I’ve said in more than a few posts that my fear re the Iraq situation is that either 1) Bush Lied (or some other phrase that might capture the subtleties of misleading a nation) OR 2) the weapons existed in all the gory detail that was presented to us- and have now been looted off into unknown hands (either terrorists or just folks looking to grab anything they can). Either option is bad. The third option, of course, is the ‘we haven’t found them, but all the weapons will be found undesturbed…stop worrying.’ This option I am less inclined to believe than the option that Santa Claus elighted away with the weapons to put them safely away.

It looks more and more like we will have a situation between options one and two. Bush used faulty info, AND what weapons did exist (and what non-weapon-but-still-dangerous-material did exist) is now gone into the hands of either bad folks or unsuspecting folks looking for a spare container.

Read this, from the BBC. I linked to it from Josh Marshall’s page. And as he says, it is indeed scary.

Sorry for the recent absence. Been on the move lately celebrating the finish of two thirds of my graduate work. yeehaw. but back to the news.

It seems important that if we are to gain the real vood that is possible in iraq, we’ve got to stay atuned to the place. Tom Friedman worries we are “Bored With Baghdad � Already,” and i share his fear. He writes:

“I am sure things will improve. But after traveling around central Iraq, here’s what worries me: The buildup to this war was so exhausting, the coverage of the dash to Baghdad so telegenic, and the climax of the toppling of Saddam’s statue so dramatic, that everyone who went through it seems to prefer that the story just end there. The U.S. networks changed the subject after the fall of Baghdad as fast as you can say “Laci Peterson,” and President Bush did the same as fast as you can say ‘tax cuts.’

“Iraqis are an exhausted people. Most seem ready to give us a chance, and we do have a shot at making this a decent place � but not with nation building lite. That approach is coming unstuck in Afghanistan and it will never work in Iraq. We’ve wasted an important month. We must get our act together and our energy up. Why doesn’t Mr. Rumsfeld brief reporters every day about rebuilding Iraq, the way he did about destroying Saddam?

America is in an imperial role here, now. Our security and standing in the world ride on our getting Iraq right. If the Bush team has something more important to do, I’d like to know about it. Iraq can still go wrong for a hundred Iraqi reasons, but let’s make sure it’s not because America got bored, tired or distracted.”

This seems to me a sensible article. We all know Friedman has supported this war- but with the carefully pronounced caveat that his support was for the ideal carrying out of the war that Friedman laid out over several op-eds; namely, he bought into the grand scheme notion that this could trigger progressive/secular governments in the mid-east. (If you disagree regarding my interp of Friedman, please comment).

Now I see Friedman saying “uh oh…will we really go through the tough work to carry out my ideal?” One need only click over to Altercation today (see link to right) to hear the “i told you so’s ringing out.”

Eric Alterman raises an interesting question here:

Eric Alterman: Altercation

Find his link to the newsweek story on the defector who told the UN in ’95 that Iraq desroyed all of its WMD. And then ponder, as does Eric, why on earth does the headline suggest the opposite story. I’m baffled…

Finally, along the lines of the previous two posts, I offer this link to a recent episode of This American Life on the Iraq question. (thanks to Chrissy) It is, in my thinking, far better than anything the pundits offer on all this:

From WBEZ in Chicago | This American Life

click on the real-audio for “Why We Fight, Dec. 20″

The link below is to Safire’s column in today’s New York Times. His point is to wake up the war-dissenters and paint a clear picture of the present scene- he does this with dueling scenarios:

1) if the “hawks are wrong”- millions of Iraqis will be nonetheless freed because of all the hubub

2) if the “doves are wrong”- millions of Americans may be killed by an empoweed Hussein

Safire has assisted my own thinking on the situation by revealing how the pro-war-now (note the ‘now’) side has simplified the situation.

Safire’s reasoning is problematic on too many levels to confront fully here. It rests on such a pre-Safire-determined set of events that it is more akin to having your palm read than hearing sound reasoning.

1) what does he mean by “wrong”? the use of wrong, here, suggests the Iraq question is a yes-or-no proposition. While the White surely has tried to make it such (either you support our effort to disarm Iraq by any means or you don’t)- the situation is not simple. For example, one CAN be in favor of a de-weaponized Hussein and not be in favor of unilateral U.S. invasion. In other words, one can be in favor of solid defense without favoring offense, despite Bush’s assertion to the contrary.

2) Is it necessarily so that millions of Americans will be killed if we don’t support war-now.

3) Is it necessarily so that the worst that can happen if we don’t have war-now is the freedom of Iraqis?

Let me offer another scenario: We invade now with the support of Blair and a handful of others. With the “collateral damage” of thousands of Iraqi civilians, bombs blow up what the U.S. figures are the locales of chemical plants and so forth. But after the initial “success” and the invasion into Bahgdad begins, intelligence informs us that Hussein is no longer in Iraq. We nonetheless secure the cities and impliment our favored new leader of an Iraqi democracy. Meanwhile, Hussein has formed a massive terrorist network and plots a major attack on U.S. cities. He is beat to this destruction by Osama bin Laden, who had been able to recruit more than ever before the young zealots that hate American imperialism.

I am being far fetched with a purpose- and that is: we have no idea what the future holds. But we do know that our action as a nation has repercussions. Safire ignores that fact.

The Mourning After

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers