Over the last few weeks I've heard a lot of discussion about the war in Iraq and the supposed drop in public support for the war. And now Cindy Sheehan has attracted media attention (intentionally) by camping out at (well, near) the president's home. This has led to an often heated and rarely enlightening discussion. And the right has rushed to trot out mothers who have lost sons but who support the war.
This simply points out that the country is divided over this war. And I'm going to hazard a guess that for most Americans their feelings about the war hinge on their feelings about the rest of George Bush's agenda. If, like me, you are worried about the leverage the church has gained over politics -- with King George's consent -- you see the war as a tool of the administration to drum up political capital at home for doing what he wants domestically.
For someone like me, and I would guess that Cindy shares at least some of my sentiments, it's obvious that this war was something George Jr. really wanted to do, and something that he stretched the truth in order to convince the rest of us to go along with. I say "stretched the truth" rather than "lied" because when it comes to weapons of mass destruction most Americans, regardless of political persuasion believed Saddam had them. Now that may be a media failure.
You see I think there were experts who understood all along that Saddam was simply trying to maintain a bluff in the region. He had to keep some doubt in the minds of his neighbors about his capabilities and his intentions. There were plenty of Arabs, particularly Muslim militants, who wanted his head and his country. But the media never put the rest of us in touch with these experts until it was too late, and even then it's probably only been the "liberal" media such as NPR who have gotten this information out.
But back to the Bush rationale for a preemptive attack. Since, as we've seen, militant Muslim's weren't pleased with Saddam, it's highly unlikely that he gave significant support to the perpetrators of the New York / DC attacks. Just because some of them stopped in Iraq doesn't mean they had high level talks with the Iraqi government. And even if they did it may have been only a fishing trip to see what support they might get from Mr. Hussein.
The other rationale given at that time was that we would plant a democracy in the Middle East in the hopes democracy would spread. This was based on the idea that the Iraqi people really, desperately wanted to be rid of Saddam and would welcome infidel invaders as liberators. That, we now know, was seriously overoptimistic. The other problem I see with that line of reasoning is that we planted a democracy in the Middle East back in 1948. That democracy is still there, but the idea doesn't seem to have rubbed off on anyone else.
And the jury seems to still be out on whether democracy will work in Iraq. Arguments go both ways, with supporters of our war seeing the glass nearly full and opponents seeing the glass well nigh empty. The truth is we don't know yet if this little experiment will work. But there are a few facts about our involvement that ought to be obvious but aren't.
King George the second now says we have to stay in Iraq until the new Iraqi military is ready to defend the country. What they really mean is that the military is capable of suppressing the "insurgency." But we should know by the nature and targets of the attacks that what these purveyors of violence oppose is the U. S. presence and those Iraqis who are cooperating with us. It could well be that once we moved out and left Iraq to the Iraqis that much of the "insurgent" violence would end.
As a side note, there was a similar situation in the world back in the late 18th century. In that case the "insurgents" won and took over their country and government. Of course the "invading" army wore red, and the local collaborators were called Tories, but otherwise things were roughly the same. And now a country that rose up from an insurgency is trying to quell an insurgency in another country. Can't we understand the motives of these freedom fighters based on our own history?
Of course it may be equally likely that once we leave the nation will deteriorate into civil war. But if that's going to happen it's going to happen and all we can do is delay the inevitable. How long will we continue sending young men overseas to be targets for Iraqi freedom fighters hoping that the social strains of this cobbled-together country won't break out?
Now unless you already know me you may think I'm having a hard time making up my mind about this war. What I'm really saying is that your decision on whether this war is worth it will depend primarily on your worldview. If you truly believe God sent capitalism to earth as a gift to his followers, then our campaign to force it on the Iraqis may make sense. If, however, you have read the Bible and discovered that capitalism is a sin of a least as great a magnitude as homosexuality then you're likely to join me in seeing this war as the arrogant attempt of a corrupt nation to impose its corruption on everybody else.
I could give many other such worldview examples. But the very worst reason for engaging in this war may, it has been rumored, be the real reason George pushed so hard to make it happen. And if that's the case you'll see why it is imperative that George MUST lie about why we're doing this.
I have heard it suggested that the previous Pope was concerned about the inroads Islam has been making in the "Christian" world. He's the one who wanted this war against Islam (let King George deny it all he wants) and he's the one who put pressure on all his subjects in positions of power in the United States to get this war started. Frightening thought indeed. And the rise of evangelical Christianity in this country to a high level of political power, demanding that the country's judges represent their interpretation of human rights exclusively, suggests that Mr. Bush is not at all opposed to having the church control the state.
