Nero Fiddles
It's just not worth getting stressed about partisan wrangling. Whatever is going to happen as a result of the hot air and bickering that passes for political debate nowadays will happen, and no amount of angst or anger on our parts will change it. So the best we can do is sit back and watch, unless we choose to ignore it totally, which is very difficult to do. The events that play out may be memorable tragedy on a grand scale, or they way wind up being farcical, relegated to eventual trivia on the level of Mr. Ed factoids. A lot is just subplot. My guess is that we have the privelege of front row seats at the modern day equivalent of, say, the fall of Rome, the Crusades, or the French Revolution. Big stuff. Oh sure, we have comic relief like Sanjaya, and the soap opera of Anna Nicole's baby, or even deeply affecting philosophical drama like the Virginia Tech massacre, but we also have the clash of powerful conflicting forces that are changing the world, and as long as I'm around I'm going to gawk with fascination. And then there's the silly stuff that goes on offstage almost unnoticed, like the guy who walked into a Zizzi pizza restaurant in London the other day, climbed onto a table, and cut his member off as patrons fled screaming. It gives "one with everything to go" new meaning.
posted by John M Crowther @ 7:14 AM
34 Comments:
There isn't anything else to do. Bush is clearly going to keep doing what he does until his term is over. I estmate at the present rate that will cost 3000 more U.S, killed and around 12 thousand wounded. More iraqi's have already been killed since the fool got in a flight suit and said mission accomplished than were killed in the war.roger
I strongly disagree with that assessment. Posting so is really stupid on my part, since I'm willing to bet I'm the only person who visits this site that feels thus.
Usually I can contain my urge to start what is sure to be an argument, but I think it only fair that I state my position. I don't want to be responsible for the free-for-all that this statement might elicit, so please email me privately if you want to debate the issue.
For my part, and it's the essence of my commentary today, is that opinions are one thing (and inevitably we're all going to have them), but the passion they arouse is another. We're helpless. All we can do is watch, and as with great drama, guess at the outcomes of the various plot lines that capture our attention and interest. Like playgoers at intermission, we can discuss it all we want, but it won't change the denouement one iota. Events can fascinate me, leave me aghast, frighten me, or have me howling with laughter at the irony of it all, but the big producer in the sky has already greenlighted the script, and rewrites are out of my hands.
That is very temperate, diffusing and wise of you, John.
Individuals CAN make a difference... (Nelson Mandela... Aung San Suu Kyi... Joan of Arc!... many many more) but few would be willing to pay the ultimate price.
C-Span has been re-running a tape of the late David Hamblestam and his Vietnam buddy and fellow journalist Neil Sheehan, recorded in front of the Vietnam Memorial in 2002 in the days after our invasion of Afghanistan and before the Iraq disaster.
These two wise men, witnesses to history, discuss what went wrong in Vietnam: the desire of the Vietnamese to govern themselves without the insidious influence of a foreign power; the general incompetence of the Arvan who were hated by their fellow countrymen because they had once sided with the French; the mendacity of self-promoting American military commanders who fed LBJ false statistics; Robert McNamara dangerous idealism and total lack of courage. Once he realized the war was impossible to win, he said nothing publicly, resigned as Secretary of Defense and was kicked upstairs or sideways to the World Bank. Talk about déjà vu all over again! The same scenario is being played out all over again with Wolfowitz.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it," so said Santayana. He must be spinning in his grave
Well, this explanation of "why the Vietnam war was lost" is rather
simplistic. The reality is, as always, about ten-thousand times more
complex. One can always pick one or two reasons and then draw a parallel
with any other war in the world, and then claim, "deja vu all over again". A
more accurate statement would be that there are as many similarities as
differences between the Iraq war and Vietnam. People who claim it is
different tend to emphasize the differences, and those who claim it is the
same emphasize the similarities. And round and round we go.
Or to continue with my analogy, there are are only three basic plots, and every story is just a variation.
