I will attempt to keep this posting brief--for even this brief posting will bring out all sorts of vitriol. I would like to make known for any record that I am ashamed that we allowed Saddam Hussein to be executed recently. This should not be confused with any sort of love or respect for the guy--he was after all a brutal tyrant: our brutal tyrant and old friend--but I believe the Bush administration and all those in the chorus joining his praise of this execution are correct in saying that this is a new era for Iraq, yet are gravely wrong about what this new era will be like for Iraq.
Here is why they are wrong:
The execution of Saddam firmly closes his chapter in Iraqi and world history and the televised spectacle firmly drove this home to the many Iraqis who witnessed the event. With that, I cannot argue. Yet this new era brings to mind different things to different Iraqis. To the Shiites and Kurds, the dark chapter of Saddam's rule has come to a close and they can now find relief in his passing. But, particularly to the Shiites, this new era is one which emboldens their spirits to take their place as leaders of the new Iraq as they constitute the majority of the population. The problem with this is that Iraq is now a more divided--and divided with increasing fervidity and hardline thinking/feeling/acting--and the Shiites--now more violent and polarised following the colapse of any sort of government and order in the country--seek to exact the revenge they justly deserve to give to the Sunnis for the 20+ years of brutality of Saddam's rule. To the Kurds, this new era shows the hope and promise of finally realizing their centuries-long dream of running their own country, Kurdistan, an ambition which would further destabilize the region as Turkey would never accept such a position (for the significant minority in that country also seeks to fulfill those same goals, perhaps culminating in a secession from that country).
To the Sunnis, this execution is not the beginning of a new and prosperous chapter. It is the beginning of what to them seems like a long nightmare where they will no longer enjoy their former status as masters of what they feel is their country (the one that Saddam built for them in the last two decades). To those partisans who watched in horror as their strength and shield hung fifteen feet above the ground--without the usual head cloth to protect the audience from the gruesome facial expressions that one exhibits during hanging and eventual death (which includes the launching of the eyeballs from their sockets as a result of the pressure in the head of the executed created by the noose's stranglehold)--this moment ushered in a new era for them in which they will have to exact retribution upon all those who can be compiled into a large camp of executioners. This means not only Shiites and Kurds who eagerly awaited Saddam's death as well as complicit Sunnis who either suffered or dissented during Saddam's reign, but also the United States for actively supporting this execution and reportedly (although I'm seeking verification of the story) expediating the time of execution to coincide with the period of the hajj and the festivities which accompany the celebration. These loyal partisans--and actually anyone who felt attachment to Saddam's reign for the venerable, brief period of order he brought to a land eternally plagued by chaos--will now escalate their attacks throughout the country, ushering in a period of return to the ancient practice of lawlessness known as vendetta killing. These vendettae will be repaid in kind by the Shiite majority and Iraq is now going to disintegrate further into chaos, violence and disorder. With Saddam's execution, there is no longer any figure--let alone any collective power or governing body--in or out of the country (including us) who can unite the people of what is (used to be) Iraq.
Everyone is correct in saying this is a new era following his death. Unfortunately, it will be a period of even more intense violence and greater death, disorder, and suffering; an era which will only end when the country is divided among the three major populations (although not guaranteed this would succeed much faster), or another Saddam comes to power. It's unfortunate to say this, but in even an elementary review of the region's history, this is the history that Iraq is doomed to repeat until there comes a major transformation in the culture, education and society. Pray I'm wrong, but I see few other possibilities for what this new era holds.
On Hiatus
I'll be out of the country for the next two weeks, so in case somebody leaves a post about property rights or zoning policy, that's why I didn't respond. So, while I'm gone (New Zealand), argue forcefully and have fun.
I'll post pictures when I get back for all you Lord of the Rings fans.
I'll post pictures when I get back for all you Lord of the Rings fans.
If we'd only known then...
Michael and I read a really interesting article the other day, he posted a link to it in his last post, about the should've-would've-could've chorus, and I'd like to take a moment to query those of you who support the "If we'd only known then what we know now" camp.