And that's probably why we haven't seemed to care that Iraq may end up being another Islamic republic like Iran or Indonesia. As long as the people and resources of the country are accessible for exploitation by capitalists we don't care. It's clear that the Bush administration cares nothing about the liberty of the general public, be it moral, religious, political, or economic. And that's why those of us who value liberty hold W. in such disdain.
Which brings us to the most egregious lie about why we keep sending young men to Iraq to die or be wounded. "They're fighting to protect our liberty," the administration keeps telling us. And those conservative "since my son died yours needs to go die too" moms have actually believed this monstrosity of a lie. What liberties have we gained for ourselves as a result of this war? Only if you're a polygamist lusting after the young girls who no longer have husbands would you see any increase in your liberty as a result of this "operation." The rest of us see higher deficits, higher gas prices, a more intrusive government (think Patriot Act), stagnant wages, and any number of other barriers to our freedom to move, think, and act as we choose.
And in answer to Ms. Sheehan, George has trotted out the most ridiculous argument yet. "To pull out of Iraq now would dishonor those who have already died," is the gist of his reasoning. But what he really means is, "To pull out now would be to admit that I made a colossal mistake in starting this war and would dishonor me." Well, George, what's more important; your honor or their lives? Get off your "as president I'm not accountable to anybody" jackass and realize that in this democratic republic you are accountable to EVERYBODY!
And if, as Dr. Kennedy keeps insisting, this is to be a Christian nation, then the leaders will have to live up to the ideals set by Christ himself. "Whoever would be great among you, let him be your servant." But I'll guarantee you that's not the kind of leader D. James wants to see take office in his Christian republic. He wants someone who will assign a policeman to every bedroom to be certain that only approved couples engage in sexual intimacy. (And so on....]
Now as a Seventh-day Adventist, holding a rather unique view of eschatology, I see a more sinister force at play than the arrogance and stupidity of the average American. We believe that religious control of government will become the world standard, and that eventually all established religions will unite to eradicate dissent. As natural disasters (such as Katrina) become more common, governments led by religious bigots will conclude that it is the presence of dissenters in society that has led God to so curse the world. In the end they will decide on the ultimate penalty. It is at that point, we believe, that Christ himself will step in, relieve the world of all delusions about religion, take the living dissenters and the deceased righteous away from this earth, and kill anyone else left alive.
With that expectation we're not that surprised to see a country trying to become a Christian republic setting up the conditions for the creation of an Islamic republic in a country that, before our intervention, enjoyed religious liberty. Why not? They want to end religious freedom here; why should they have a problem with it being lost in another part of the world?
Now you might say to me that if what's happening is a part of Satan's plans and that God is allowing it, what business do I have trying to stop it. And I would answer that while I hold forth miniscule to no hope at all of this being stopped, I still have an obligation to say that it's wrong and to educate as many as I can about the real issues.
And now a few words about this terrible storm. Now's not the time for us to deride people for choosing to live below sea level so close to the sea. But now that the city of New Orleans is being completely evacuated, the discussion should be had before people return. The $25 billion estimated cost to insurers will be borne by everyone in the country. Maybe we need to find a way to redistribute population so we can take advantage of the resources of the region, including shipping docks, without placing so much infrastructure at risk.
But what's even more shocking is how greedy people all over the place are using this disaster to enrich themselves. The rapidly climbing price of gas threatens millions of families with little flexibility between income and expenses. And while I'll probably be derided for saying so, I think this is exactly what Bush has been hoping for. Think of all the profits his energy industry cronies will rake in. But even rising prices on necessities like plywood are an example of how our "free" market system serves us very poorly when the issues are most important.
I'm not necessarily a fan of price controls, but I think we could arrange for a system in which value isn't determined in currency amounts but in man-hour amounts. How many man-hours of effort did it take to provide this product or service? That's the price, end of discussion. The only way to sell something at a lower price is to reduce the man-hours it takes. And man-hours would be man-hours. So the chairman of a major corporation would have to work as many man-hours to buy a particular automobile as the man who worked on it at the assembly line, and as the man who swept the floors every night.
Oops! I'm slipping into my next topic. Stay tuned for a discussion of the various world economic systems and why all of them are less than ideal.