>>Well, this explanation of "why the Vietnam war was lost" is rather
simplistic.<<
Simplistic to some perhaps, but to the rest of us there are obvious parallels. No one is saying that the war in Iraq is exactly the same as the war in Vietnam, but how is it possible then to ignore certain facts: we are once again in a foreign country uninvited by the vast majority of the population; those we have sanctioned to govern in the name of democracy are not vastly popular nor even truly representative of their fellow citizens; the policies of our own military command are being determined primarily by politicians who have never fought rather than soldiers who have; and finally that the local military and police forces we’ve trained have proven so far to be disengaged and vastly ineffective. The list goes on.
There is nothing simplistic in saying we are engaged in a war which we cannot win. It is a civil war and we have no place in it.
I actually mostly agree with what you say, except, I see things a little differently:
What is going on in Iraq right now is not a war anymore. The 'war' was over
several weeks after we started it in 2003 and smashed the Iraqi army. It has
since turned into a US occupation and rebuilding force. Worked very well in
Japan and Germany after WW-II, but these Iraqis don't seem to want
democracy. In fact, I wonder if many Iraqis even consider themselves
'defeated', as they clearly were in 2003.
I think we have been way too nice, and way too civilized in executing the
war in 2003. In my opinion we should have carped-bombed the living daylight
out of the entire Iraqi country, until they begged for mercy. We should have
been brutal. And if we were not prepared to be brutal, we should not have
started a war. If a population does not feel defeated, did not beg for
mercy, they are not going to listen to us helping them to build a better
future.
Whew, Kate, harsh, and it ignores the fact that the overwhelming number of people in Iraq just want to live normal lives. Do you bomb them into submission? Unfortunately, those poor souls are as helpless to change the dangerous policies and ineptitude of their leaders and warring factions as we are. Why would bombing them have been a viable alternative to our just getting out? Sadaam is gone, there aren't and never were any WMD's, and no one on "our side" is capable of defining just what the heck victory would consistent of, other than a place where people aren't killing each other and our boys aren't caught in the crosshairs.
>>In my opinion we should have carped-bombed the living daylight
out of the entire Iraqi country, until they begged for mercy<< (you can't be s-e-r-i-o-u-s?)
WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT?
>>And if we were not prepared to be brutal, we should not have started a war<<
EXACTLY... YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO BE THERE!
Kate... maybe you should visit Bahgdad sometime... live there... really get the feel for the place!
If not... at least be informed.
You may gain a greater empathy (and understanding) by reading someone else's perspective here... (someone who is living the hell induced by others of your mindset)
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
QUOTE: There are moments when the injustice of having to leave your country, simply because an imbecile got it into his head to invade it, is overwhelming:UNQUOTE
Be sure to read the blog entry for 20th February 2007... scroll down to read the entry titled "The Rape of Sabine"... and scroll further to read what this Iraqi woman has to say about the foreigners who were sent to "save" her *sigh*
Harsh?
Well, yes.
War is hell. Is there such a thing as a non-harsh war?
If you want to fight a war, you must be prepared to be brutal. And if you
are not prepared to be brutal, you should not start a war. But if the war
has started, one way or the other, you must be prepared to be brutal -- your
enemy will surely be brutal.
And after 911, virtually everyone was in favor of going to war. Even Hilary Clinton and John Kerry voted in favor, although they are trying to back pedal now.Military doctrine says that in order to win a
war, you must (a) destroy the enemy's means to fight, or (b) destroy the
enemy's will to fight. It is generally a good idea to go after both. In
Iraq, we have done neither.
In all the wars we have considered to have won, we were brutal. Major cities in Germany were decimated. Dresden was flattened. Everyone was killed. And in Japan? We all know what happened there.
When we started being so civilized, we stopped winning wars.
Look at the Korean War. Macarthur wanted to use nuclear weapons when China joined in helping North Korea.
Truman fired him. And what has happened? We STILL have North Korea as a major threat.
Vietnam? We were not allowed to bomb Hanoi. So that's where the Khmer Rouge hid all of their weapons. Only when Kissinger gave the ok to start bombing Hanoi did the country come to the negotiating table.
There is much good in the world, but there is still much more ill than good.
In my opinion, you can either sit back and do nothing, and let the unscrupulous take over, or you can be proactive. I'm in favor of the latter.
I don't think anyone who has ever met me would consider me to be uninformed,
howevere I try to get my information from sources other than the left winged slanted TV broadcastters. And I'm sure you didn't mean to be as condescending as you came off. But if you want to compare brutality: American vs. the insurgents, (or Sadaam, who killed countless numbers of his own people, as well as engaging in torture of his political opponents), I'm sure the insurgents and Sadaam will win hands down.
There have been American renegades who have done horrible things in Iraq, just as there are here in the US, but it is not supported by those in power, much less sanctioned.
Those who do so are caught and punished; not hailed as heroes.
Whoa, a lot of reality checks being bounced here. A bit of perspective is needed. First of all, I think, Kate, that to suggest we should go halfway around the world and bomb people into submission makes us no better than the suicide bombers. Too many people are working from the same impulses that believe, against all logic, that more violence is the answer to violence, and that the guy with the biggest guns and bombs somehow wins and is therefore right. I would beg you, Kate, as a mother, to direct your first thoughts to innocent Iraqi mothers caught in the middle of this miasma.
Second, as brutal a dictator as Sadaam was, we did help him stay in power as long as it served our purpose, and the overwhelming majority of his people were way better off before this whole mess was started. And there was never a shred of solid evidence that a) he had WMD's, and b) had any connection to 9/11.... we abandoned the quest for Bin Laden to go into Iraq, and as someone who lost a beloved relative in 9/11 that really ticks me off!
And by the way, the one thing getting lost in all the hot air being expended by both sides is the simple fact that there was never evidence that Sadaam had WMD's nor that there were connections with 9/11 because... guess why... since neither was true there wasn't any evidence and therefore, logically, any supposed evidence presented (like the famous Niger yellowcake) was a lie or fabrication. Think about it!
Finally, I'm comfortable with our debating this intelligently, but I beg everyone to keep this an L/C Free Zone, i.e. a place where we can avoid falling back on the meaningless centerpiece of talk radio, the liberal/conservative labelling (name calling) that too often takes the place of meaningful discussion or presentation of cogent arguments.
Do you REALLY want me to counter point the points you just made? Because although I can easily do so, since this is your blog, I feel I owe you the respect to ask.
I have ready answers to each of the points, so just let me know if you do.
In the meantime, I'll give everyone a break from someone who obviously doesn't fit in here.
But it was fun while it lasted!
Keep up the great work!
On further deliberation it occurs to me that the big question now for all of us, and the thing we and our so-called leaders have to be discussing is not how to "win" this thing, nor retribution nor settling of scores, nor even timetables, benchmarks, or whether or not to draw down troops, but how can this immense and terrible tragedy be reversed? This cannot be resolved the way baboons on the savannah do it.
The awful truth about the Middle East is that everything that is happening today is the result of decades of clash between conflicting forces of greed, intolerance, desperation, ambition, and power. Everyone on every side is wrong, wrong, wrong, including us. It's time for sanity to prevail, or humanity may be headed down the tubes. Send this to a friend! And let me go back to attempting to make funny pictures.
Kate, it would be unseemly of me to deny you your turn at the microphone. You're a good and civil person. You and your views are more than welcome here.
>>Military doctrine says that in order to win a
war, you must (a) destroy the enemy's means to fight, or (b) destroy the
enemy's will to fight. It is generally a good idea to go after both<<
But Kate... would it not seem prudent to establish first exactly who the enemy is before bombing the begeezes out of them?
>>In all the wars we have considered to have won, we were brutal. Major cities in Germany were decimated. Dresden was flattened. Everyone was killed. And in Japan? We all know what happened there. When we started being so civilized, we stopped winning wars<<
Nothing to be proud of here (IMHO) Wars are NEVER won... and humanity is ALWAYS the loser.
>>In my opinion, you can either sit back and do nothing, and let the unscrupulous take over, or you can be proactive. I'm in favor of the latter<<
(Finally... something I can relate to) But who exactly are the "unscrupulous"? The invaders or the invaded?
>>And I'm sure you didn't mean to be as condescending as you came off<<
Dear Kate... you misinterpreted my meaning if you thought me condescending! :-)
Democracy is a funny thing... people go to war to fight for it... yet not everyone it would seem... ends up with the freedom to speak it.
And now 600,000 Iraqi's have died for a democracy they didn't want in the first place... and certainly didn't ask for. What they had worked... for better or for worse (in our eyes). We had no right to interfere... but of course... there was the oil.
Sorry John... enough said... *sigh* Let's just get on with the things we CAN fix. The Serenity Prayer suddenly springs to mind...
"God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference"
>>Major cities in Germany were decimated. Dresden was flattened. Everyone was killed. And in Japan? We all know what happened there. <<
Kate,
It has been argued by many a historian that these disgraceful moments in U.S. and England’s military history were not especially effective in winning a war. That war, as most wars, was won on the ground.
We did not bomb Germany and Japan into submission anymore than the Blitz caused the English to surrender. What’s more, the war with Japan was essentially over by the time we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why then did we do it? To show our then ally Soviet Russian what we were capable of doing should they continue their expansion. Did it stop them? Of course not.
In the interview with David Halberstam on C-Span he reminded us that every day 10,000 trucks, to say nothing on individuals on foot, crossed the Ho Chi Min trail carrying supplies from North to South Vietnam, and every day our superior air might sent bombing raids out to get them. Mathematically, as David reminded us, it was impossible to stop the flow.
No amount of pin-pointed, computer controlled bombing of Iraq will end the insurgency. For every house bombed and every enermy killed more and more women and children will be destroyed as well. If we continue along this destructive path, for every al-Qaeda terrorist destroyed another ten may very well appear to take their place.
The solution --if there is one -- can only be diplomatic and political never ballistic.
Wow, I go away and come back to find John has created a whirlwind with his cartoon. Terrific debates here with many errors on everyone's part. I think that most of our individual ideas are formed by whatever news media one watches. Obviously no one watches a newscast in order to scream "idiot" at the radio/TV/newspaper. The beauty of the USA is that everyone has the right to their own opinions and to express them but that does not mean this is a democracy, merely that we are trying to bumble our way toward this goal. As someone who was born at the end of WWII in a country that was bombed by the enemy of that time (Germany), I can tell you that no one wins in a war. All sides bombed suffer and feel hunger equally. Having distant relatives that were caught during the late 30's in the Pacific by the Japanese, I know that the relatives suffered for the rest of their remaining lives which were shortened by the cruelness of treatment.
So no one wins in a war but Kate is also correct that we do not live in a pleasant never never land and once a war is started for whatever or whoever reasons, one can not abandon the victims, allowing them to be slaughtered like cattle (VN era) so folks, in other words, we have a tiger by the tail and can not let go at this point and God only knows when we can let go. All the politicians yelling about bring the troops back, etc. etc., are also as wrong as the ones who started this in the first place. Now we need to pull together in order to try in some way to find a solution; not make the problem worse with political posturing in order to obtain votes from a mostly uninformed public which contains myself as well.
Again - I would direct you to www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com
It's not mainstream news media... just the weblog of a woman who is living and breathing the nightmare as we speak...
To learn her viewpoint on the invasion and occupation please read the entry for Tuesday 20.2.2007 - entitled Rape of Sabrine
- scroll down to the LAST paragraph... please.
Thanks for posting that link, Jean. It's powerful and heartbreaking!
