Trust US

Restatement of opinions

Unlike every other political animal I know, I believe I do make mistakes and that it is helpful to re-evaluate positions. In regards to Iraq and its take over and occupation I did lend some support to Daniel Friedman’s point of view that it would serve national security interests. His argument was that the Middle Eastern countries that have generated terrorists have a certain type of political structure. He stated that this political structure (that of Saudi Arabia and others – Monarchies functioning as dictatorships) causes, in part, terrorists to exist. His other premise was that if democracy could be brought to Iraq, it would begin a domino effect that would change the political structures of Iraq, for sure, and other countries. This seemed, a while back, reasonable to me. It also, within my own cosmos, seemed reasonable to consider the misery of the Iraq populace and to try to improve it. Thus for both national security reasons as well as humanitarian reasons I thought the war might be a good idea.

I never thought that Saddam Hussein had significant weapons of mass destruction or that he had a disposition to get them and use them (post Gulf war). He is foolish, but not insane. Thus the stated reasons for going to war I did not agree with. But I also reasoned that the UN and US populace, media, and other stakeholders in the idea, would not accept or allow action on Friedman’s premise (or the humanitarian idea). Therefore, a subterfuge – WMD – was born, but I always thought it would be politically costly. I supported the war, but now that the war is lingering and I’m sobering up, I think I was an idiot. I think Friedman may have been and may be suffering from the same disease, as well.

Where this goes wrong 1: motive different than argument given

The logic is off. If person A wants to do action X and has motive Y it should not follow in the political world that if person B wants the same action for motive Z that B should support A. The motive will influence the details of the modus operandi and the complexity in the case of taking over a country makes the modus operandi critically involved with motives: it influences the desired outcomes and shapes things. To summarize, George Bush wants (wanted) to kill Saddam Hussein via an emotion he feels (felt). There is no complexity to his reasoning. He uses nation building as a disguise and subterfuge for his emotion of wanting to destroy what he perceives as something bad or something (or someone) that is potentially dangerous somehow to him or the US. I think it is just that simple. Afghanistan and Iraq both point to how these simple motives do not translate into competence in fulfilling the subterfuge used for real motives. The outcomes desired are Taliban and Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan (or doused with cold water) and Saddam Hussein removed from power in Iraq (killed). These having been achieved the commitment to the hype proceeding and following these successes is tepid to non-existent (at least incompetent). Learning from this situation the logic of politics requires motives to match before support is given. In the special case of an Enron ridden mind like Bush’s – suspicion of motives is warranted. He is a book cooker. He came to the idea of nation building belatedly as a ruse to get support; it is still not in his political disposition; it is only in his rhetoric to satisfy moral accountants. Afghanistan is not being built; it is likely Iraq will not be built either. Promises to build both were made but not carried through.

Where this goes wrong 2: carry through is not easy; it may be impossible

Illusions are operating in Friedman and Jones. The unfortunate facts of history are that to my knowledge no country has ever successfully been forced to accept democracy. In fact the idea may actually be self-contradictory. Every time such attempts have been made – Viet Nam, Korea, other (see recent Lehrer Newshour piece at http://www.pbs.org ) – the outcome has always been at best unclear, at worst an out and out disaster. In contrast, dictatorships, communism being less complex forms of government can be cascaded from one country to another. When you are willing to kill lots of people fineries are less difficult to deal with. Hitler and Stalin come to mind. It seems reasonable to think that for people to be self-governed they must agree to be so governed and even then it is a struggle.

