Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Execution Style
Is it wrong for me to make bad puns out of someone's death? I haven't been keeping my nose close to the news lately, so it came as a bit of a shock last weekend when I heard they were about to execute Saddam Hussein. About to? I figured that was rhetoric- that maybe they were going to keep the appeal process under 10 years this time. But no, there was Al-Maliki, pronouncing it'd be done within a week. Then I figured that was when the UN would jump in, sounding sanctimonious, demanding that there be more appeals, human rights inspectors to oversee it, etc. Even the US had to be taken aback at this timetable, right? No, US officials said things like "he's a prisoner of the Iraqi government now" and "they're free to do as they want". So Saddam Hussein was hanged, and I'm in no position to argue whether he deserved it or not. That he was hanged by an Iraqi court, and not by an international court, and executed by his former dictatees (is that a word?) seems more like an assassination than justice. But that's not what I'm irked about.
No, what I'm getting at is that it somehow seems so fitting for this war. That the Iraqi prime minister, assuredly filled with anger and hatred for his former dictator, took such pleasure and haste in killing him shows what Iraq has become. It isn't surprising, maybe, that the UN wanted no part of it. Everyone wants to get out of Iraq, and it alternately makes me disgusted and happy:
Poll numbers in April '04 showed that 77% of the public supported Bush and his war. Polls now show that just about 77% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. So that means about 54% of the American public has changed their minds. The consensus? Bush told us that we'd be hailed as liberators! And he told us that Saddam had WMDs! We've been lied to! We've been had! This much is true. Isn't this why we elect representatives? Aren't they supposed to get to the truth of the matter? YTE has never been shy about our greatness, but apparently it's true- we do know better than the politicians.
Because I know that all three of us, at least, were never convinced. I'm guessing that whoever's reading this counted themselves as the 23% who were against it from the start. I've actually switched into the other 23% at various points, because as Marmar would say, I'm a hater. But no, it wasn't purely just so I could be a non-conformist. It was because, (and bonus points for quote identification) "you can't play god and then wash your hands of the things you've done." But that's not what I'm thinking anymore. I say, let's cut and run. Let's let democracy lose, and have freedom stagnate, unrung, in the land of Iraq. Let's implode a country by allowing a civil war that we started, to take its course. Oh wait, is that not a very convincing argument?
But the thing is, in order to leave Iraq, don't we have to be prepared to accept those consequences? Maybe, and maybe not. No matter how many times you say "there's no civil war", doesn't make it true. I don't think deep-seated religious strife and cyclical violence can be cured through daily affirmations. What Saddam's execution at the hands of mostly Shiite handlers represents (even though I won't confess to knowing Al-Maliki's actual motives) is that US forces are now accomplishing nothing over there, and in fact are no longer even the focal point for what happens in Iraq from now on.
There are millions of Iraqi people at risk, and to say we should get out and leave them to the monsters goes counter to something I really do believe- that American lives are not worth more than any other human lives. To publish 3,000 American soldier's deaths as a milestone but then throw out a number like 600,000 Iraqi deaths as if it's an attendance statistic is, well, frankly, American. But to stand in the middle of a fight that you have no control over is stupid. (and arguably also American) We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, and our history. Iraq's future may be democratic, but I don't think it'll be at the end of an M-16's barrel. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Korea. In fact we have a much better track record at installing dictators (as our last commenter pointed out) than we do of removing them.
So what, exactly, am I recommending? Our friend David came up with a good idea (yes, he still has them semi-annually). Let's give it one try at doing it right. Send in twice as many troops as we have now; even if that means unifying the Sunnis and Shiites through sheer martial law (and perhaps even through mutual struggle against the US). If they're still hell-bent on destroying each other, then we really are just standing in the way.