What I really want to know is, what do we know now that we didn't know then?
WMD's? - It has long been established that there are no WMD's in Iraq. This has all sorts of implications for our motives as to why we went to war, but I distinctly remember that it was a risk we as a country seemed willing to take. We gambled on that point, and we lost, but we knew then there was a chance there were no WMD's and we decided to go knowing there might be nothing.
Insurgents? - The campaign in Iraq definitively has its enemies. There are people with guns who don't want to leave and who don't want us there. They're tenacious and willing to sacrifice themselves just to kill a few Americans. Maybe my ignorance of military tactics is off base, but I thought that an insurgency is something that would be a no brainer, when we put armed troops into someone else's country, there is bound to be resistance. And whilst one may argue that we weren't expecting such fierce resistance, when so much of that area has been calling for American blood for essentially my entire lifetime, can anyone really say they didn't expect resistance? That they didn't know there would be insurgency?
The commitment of time, money and American lives? - I know this is a touchy subject because it is one that hits home for a lot of people, but who would go to war assuming that they wouldn't lose any troops? With the globalization of information, each death is instantly known around the country, and we feel every single lost life around the country, but I have to ask, how can anyone say, "We didn't know then it would cost lives"? The responsibility of committing to war means that you have to be willing to know that your decision will cost lives. Did nobody stop and think before voting to go to war that it could be difficult? I've read before that in order to win a guerrilla war, it will take a huge number of troops a long time. I believe it was at least a 10 x 1 ratio of troops needed for something like 15 years. Now, it's been a while, and I forget where I read that, but if I, as an ignoramus in guerrilla warfare have an understanding of the cost, how can anyone argue they didn't know it would be costly when the made the decision to go to war?
So I have to ask, when politicians are saying "If we knew then what we know now, we would have never made the decision to go to war" I have to ask, what is it that you know now? Nothing has changed except public opinion. There haven't been any developments, there haven't been any revelations, so what do we know now?
What I really want to know is, what do we know now that we didn't know then?
WMD's? - It has long been established that there are no WMD's in Iraq. This has all sorts of implications for our motives as to why we went to war, but I distinctly remember that it was a risk we as a country seemed willing to take. We gambled on that point, and we lost, but we knew then there was a chance there were no WMD's and we decided to go knowing there might be nothing.
Insurgents? - The campaign in Iraq definitively has its enemies. There are people with guns who don't want to leave and who don't want us there. They're tenacious and willing to sacrifice themselves just to kill a few Americans. Maybe my ignorance of military tactics is off base, but I thought that an insurgency is something that would be a no brainer, when we put armed troops into someone else's country, there is bound to be resistance. And whilst one may argue that we weren't expecting such fierce resistance, when so much of that area has been calling for American blood for essentially my entire lifetime, can anyone really say they didn't expect resistance? That they didn't know there would be insurgency?
The commitment of time, money and American lives? - I know this is a touchy subject because it is one that hits home for a lot of people, but who would go to war assuming that they wouldn't lose any troops? With the globalization of information, each death is instantly known around the country, and we feel every single lost life around the country, but I have to ask, how can anyone say, "We didn't know then it would cost lives"? The responsibility of committing to war means that you have to be willing to know that your decision will cost lives. Did nobody stop and think before voting to go to war that it could be difficult? I've read before that in order to win a guerrilla war, it will take a huge number of troops a long time. I believe it was at least a 10 x 1 ratio of troops needed for something like 15 years. Now, it's been a while, and I forget where I read that, but if I, as an ignoramus in guerrilla warfare have an understanding of the cost, how can anyone argue they didn't know it would be costly when the made the decision to go to war?
So I have to ask, when politicians are saying "If we knew then what we know now, we would have never made the decision to go to war" I have to ask, what is it that you know now? Nothing has changed except public opinion. There haven't been any developments, there haven't been any revelations, so what do we know now?
Mixed Bag of Thoughts for 2007
:
1) I am ashamed it has taken this long for someone to say it here, but RIP Gerald Ford. I wish you had given that rebel peanut farmer a good whopping in '76 and admire your balls for asking Ronald Reagan to serve in a co-presidency with you in '80 when you were going to be his running mate.