In the case of Iraq, then, the idea that we can make it into a democracy (build it) may be mistaken. So, even if George Bush did actually have it to build a democratic nation in Iraq (or Afghanistan) it is not easy to carry that mission through. The evidence of Bosnia (and the Balkans) is that tyranny (of the USSR) holds factions at bay and keeps a kind of ugly peace. Iraq seems to have comparable factions: Sunni and Shiite Muslims, Kurds, and others; the perhaps sad fact is that some human situations and evolutions require non-democratic governments. The percentages favor Shiite Muslims, but the formation of a Muslim Shiite Democracy (or Saudi Arabia or Iran Monarchy/Cleric based) government is not allowed. This is another absurdity: help build a democracy that the majority does not favor! Like the problems in “Jewish” democracy; an American democracy in Iraq is problematic. Perhaps democracy is not wanted by the majority of the people; perhaps in an objective, scientific sense it is not possible (or sufficiently efficient), given Iraq’s geopolitics, history and other factors. If the evolution of democracies is, in fact, at best brought on by hierarchically dependent mini-evolutions (revolutions) sadly, in a mathematical kind of way, the rapid evolution from dictatorship to democracy, bypassing intermediate forms of government, might not be possible, regardless of motives and expertise: people just don’t grow that fast.

Where this goes wrong 3: History recent and less recent does not portend well for success

It may be arrogance, wishful thinking, perhaps bizarre hopes and expectations to think that soldiers can bring democracy to a tyrannically heretofore controlled country full of factions – not to mention living, armed former allies of the tyrant (indeed the tyrant himself is still about). As in the case of Bosnia (others) the US/UN (<= nota bene UN) can hold the peace, but unlike the Balkans the “armed” part bears a cost of daily deaths and misery. Unlike Bosnia (others) there does not seem to be a sufficient current consensus to suggest that maintaining such a peace will serve the end of allowing a democracy to form; actually just order and some sense of reasoned justice is a better, more realistic expectation for the Balkans. In the case of Iraq, it may be pointless to try for a democracy or even ludicrous; and, given the desperate state of services and the dedication of a significant percentage of the population to destroying repairs and development of a civil infrastructure, impossible for a sense of order to coalesce, let alone the much more complex structure of a western style externally concocted democracy to form. The friction between armed foreign “helpers” and such dedicated haters of these helpers may yield a perpetual, non-evolving nightmare for all.

Where this goes wrong 4: the implementers are cartoon characters and are not qualified to change a culture/government

Yet the rhetoric of Tony Blair and Texas home spun logic of George Bush gets the populace to think the liberated love their liberators, know what they are talking about when the say “democracy”, and want this thing “democracy” right away. The picture of North Koreans (US soldiers) playing instruments (Star Spangled Banner in the new case) while enslaved, malnourished workers pound the earth comes to mind, as does the commercial featuring a Dad coaching a 2 year old on how to hit a winning backhand like Sampras. A total disconnect with reality reigns in all the above cases. It is conceivable (perhaps probable) that the actions of the US/Britain (inclusive of lengthy pre-war sanctions) have reduced a functioning tyranny to a looming Somalia (Mogadishu under what’s his name); they are in denial and say that Iraq will be a Mid Eastern California tomorrow when the reality is no force on earth (certainly not 130,000 soldiers) can save the country from degrading into utter chaos and wholesale losses of life soon. A despot with absolute power might have a chance to turn the country around. Islamic clerics using the pre-existing psychological structures of the populace might also have a chance. But if an external force with “designer democracies (like Calvin Klein jeans)” in their eyes thwarts these natural migrations and evolutions then such “liberators” are in fact tyrants more than liberators. Currently, I suspect Cambodia is more likely than California. In the first some purpose, arguably, may have been served; in the second no positive purpose is served: terrorism at some point becomes viable (although deplorable) way to combat a mad, drunk superpower. History will record that the UN and the sane European countries wisely attempted to put brakes on destroying Iraq, knowing, anticipating, and intuiting the horrible potential consequences that we may just witness soon.

Cultural Revolution?

Why might TBGB actually think they could change Iraq? It takes a little to understand that the equations are not as easy as they may seem to some: in particular, TBGB. The suffering, confusion, loss of a sense of self determination and cultural identity are not calculated, considered or even possible in TBGB; after-all Daffy Duck and Porky Pig don’t know about or need such things how could lower level Iraqis? Americans and the British have done without a genuine helpful culture for years. The culture of these countries is not designed to be a positive force; rather it is placed completely in the hands of entertainers and profit-motivated corporations. Other – more primitive countries, like Islamic countries – see culture as an important, indeed vital component of their identity. The assumption is that any sane person could immediately see the superiority of the free-enterprise system and zero (or negative, un-engineered) culture. It can be however that far from seeing the utility of such culture (negative culture) some would think it absolutely evil to not constrain and construct culture to serve the higher ideals of the populace. TBGB cannot understand this as they are part of the negative Western culture.

