First the Joke:
Old guy, Ralph, gets a call from his doctor, that he has to come in right away.
Doc: Look I don't know how to break this to you, but I have terrible news and horrendous news, which do you want first?
Ralph: First give me the terrible news:
Doc: You have cancer.
Ralph, Holy shit, well, I guess you have to give me the horrendous news.
Doc: You have Alzheimer's
Ralph: Could be worse, at least I don't have cancer.
--------------------------------
The Iraq war is like that. The terrible news is the outcome that was predicted, as I describe in the letter to friends right before we invaded the country. I was rummaging through my old stuff when I found this. Knowledgeable scholars, even on the right, predicted the kind of eternal civil war that would result.
The horrendous news hasn't been given to us yet, maybe it is being in other countries, but we don't hear about it. It could be from the evidence of other previous dictatorships in the Levant, that far from being replaced by democracy they could be consigned to the ultimate horror of perpetual failed states, as Libya now is, and Syria seems to be approaching. Can this be connected to our war on Saddam Hussein's dictatorship? I see it as so. We planted a seed of hope, something that 19th century sociologists noted as revolutions of rising expectations.
Yet they did not have the infrastructure, the secular educated base that could provide the cohesion that is needed for a democracy to work. Egypt has reverted to a dictator not unlike Saddam, or who shows the ruthlessness if needed to be such. And ironies of ironies, we are supporting this regime rather than spending vast sums to destroy it. As a country, our values are in shambles, and to this readership's great distress, the President of Bush's opposition party has both inherited this chaos, and seems to have no direction in how to staunch the bleeding. Randomly supporting dictatorships when convenient has harmed this countries value as an ideal, that even if imperfect, at least was a model for emulation.
Thus begins the first eighth of the 21st century. George Orwell knew how technology could be turned against and then control a people, but he couldn't imagine the whiz bang magic that would not be "big brother" on a wall but the world in a smart phone. He couldn't imagine how easily people would give up so much for so little.
February 4, 2003
To: Marta, with copies to Bill Todd, Joe A, Howard B., Larry B, Zak, Lowel, Sandra,
From: Al Rodbell
Warning: This is a long (2200 words) and depressing letter about the impending war. It contains a little news about a CSPAN event and much opinion, some of which has been expressed by others with more wit and eloquence.
Marta, Sometimes I write to you, and out of our ongoing conversation, I feel that I've said something that I would like to say to others, but I rarely make it a mass mailing. But, I feel the need to send this is to some of the people with whom I have shared a discussion about the impending war, and who I feel share my perspective and concerns. Maybe some ideas will come out of this dialogue.
Yesterday, I watched a panel discussion on CSPAN titled "Iraq after the War" sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute. There was a filmmaker who spent three decades in "Kurdistan", a Scholar or two, a leader of the Iraqi National Congress, the government in exile, and a defector from the military. I was surprised by the description of "Kurdistan" (I use quotes because it is technically a part of Iraq), as functioning as a rather successful, enlightened state. Most of the speakers were pessimistic, seeing the war as bringing internal chaos and possible invasion by Turkey and Iran. Each time I watch one of these discussion among knowledgeable people it is like an onion being peeled, with infinite levels of complexity being exposed, each with their own perplexities.
What are some of the things that are strived for when nations are formed?, democracy, self determination, stability and, in Iraq's case, maintenance of existing territorial boundaries. Self determination of ethnic groups, the old Wilsonian ideal, does not fit into the plan to maintain a federation of groups with the historical antipathies found here. When you lose in Iraq, you lose big. You do not simply get put out of office, you and your family and your tribe all die. This tends to breed resentment among the survivors.
One of the panelists said the standard division of Kurds, Shias and Sunnis is less relevant than the division between Urban sophisticates and rural yahoos. He felt that the Sunnis only formed a coalition with Saddam because he gained power ( a rural yahoo himself) and the urban Sunnis joined up to survive. Others have said that tribal relations, the tribes even cutting across different branches of Islam, are the strongest identity in the country. .
So, what will the new Iraq be like? Democracy as an ideal- forgetaboutit. One person-one vote would bring something akin to the Ayatollah in Iran. But maybe not. Do we check this out by sponsoring an election with the caveat that it only counts if the outcome is to our favor? That's what we did in Iran in the 50s when we deposed the elected leader and installed our Shah. This worked for a few decades, but then we reaped what we have there now. So, in the new Iraq we are left with no democracy, no self determination and our providing an autocratic government that will impose pro-American policy . From Saddam being the despised ruler, the US puppet will soon have the honor.
Watching this panel yesterday, made me aware that the antiwar movement is focusing on the war against Saddam, while it (we?) should be looking at what comes after. Of course, Saddam will fall quickly. Yet, I am not so sure about that either. There were millions of men under arms for almost a decade during the war with Iran, yet in spite of immense causalities, there was no uprising, no Russian Revolution or even a military assassination attempt. The point is I don't know, and I fear no one else knows either.
How many American soldiers would have to die before we pack it in?. It took only a dozen for us to abort Somalia (did Bush see the film "Blackhawk Down") a couple hundred and we were out of Lebanon. Just how great will be the American resolve if the war does not go according to the hopes of Rumsfeld-Chaney et al. (I was about to say, if it does not go according to the war games, but the war games show us losing-but then we can just hit the reset button and do it over- like when we were kids playing war) So, a few hundred, or a few thousand casualties and the American mood changes.
