I published this little rant in early February 2003, under the same handle I use on this forum.
I just thought I'd share it now that so many people are discussing the disaster that "no one could have foreseen:
I spent a good deal of the time that I lived in Japan trying to convince Japanese people that my nation was not merely a collection violent, vulgar, trigger-happy bullies who spent most of their time looking for enemies. What a disillusionment I faced upon my return to discover that there was a good deal of truth behind the prejudices I had encountered in the wonderful land of Wa.I admit, I didn't get everything right.
I posted these questions on another thread and have yet to receive any satisfactory answers, so I'll post it here again for all the self-righteous blood-thirsty war mongers who have thoroughly embarrassed my country during the entire time that this "debate" about Iraq has been raging.
First and foremost, I would like to know exactly why we must go to war to topple a gelded little Caesar especially when our distraction has encouraged Kim Jong Il to fire up the ol' nuke plant again. Is it because Kim already has nukes? Being as a North Korean official recently warned South Koreans that the North had "the capability to devastate Seoul and surrounding areas with conventional forces ALONE [emphasis added]," it would seem a good bet. In fact, American intelligence analysts believe Kim has two bombs already and we know that he is now in the process of making even more. Why don't we deal with this far more pressing, and very far from contained problem? Could it be because even though Kim is by far the greater danger a war in Korea won't be a high ratings cakewalk like the one the Pretenders think they're going to have in Iraq?
That leads to question number two: If the reason that we're not going after a proven menace is that the proven menace DOES have WMDs, then what does that say about what we think of Saddam's WMD capability? Hint: Not much.
Boy, those are real stumpers, huh? Okay how about we move on to the really hard questions. After all the fireworks are over, How exactly ARE we going to establish democracy in Iraq? Recall that Baghdad is one of the oldest, if not the oldest cities in the world and that it has NEVER known democracy. Recall also that no democracy has ever been established by force in a nation that did not previously have an indigenous democratic tradition of some sort. Now, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the corrupt, incompetent blusterers who are driving our own democracy into the ground at about mach 6 do manage to somehow create a democracy there in the cradle of civilization. How are we going to deal with the fact that the majority of the people in the country have been oppressed by the minority that has been in power for the last several decades? Hint: Remember when that nasty totalitarian communist regime finally fell in Yugoslavia? Wasn't that great?
Okay, how about this one: If we attempt to wage this in the classic manner of an imperial power, that is by using a minimum number of your own troops and relying instead on local auxiliaries like we did in Kosovo and Afghanistan, then how do buy off our mercenaries? See that's how Don Rumsfeld likes to fight wars. Schwarzkopf thinks its stupid -- and he's right. That's why the men that died at Tora Bora were Afghans rather than American. It's also why Osama bin Laden (you DO remember Osama, right?) is still at large. So if we employ the Kurds (and it seems our spec warriors are already buddying it up) what do we promise them in return? Autonomy? Well, what about the Kurds in Syria and Turkey then? Do they agitate for an independent homeland? If they do are they going to use the base we just established for them across the border in Iraq to conduct a campaign of terrorism against our oldest ally in the Middle East, and one of the few regimes in the region committed to secularism That's a tough one too, huh?
Okay, how about this one: Where in the budget that Mr. Bush just submitted to Congress, is the money for this war? You know the budget I'm talking about, the one with the 1.5 TRILLION dollars in tax cuts. What's that, you say? I thought it was only $674 Billion? Well, it seems that while everyone in America was talking about the war, the Pretenders pulled a fast one on us, sending in a budget with more than DOUBLE the tax cuts proposed publicly. You'd think that kind of duplicity would get more attention in the media, wouldn't you? But, I guess with the war coming up and all, we can't really be bothered with such trivia. Lucky break for Bush that there is a war looming, huh? But I digress, where in that budget with its increased spending on useless defense technologies produced by companies in which Bush's daddy holds stock, where in that budget with the record projected 307 billion dollar deficit for next year, where in that budget is the money for this war? Hmmm. Okay, then where is the money for the occupation to follow? You do realize that Pentagon optimists have forecast a minimum of an eighteen month occupation, of course. You also realize that if we fight without UN approval, then we shoulder all costs. Yes, that's right boys and girls, play alone, pay alone. How are we gonna pay for this party? Lean on Japan again? Nope. This time they're too smart. They're at the front of the line to lend moral support. Ain't gonna squeeze any funds outta Japan this time. Where's the dough come from then? Hint: Don't actually waste your time looking in the budget. The question is rhetorical.
And finally, I leave you with the question which we should all have been asking ourselves these past several months: What did happen to all those business scandals that were threatening to undermine Bush's approval ratings about the time that he remembered there was a place called Iraq that wasn't very good at fighting wars?
Now remember, boys and girls. This is a timed test. The clock is running down. I know, because the president said so on TV.
But I sure didn't get everything wrong, either. Did I?
I'm sick of journalists and public officials excusing their blindness. It was obvious from the get-go.
I still hate George Bush and the Pretenders, and I'll never stop.