But that isn't going to happen, because that's an even more unpopular decision than staying OR leaving. So leave it to us to suggest the impossible and then criticize everyone when they don't do as we say. And I'm certainly not willing to sign up for that, so it smacks of hypocrisy as well. So I vote we get out, and simply prepare ourselves for the consequences. And Vietnam (although there was no sectarian or racist division there) even showed us that it can succeed despite our bungling, so it may be possible that Iraq has a way out in the absence of US forces, so we can tell ourselves that it will work out in the end. That's what Bush says to himself as he falls asleep every night.
No, what I'm getting at is that it somehow seems so fitting for this war. That the Iraqi prime minister, assuredly filled with anger and hatred for his former dictator, took such pleasure and haste in killing him shows what Iraq has become. It isn't surprising, maybe, that the UN wanted no part of it. Everyone wants to get out of Iraq, and it alternately makes me disgusted and happy:
Poll numbers in April '04 showed that 77% of the public supported Bush and his war. Polls now show that just about 77% disapprove of Bush's handling of the war. So that means about 54% of the American public has changed their minds. The consensus? Bush told us that we'd be hailed as liberators! And he told us that Saddam had WMDs! We've been lied to! We've been had! This much is true. Isn't this why we elect representatives? Aren't they supposed to get to the truth of the matter? YTE has never been shy about our greatness, but apparently it's true- we do know better than the politicians.
Because I know that all three of us, at least, were never convinced. I'm guessing that whoever's reading this counted themselves as the 23% who were against it from the start. I've actually switched into the other 23% at various points, because as Marmar would say, I'm a hater. But no, it wasn't purely just so I could be a non-conformist. It was because, (and bonus points for quote identification) "you can't play god and then wash your hands of the things you've done." But that's not what I'm thinking anymore. I say, let's cut and run. Let's let democracy lose, and have freedom stagnate, unrung, in the land of Iraq. Let's implode a country by allowing a civil war that we started, to take its course. Oh wait, is that not a very convincing argument?
But the thing is, in order to leave Iraq, don't we have to be prepared to accept those consequences? Maybe, and maybe not. No matter how many times you say "there's no civil war", doesn't make it true. I don't think deep-seated religious strife and cyclical violence can be cured through daily affirmations. What Saddam's execution at the hands of mostly Shiite handlers represents (even though I won't confess to knowing Al-Maliki's actual motives) is that US forces are now accomplishing nothing over there, and in fact are no longer even the focal point for what happens in Iraq from now on.
There are millions of Iraqi people at risk, and to say we should get out and leave them to the monsters goes counter to something I really do believe- that American lives are not worth more than any other human lives. To publish 3,000 American soldier's deaths as a milestone but then throw out a number like 600,000 Iraqi deaths as if it's an attendance statistic is, well, frankly, American. But to stand in the middle of a fight that you have no control over is stupid. (and arguably also American) We're supposed to learn from our mistakes, and our history. Iraq's future may be democratic, but I don't think it'll be at the end of an M-16's barrel. It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Korea. In fact we have a much better track record at installing dictators (as our last commenter pointed out) than we do of removing them.
So what, exactly, am I recommending? Our friend David came up with a good idea (yes, he still has them semi-annually). Let's give it one try at doing it right. Send in twice as many troops as we have now; even if that means unifying the Sunnis and Shiites through sheer martial law (and perhaps even through mutual struggle against the US). If they're still hell-bent on destroying each other, then we really are just standing in the way.
But that isn't going to happen, because that's an even more unpopular decision than staying OR leaving. So leave it to us to suggest the impossible and then criticize everyone when they don't do as we say. And I'm certainly not willing to sign up for that, so it smacks of hypocrisy as well. So I vote we get out, and simply prepare ourselves for the consequences. And Vietnam (although there was no sectarian or racist division there) even showed us that it can succeed despite our bungling, so it may be possible that Iraq has a way out in the absence of US forces, so we can tell ourselves that it will work out in the end. That's what Bush says to himself as he falls asleep every night.
# posted by Stuart @ 10:37 PM 