At this point in this rant, I get a little sick. What will Bush do; this man who, in the words of Nelson Mandella "is devoid of any awareness of the consequences of his actions?" Anyone who can throw out the gratuitous rhetorical bombshell of "Axis of Evil" into the world arena could do anything. If the war bogs down and Bush is about to lose credibility; if he has the choice of going down in disgrace or finding that WPM are being used against our forces and reaching for the red button. You, tell me what he will do.
Lets say a miracle happens; that the most optimistic scenario of quick victory and a breakout of amity occurs in Iraq; that the different tribes who have hated and battled each other decide to let bygones be bygones . This still leaves a monumental job of nation building to an administration that has no use for complexity. It leaves this solving of the ultimate Rubic's cube to a president who can't handle two dimensions, much less three. Without the simplicity of a mythical good against evil, this man and the rest of his cohorts are in un-chartered territory.
In this country, Bush has the security of liberals to hate- for wanting to do such radical things as pay for government with taxes. Here we have a two party system that has at least slowed down his ideological absurdities. Will he still be against a strong central government and for unlimited access to guns in our new protectorate of Iraq? This administration may be able to win a war-it's pretty easy with a few trillion dollars worth of hardware-but even Bush in his campaign said he didn't like to do "nation building." Well, just who in the name of God will do it, if we go into this fight on our own. Will the U.N. come in to pick up the pieces.? Would we even let anybody else decide what happens?.
And just how do you establish a country of laws among a people who have only known tribal loyalties, being subjects of colonial empires and kings, and finally being enthralled to Saddam. When George H. W. Bush had the opportunity, when a revolution was under way after the Gulf war, he put out that fire quick. He knew that he would be allowing chaos that would be beyond his ability to control. His Son, with a fraction of his fathers international experience and only the blind faith of a religious zealot has no such fears. He focuses on a WMS danger, and with his ability to ignore the rest of the world (including one other axis of evil that at this moment is starting to build and assemble nuclear missiles) he has convinced himself that this must be done.
As a secular Jew I was stunned at the President's covert reference to a hymn of praise to Jesus Christ during last week's State of the Union Message. Yes, we all know that Christianity is a religion of love, but over the course of history there has also been a good deal of hate. It has also been a clarion of death to non-believers. It was the cross of Jesus that inspired those who killed my family in the pogroms of Poland and this same cross that fueled the ravages of the crusades against the Moslem infidels.
While President Bush demands war against Iraq in language of geopolitical rationality, his subtext of religious fundamentalism grows. He seems oblivious to the Muslim view that Christianity represents a soul destroying rejection of Allah. How many American's will die at the hands of Muslims whose fears of Christianity inspire martyrdom? And who can foresee the ultimate course of events, if this military operation becomes infected with the fervor of religious war? The President's spin doctor's explanation of his use of "crusade" just may not carry the day among the unwashed masses in the trenches preparing to die for their faith.
He slipped in the code words "power, wonder-working power" in the speech to evoke a praise to Jesus. What other code words have I missed. What are the lines to the hymns to the elite of corporate America that he uses to show his solidarity, and the verbal wink that means not only will they not see a jail cell, but they need not pay taxes on their ill gotten wealth. I wouldn't have any idea. The Democrats seem not to be to outraged about anything (Except Ted Kennedy, he seems pretty outraged) Those in the Senate will not use the tools of Filibuster to stop the right wing agenda where they can since , they will not initiate class war or weaken our commander in chief. But in the future when the Republicans are in the minority, you can be sure that they will not be so decorous. The decisions taken today will not be reversed after the next election, no matter the outcome, or the one after that. The course of events for decades to come are being set right now, both domestically and internationally.
George H.W. Bush (old #41) was shown briefly on the news yesterday when he visited NASA to express his condolences. There is an irony here of classic proportions. Years ago, George H. W. Bush referred to his son's tax policy as "voodoo economics." He refrained from toppling Hussain when Iraqis were in full revolt, while his son is going ahead. Bush Sr. was a thoughtful and complex person, who volunteered to serve in the second world war, while his son sat out his war. He was shot down in a real dog fight, while his son protected the skies over Texas from his gilded perch in the National Guard. Yet, it will be the son who will eclipse the father on the stage of history. It was the influence of "Pappy" (family name for H.W.Bush) that gave everything to his son, from admittance to Yale to the Presidency. There is a reason why dynasties do not work. Sadly, while using the mechanism of democracy, a dynastic succession has taken place. We anointed a leader, without the usual trial by political exposure that winnows out those who lack the skills to meet a country's challenge.
My personal animosity towards President Bush does in fact color my evaluation of his policy. But, as he proclaimed during his election campaign "character counts." and so does integrity, breath of knowledge and capacity to handle complexity. His arrogance of power begins with his religion, in a hundred ways paving the way for its movement to the center of governmental power, made all the more frightening because it is the religion of the majority, exactly what this country was founded to prevent. His biblical, simplistic passions are untempered by a need for empirical validation. His labeling of an international axis of evil, could be duplicated with the same certainty domestically Taxes, Plaintiff's lawyers, environmentalist and other Liberal perversions of nature are all opposed with absolute certainty and finality. Right now his finger is pointed at Saddam Hussain, but where it stops, we know not.
Saturday, when the Shuttle Columbia was lost, we experienced a national tragedy. President Bush stepped up and, genuinely touched, led the country in mourning. But the fates continue to conspire to favor George W. Bush. Just as his war on terror resulted in terrorizing the Democratic party into passively ceding their constitutional war powers in order to get on with the election campaign, only to lose the election along with their dignity; the Columbia tragedy allows the President to don the robe of comforter-in- chief, while the fuse burns ever closer to the explosion that will make him once again the Chief of the Military. The few precious days that had existed for this country to re-think what we are about to begin are thus lost in the mist of sadness over the death in the sky.