From their point of view I guess only the insane or those given to terrorism could resist and think to fight the US after tasting a beer or Pepsi soaked Big Mac advertised with Britney Spears (or Ronald McDonald depending on the age group). So all we need to do is distribute videotapes, six-packs of beer and Coke, and extra fries to Muslims, stand back and wait for the miracle conversions and redemptions to take place! Right. I mean, speaking for myself, I’d love to have robed Iraqi Muslims with machine guns patrolling my streets and bringing Islamic Theocracy to me and my country and thus liberating me and my country from myself and my country’s mass media culture. I’d enjoy them looking at my daughter (with their many wives and whores is (sic) good mind) as much as they must enjoy GIs looking at their daughters. I mean how could someone who takes religious text to be the know-it-all even pause for a moment to switch after seeing Britney’s butt partially revealed while high on beers or marijuana or cocaine or heroin or a Twinkie or a Porsche or a Texas ranch or a Prime Minister title? It should be a piece of cake say Tony and George, downing a pint and drinking in the vista of a Texas ranch while listening to Marilyn Manson and playing back applause from the wonderful, legal-free, science-free political speeches worthy of Hitler in mass appeal to irrational fears and grandiloquent delusional ideas.

Britain and the United States are well qualified to change cultures to befit their own image: they have after-all the highest suicide, homicide, unwanted pregnancies, teenage pregnancies, abortions, drug use, and other hallmarks of advanced civilization and their rulers are above international law, their own laws, reason, and science. TBGB are super-heroes worthy of being immortalized in celluloid cartoons and hence should run the world. They can take over countries with speeches alone and good sensational mass media -- easily propagated by mass media seeking ratings and entertainment value. On a positive note soon American mass culture can feed on Iraqis and pollute Muslims at will under the watchful eyes of Marines. We’ve won! The Muslim girls and boys are opening up! Rejoice. For real the distribution of pornography, psychotropic drugs (inclusive of alcohol) and cable would zap the spiritual force and any existing positive culture in Iraq quick and make the populace as open to suggestion as the American/British populace currently is. They would also become a profitable natural resource to mine at will. This is what may actually be sought.

Where this goes wrong 5: The implementers are from Washington

There are two central weaknesses of the would-be implementers, in addition to the stars in their drunk eyes mentioned above: (1) they do not dynamically correct mistakes; they (related to the first) in not correcting (or even admitting) mistakes fall into (2) tightening, self-defeating loops of illogic: the Viet Nam syndrome.

(1) Granting dreamy-eyes are okay there are still problems. Those mentioned (JFH) have not considered who is going to perform the miracle of making democracies by a wave of the hand and impassionate TBGB advertisements. Thus by not looking at the implementers carefully and accurately accessing that they will not allow for mistakes and corrections, indeed they cannot ascertain basic reality accurately enough to have deep contingencies and branched exit graphs (read a book on graph theory and decision trees), I have supported as if they were multiple Herculeses Mighty Mice – cartoon loving minds with Enron action heroes for models. I can conceive of myself (and some social scientists, perhaps computer scientists, as well as some from intelligence agencies and some military) making a reasonable, respectable stab at transforming Iraq and Afghanistan. This would have to be done independent of national security paranoia, perhaps even concern, in order to work. Bush and Blair manipulating willy-nilly, in wholesale fashion intelligence (you know accurate assessments of the truth) and the media (and by extension the public, the military, and the world) have no chance. Deeply rational, self-adjusting, dynamic thinking, highly intelligent people are needed, as is the plain, unvarnished truth, not to mention dedicated humanitarians and soldiers willing to die so that a foreign country can be as they most naturally wish to be an Islamic based theocracy, not necessarily given to Anglophilia. This is a real problem given that our rhetoric insists that they love us. Maybe TBGB magic will displace this disposition. I don’t think so.