>>I think that most of our individual ideas are formed by whatever news media one watches.<<
Jean,
Perhaps, but some of us form our ideas and opinions by reading history. The bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Hiroshima have been documented by both the victims and by those who perpetuated these atrocities. To claim that the solution to our current war in Iraq is to bomb that nation into submission -–the consequence of which will surely be the annihilation of countless innocent women and children-- is an immoral idea. Those who advocate it should be ashamed of themselves.
Just to keep the record straight, it wasn't Jean who suggested bomnbing anyone into submission. On the contrary. As for the immorality of it, anonymous, I couldn't agree with you more.
I did not mean to give the impression that Jean advocated massive bombing. She obviously did not.
"The bombing of Dresden, the bombing of Hiroshima have been documented by both the victims and by those who perpetuated these atrocities."
Anonymous,
I am confused. Why was it worse for those who did not start the war to defend themselves? You speak as if the slaughter of the Jews and others, the flattening of most major cities in Holland, the destruction of vast amounts of England, or Pearl Harbor are unimportant. Have you forgotten that Germany and Japan started all that mayhem?
I hate this war in Iraq. If Congress had been braver, yes, both the Democrats and Republicans, maybe it could have been prevented. But almost everyone was on the bandwagon in the beginning, now there are thousands of people who have put their trust in the allies who will die if we do not come up with a reasonable way to withdraw. All I hear on the news is Democrats and Republicans talking a lot of hot air.
Jean, I am sorry for the woman on the blog. I admit that I have not gone on it as I do not trust most of these blogs since learning of all the fake ones out there. However, one of my dearest friends was publicly beheaded in Iraq in 1998 for refusing to marry a man 40 years older than herself and she openly said that she would never marry a man of any age. She believed in freedom to the point that she gave her life for it. From her, I learned what terrible things the Iraq and Iranian men do to the women of those countries. With her parents permission, she was taken from London to Iraq and executed. Women are chattel in most of the mid-eastern countries. A war brings out the worst and in some cases the best of mankind so while I do not excuse abuse of any type, I do feel strongly that somehow the women of that part of the world have to be helped. Not many people seem to care that young girls are mutilated every day in horrible ways at the whim of the males of those countries.
John... I am fairly sure that Annonymous (whoever he or she is) still attributes those comments to me. I would be most grateful if you would please REMOVE reference to my name in his/her post. This was Lee's comment... NOT mine! Thank you in advance :-)
Lee... (with respect) it is important to at least "look" at the information offered before making an assessment. To do otherwise would be akin to burying one's heads in the proverbial sand... (and believe me... the deserts of Iraq are no place to bury one's head!)
I too am sorry for your friend. But I don't understand. How can we help these women to a better way of life by military invasion and occupation of their country?
The woman (in the blog) makes no bones about the fact that her life... and the life of all women and children in Iraq has become increasingly untenable over the past four years since the invasion.
As you won't go there... let me spell it out for you in her words...
QUOTE: Tues. 20th Feb. 2007
Humanitarian organizations are warning that three Iraqi women are to be executed next month. The women are Wassan Talib, Zainab Fadhil and Liqa Omar Muhammad. They are being accused of 'terrorism', i.e. having ties to the Iraqi resistance. It could mean they are relatives of people suspected of being in the resistance. Or it could mean they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. One of them gave birth in the prison. I wonder what kind of torture they've endured. Let no one say Iraqi women didn't get at least SOME equality under the American occupation- we are now equally as likely to get executed. UNQUOTE.
And again... as you won't go there I am left with no choice but to spell out for you here this woman's assessment of the situation.
Remember these are HER words (not mine)... and she appears to have no apparent reason to lie. She is living a nightmare we could not even begin to imagine. I also believe her to be representative of a great many others.
QUOTE: And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse.
Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile UNQUOTE.
The invasion and occupation had absolutely NOTHING to do with improving the lot of women in the Middle East. If it had... then Pakistan would surely have been invaded instead.
Atrocities perpetrated against women in that country are far worse than ANYTHING experienced in Iraq. And there are many other countries too.
So what do we do? Become the world police and bomb the begeezes out of any or all who do not see our particular form of "democracy" as their way of life?