2) I received both Obama's The Audacity of Hope and Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (Version 2.0) for Christmas this year. Thus far, Friedman is changing my views on globalization greatly and Obama has written little convince me he's ready to be President of the United States.
3) I read a good op-ed in the Bangor Daily News this week here. The introduction is great: "The coulda-shoulda-woulda chorus just added a new soprano. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War if she’d known then what she knows now."
4) Edwards just declared for the Presidency, and at the moment he remains my favorite of the Democratic front runners. Edwards-Obama would absolutely rape the Republican party of any minority vote it had been hoping to get in 2008 between a southern candidate and a minority running mate. On the Republican side, I'm getting a bit bored with the slow pace of the primary thus far. This does not surprise me, as it is typically the opposition party who mobilizes first.
5) I'm pretty sure I like Sen. Susan Collins.
6) I promise this is the last time I will mention this on Across the Aisle, but I finished Edmund Morris' The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt this week and I would like to say that it and its sequel (which I read first), Theodore Rex, should both be required readings for anyone who has interest in American history and government. It is an overlooked time period which served to form the modern era of American history.
I hope this blog fires back up as the majority of bloggers re-enter studies next month and have a new semester's worth of classes to ignore in favor of this site. In its first month and a half of existence, we're approaching 60 posts and even more comments, which is great.
Happy New Year, all. Let's hope our nation doesn't go down the tubes next year... we managed to stay afloat in this one.
1) I am ashamed it has taken this long for someone to say it here, but RIP Gerald Ford. I wish you had given that rebel peanut farmer a good whopping in '76 and admire your balls for asking Ronald Reagan to serve in a co-presidency with you in '80 when you were going to be his running mate.
2) I received both Obama's The Audacity of Hope and Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (Version 2.0) for Christmas this year. Thus far, Friedman is changing my views on globalization greatly and Obama has written little convince me he's ready to be President of the United States.
3) I read a good op-ed in the Bangor Daily News this week here. The introduction is great: "The coulda-shoulda-woulda chorus just added a new soprano. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War if she’d known then what she knows now."
4) Edwards just declared for the Presidency, and at the moment he remains my favorite of the Democratic front runners. Edwards-Obama would absolutely rape the Republican party of any minority vote it had been hoping to get in 2008 between a southern candidate and a minority running mate. On the Republican side, I'm getting a bit bored with the slow pace of the primary thus far. This does not surprise me, as it is typically the opposition party who mobilizes first.
5) I'm pretty sure I like Sen. Susan Collins.
6) I promise this is the last time I will mention this on Across the Aisle, but I finished Edmund Morris' The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt this week and I would like to say that it and its sequel (which I read first), Theodore Rex, should both be required readings for anyone who has interest in American history and government. It is an overlooked time period which served to form the modern era of American history.
I hope this blog fires back up as the majority of bloggers re-enter studies next month and have a new semester's worth of classes to ignore in favor of this site. In its first month and a half of existence, we're approaching 60 posts and even more comments, which is great.
Happy New Year, all. Let's hope our nation doesn't go down the tubes next year... we managed to stay afloat in this one.
Honor and Dignity Restored to White House
I'm reluctant to post twice in a row, but it looks like the rest of you are wrapped up in "finals" or whatever you guys call the winter celebration of your ivory tower idolatry.
I found this quote from the President eerily similar to one I heard from a different President eight years ago:
I found this quote from the President eerily similar to one I heard from a different President eight years ago:
Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.See, it just depends on what the meaning of the word "are" is!
Unelected Foreign Gasbag Calls for Resignation of Senators
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brentley, who is well known as a Global Warming skeptic, puzzle dork, and former policy advisor to the Iron Lady, has issued a demand (PDF) to Senators Snowe and Rockefeller: Disavow and apologize for the letter you sent to ExxonMobil in October, or resign.
I have, of course, already dispatched my reply.
I have, of course, already dispatched my reply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
