doesn’t mean Iraq wasn’t involved, and it doesn’t mean that Iraq isn’t a danger.
This action by the US is unprecedented! It’s a betrayal of the international order that has kept peace across the planet for half a century! As was pointed out in the Jerusalem Post yesterday, Idi Amin wasn’t deposed by the UN, but by Tanzania. Pol Pot’s killing spree in Cambodia wasn’t cut off by the UN, but by Viet Nam. Mobutu Sese Seko’s Zairean kleptocracy was cut off by a coalition of African neighbors. None of these provoked massive world demonstrations. Why is Saddam different?
And, for that matter, the US has done this sort of thing, too, whether it was Noriega in Panama or Duvalier in Haiti. And, of course, the US was a major player in the non-UN intervention in Yugoslavia. Why is the US now seen as stepping into “unilateralism” now?
And, out of courtesy, we’ll not spend too much time discussing the ongoing French military intervention and forceful “peace” brokering in former colonies such as the Ivory Coast.
Is it that the US, as the “hyper-power,” is the easiest target? Or simply the biggest “threat”?
It’s times like these that I wish I could hop forward fifty years and see how things today are seen then. I think it would be illuminating to everyone — myself included.
Good reading! Educational and thought provoking. I hope you’re keeping backup copies of all your entries so that your little one, in future years, will have the treasure of your insight as HER history is unfolding.
Well, I still need to set up a process of paper backups, but I’m certainly keeping electronic archives.
Wanna Hear My Views on the War in the Middle East?
Go to ***Dave Does the Blog and read this entry. I need say no more. He tapped into my brain
Good rebuttal to three anti-war arguments.
I don’t read ***Dave Does The Blog as a regular habit, but I may start. Several of the other blogs I read also read Dave’s blog and I’m beginning to see why. The reason for this sudden interest in my part has to do with an entry he made on…
Excellent points and well said. I am of a slightly different opinion than our government is using 9-11 as a smoke screen, I am more concerned with their inability or unwillingness to give us (the citizenry) any information that would persuade us that this is necessary. Rumsfeld has outright disdain for reporters that would be so impertinent as to ask for information and it is that kind of secrecy that I so strongly object to.
I do not expect the government to give us troop movements or time tables but to act as though we do not matter in the equasion is hubris, especially in a country where they serve at the people’s whim. I do not elect my leaders to become my minders or my betters, they should serve me by attending to the will of the people, not just the ones that agree with them. The arrogance of our President and his cabinet are what infuriate so many of us here at home and those who share the world we live in. I worry about the damage being done by this administration with their “Patriot” Act, the Information Awareness Office (run by convicted FELON John Poindexter), and whatever else follows. I would worry less if I thought anyone in government was listening.
Should Saddam and his sons die? Probably, but there are monsters who are running many countries…will we don our superhero cape and save them all? Or just the ones that the current administration does not like? If our goals are so noble why not go in at the first sign of human rights abuses?
I agree that this adminisration has been communication-adverse, and while business-as-usual was unlikely (and unwise) after 9/11, I’m not sanguine about a number of the homeland security measures that have been taken. And while I expect that there will be info that the government cannot give us, especially in this context, I think they’ve not done a good job of convincing us that they can’t — they’re just not.
Human rights are not — and cannot — be the sole reason for this attack. They’re a definite collateral benefit, though. Iraq is a “convenient” combination of psychopathic bloody dictator with a track record of trying to be a regional nuclear regional super-power, who routinely invades his neighbors to his own benefit, who threatens a world strategic resource, who supports terrorists, who has demonstrated an unwillingness to work and play well with others, and who can acutually be handled right now. There aren’t many other places that fit that description.
.
Ok, one last thing
I’m not going to say much about ‘it’ this time, but I ran across this post from a blog I…
Well, WE support terrorists. Lest we forget we are the ones who helped Saddam into power and we trained Bin Laden and Co. back when they were fighting against the Soviet Union (they were freedom fighters then). Through the CIA we routinely fund and support some very dodgy characters but as long as they are under our thumb, no harm no foul. We can not ignore our own complicity in the quagmire we find ourselves currently in, because we play with fire it would follow that we might eventually get burned.
My question about going in for humanitarian reasons was meant to be rhetorical (there’s no profit in simply helping people so why would we) but if we did use human rights abuse as a litmus I believe more people would get behind the president because it would be an honorable war. When we go in without a convincing explanation and run oil for food programs why wouldn’t people think this is an oil war? The worst thing this administration can do is keep us in the dark, we are not our parents or grandparents generation, we question authority especially when we have seen so much corruption in our lifetime. Trust is earned. I don’t think this administration has earned it. I don’t remember the last one that did.
I agree that we’ve been more than willing to make a deal with the devil against what we felt (rightly or wrongly) was a greater threat. We supported Iraq against Iran. We supported the mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. We’ve supported the contras against the Nicaraguan government.
But to whatever extent we may have been one of the parties that supported Iraq (and, as previously noted, we’re not the only ones, or even the biggest contributor), that only means we have a responsibility to clean up for ourselves.
I think that what humanitarian beneft we bring the Iraqis through this invasion shouldn’t be pooh-poohed. While not sufficient in and of itself to warrent this action (otherwise, yes, we’d be running around the world doing this sort of thing almost everywhere), it’s certainly a factor in the decision. I think the Administration has tried to make that case, but general cynicism (both justified and not) has prevented that message from getting across. I suspect that once more stories come out of Iraq, post-liberation, we’ll see a lot more post facto support.
I agree that once we begin to hear more from the liberated Iraqis that public opinion will shift more in support of the war, but those of us with memories that last longer than a White Snake video on MTV and IQs higher than room temperature will remember how we were ignored by an administration that couldn’t or wouldn’t give us the information that tied Saddam to terrorism. Maybe 66% of Americans can live with that, I guess I’m destined to always be in the minority. Well, unless you count the rest of the world.
Venomous Kate at Electricvenom.com has done an amazing timeline of our dealings with Iraq over the years. Worth looking at.
Great writing, Dave!
Thankee, ma’am.