The Wrong War

How the war in Iraq has fueled Al Qaeda and ignited its dream of global jihad.

President Bush's May 2003 announcement aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln that "major combat operations" had ended in Iraq has been replayed endlessly. What is less well remembered is just what the president claimed the United States had accomplished. "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001," he declared.

Today, only 20,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Afghanistan, a country the size of Texas and nearly 50 percent larger than Iraq, where 140,000 U.S. troops haven't been enough to create sta-bility.

If the Al Qaeda leadership had been wiped out in Afghanistan during the winter of 2001, President Bush might have gone down in history as one of the more adroit wartime presidents. Instead, Al Qaeda's leaders and many of its foot soldiers went on to fight another day. However, the war against Saddam wasn't conducted under the banner of liberating the Iraqi people, but rather under the banner of winning the war on terrorism. And by that standard, it has been a grotesque failure.

Astounding

A report in the Christian Science Monitor today displays the enormous gulf between the actions of the US House of Representatives and the state of world affairs. While the British Parliament is furiously debating (and attacking) Blair's backing of Bush's drive to war, the US House of Reps is currently debating.....whether to commemorate Lewis and Clarke's expedition on the five cent coin!!!

To quote Democrat Senator Robert Byrd (W-V) on the US Senate's debate about the war, "This Chamber is, for the most part, silent - ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war."

Permission from the UN?

In recent days it has been stated often by polling agencies and news broadcasters that a large percentage of people believe that the US should only attack Iraq if it has a second UN mandate. Does this mean that these "people" will accept US and British aggression against Iraq even though it is obvious that the US has been strong-arming and bribing UN Security Council countries to get the resolution it wants? Do these "people" believe that this form of "political debate" is a legitimate method to achieve consensus, especially when the outcome could mean the deaths of tens of thousands of people?

It seems that Bush and his cronies believe that the opinions of the world can be manipulated so easily (especially the US population). They understand that a UN resolution will give them some form of legitimacy with the world and they are working hard, by whatever means necessary, to get it.

However, based on all that has gone before, any resolution from the UN backing military action is going to be a sham perpetrated by US power and will have nothing to do with world opinion.

An article from my favorite reporter, Robert Fisk of the British newspaper the Independent: "How The News Will Be Censored In This War".

Some Food for Thought

From the Feb 25, 2003 International Herald Tribune, an article by Norman Mailer. A choice excerpt:

"The dire prospect that opens, therefore, is that America is going to become a mega-banana republic where the army will have more and more importance in Americans' lives. It will be an ever greater and greater overlay on the American system. And before it is all over, democracy, noble and delicate as it is, may give way. My long experience with human nature - I'm 80 years old now - suggests that it is possible that fascism, not democracy, is the natural state."

"Indeed, democracy is the special condition - a condition we will be called upon to defend in the coming years. That will be enormously difficult because the combination of the corporation, the military and the complete investiture of the flag with mass spectator sports has set up a pre-fascistic atmosphere in America already."

From a February 24 Washington Post article titled Bush Faces Increasingly Poor Image Overseas White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said:

"There is always going to be a faction of people that don't agree [with war]. But I think anybody who gives a fair look at history on this will see that this president and this administration is acting responsibly and is attempting in every way possible to resolve this issue peacefully."

I wonder if he was able to keep a straight face when he said this? The only time that this administration has had anything to do with peace is when they utter the word. All other actions taken by Bush have been totally against peace.

An excellent story from the British newpaper The Observer parodies Bush's insane reasoning for war and pre-emptive strikes. It was written by Terry Jones (ex Python?).

Orwellian or What?

On the weekend, after seeing the huge anti-war protests in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair claimed that protestors would have "blood on their hands" if they stopped military action.

Channelling Orwell.....

War is Peace

Peace is War

Peace protestors will have blood on their hands if they stop war.

(as seen in the Daily Mirror on Feb 20, 2003)