Or do we peacefully encourage and promote the education of women so that they may learn to defend themselves against the injustices they must now endure (and ultimately achieve justice for themselves?)
And sometimes what we in the West see as injustice... some women see as advantage. In the documentary "Women of the Royal Kingdom" a group of young Saudi women (all university students) was asked about the repression of women in that country... (and more specifically whether they thought the wearing of the abaya was detrimental to their rights)
To the complete surprise of the interviewer (a somewhat forward- thinking Pakistani muslim woman)... they appeared sincerely confounded by the notion. In their view... they have given nothing over in the life they "choose" to lead... and they continue to believe that the abaya gives them the respect and protection they are entitled to.
My husband has spent some time in that country and he has witnessed first hand "the way it works". He assures me that it is the women there who ultimately "wear the pants" (men are the boss... and they have women's permission to say so!) LOL
I guess we are all different... and who is to say who is right and who is wrong.
But IMHO War... (invasion and occupation) is only warranted as a means of self defence... and the world has not yet seen the invasion of the continental USA by anyone she has ever chosen to go to war with... (okay I admit Japan got cheeky offshore... but eventually paid the price)
The Iraqi conflict is all smoke and mirrors...
A lot of thoughts runnig through my head.
Gee, Lee, a lot of money is counterfeit, but I still use the coin of the realm.
Jean, alas I can't "edit" comments, only delete them, but in this case I'm certain anonymous is sincere when he says he wasn't attributing it to you. I posted my correction mainly so that others here would know.
Considering the passions here, and the difficulty of consensus, is it any wonder that conflicts continue, aggravated by those, unlike us, who actually have the power to turn things around? Only once we here, among ourselves, are capable of coming together with one mind and voice can we possibly hope for an end to this tragedy. The greatest offering we can make is to grope our way to agreement. I shall press on with my candidacy for president.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I know a great website where you can get 50,000 campaign buttons for $35, John C. My point was that the women of most of the middle eastern countries are oppressed. Why is no one indignant about that? They are not treated as equals to the men. John C, do not see the correlation between money and fake blogs. Maybe I am just too tired these days. For all I know the blog Jean recommends is true. I am not there in that country. But on the other hand, neither are any of you there so how do you know for certain that it is true? Because the writer of the blog writes a good story? I am willing to have an open mind as to the blog, and if one of you can come up with a way for us to let go of the tiger's tail, please let me know. I will, then, indeed vote for that person.
Today I received word that a young marine who is an artist friend of mine was seriously wounded in Iraq. He is an up and coming artist, just beginning to sell his paintings but most of all, was beginning to mature as an artist. A lovely gentle person, a 19 year old young man. I do not know the extent of his injuries at this time but I do not want to come back on this particular site anymore. If Tony dies, that is real life, not a blog which may or may not be real. And once again, my heart will break as it did during the VN era as well as in 1998. So will see all of you on the next cartoon, I hope, but can not bear anymore of these slings and arrows against these young men as I will once again be losing a dear friend, each friend that I have is very precious to me as I do not give my friendship lightly and I seem to be losing quite a few lately. But most of all, if Tony dies, this world will lose, just as it has lost over 3000 times now. I feel sick at heart.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh Lee... my comments were never meant as slings and arrows! I am very sorry that you received them that way. I was merely attempting to put another point of view... one I obviously feel most passionate about. I am sorry if I have offended you. It was not my intention by any means.
I am also so very sorry that your friend Tony has been seriously injured. I share your pain with the tragedy of it all... and pray for the day when all our young men and women (including the aussies) can return home to their loved ones and never have to face the spectre of war again.
I am also praying for the citizens of Iraq... that they will find within themselves the grace, wisdom and foresight to find workable solutions to their own problems... and put an end to the internal conflict and destablisation which has been brought about by the occupation.
And finally... the last word from the young British soldier interviewed two days ago (upon his return home to Britain) ... "we need to bring our people home... it's time... we can do no more"
Post a Comment
<< Home