(2) Now that we are in Iraq the level of incompetence is accelerating to self-defeating maintenance of illusions of correctness in the face of setbacks and completely revealed disconnects. This too should have been realized by the three mentioned. The UN and NATO could add legitimacy, impartiality and possibly success to the mission of building a stable Iraq. But this is impossible because to so allow such bodies into the fray would be like being nice to someone who albeit in a rational format spoke words against you and countermanded your concocted intelligence with fact. The rule of Washington is failure is better than victory if the latter involves previous detractors sharing in the victory.

Where this goes wrong 6: Existing legal and international precedent works better than this ad hoc genetically modified assemblage of politics, unreason, and hyperbole

The hyperbole used to establish the correctness of this war and occupation like Antlers on a deer increases bizarrely. Irrational nature takes to extremes that which might preserve a questionable species. The combinations and concoctions of histories real and imagined, pertinent and impertinent, true, kind of true, forged, maybe forged, etc., the citation of laws, making of laws, etc. abound. The UN did not sanction the war. The notion of pre-emption and concocted threat and even small attack massively addressed and then all misreported has all been used in the past: Hitler invaded Poland on a concocted pretext; China Tibet, etc. People who kill others and destroy countries have dreams in their head, not case studies and legal briefs. Good concocted TBGB propaganda effectively somnambulated the public and bears witness to the accuracy of this statement. The current media frenzy and political heat points to the failure of not using normal Robert’s Rules in proceedings with sworn testimony, checks and balances, and enforceable consequences: chaos, doubt, suspicion rule.

A perspective in the chaos that has not been used is the following, classical analysis. Sure you can pour paint on Saddam Hussein with sick colors, throw mud, etc., but we struck first. He did not, could not, strike back. The US needed the authority of the UN, not the delusions and paranoia of politicians. The price of eliminating a theoretical possibility, non-extant in the present can be (most likely will be/is) horrendous suffering of an innocent population (and soldiers of the offending country). Only an independent body could legitimately balance that consequence of pre-emption with the stated (or concocted statements of) threats (clear and eminent/imagined and pretended) of the other country. Intermediation between a notion of self-preservation and the destruction of a sovereign nation requires the magistrate of all nations and the guns of many nations and the serious calculations and efforts of many intelligent people from regional and far nations to repair the consequences of such action; otherwise consequences are not calculated by a sufficiently independent and powerful universal mind and a retreat to barbarism and personal whim of powerful countries and stupid white men is sadly and frighteningly manifest to all. The threat of Saddam Hussein as a super power in the waiting or a supplier of WMD to terrorists was not authoritatively counter-balanced with the suffering of his millions of people and destruction of their where with all to determine their own circumstance and evolution. Authorized judges (to what ever degree the present political world can make or find them) should independently ascertain these consequences and make a judgment that bears the imprint of rational law. They (Iraqi people and American and British soldiers, even SH) count too in the eyes of God (an unbiased court) and in some men and women’s eyes more than others. A jury of peers and advocates for the threatened (with invasion) should have been involved in the process. Without an adversarial advocacy system, such as is present, albeit weakly, in the UN, the process has degenerated to unreason and personal whim.

From a technical point of view further analysis yields unexpected results. Accepting the UN and international law as existing authorities recognized by all nations, currently a case could be made for issuing international warrants against the US, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and others on the charge of mass murder (the 3,000 estimated killed in the military take over of Iraq), malicious destruction (material loss to infra-structure brought about by the war), and all laws stemming from consequent human losses and suffering brought about by these actions. Without a specific authorization of recognized bodies of law such is the result.

Further, from a legalistic point of view, there are additional observations stemming from a classical analysis of common legal procedures and dispositions. The case could be made that there must be a consequent to unilateral, unprovoked action taken on the bases of self-defense (the pre-emption idea) when the purported premises given for such action are ipso facto post facto of aggression (through to take over and occupation of the purported offending country) false: the purported argument of eminent threat has been rendered illegitimate by the non-use of Iraqi WMD in defense of its country and in the lack of material proof via post war searches (completely unhampered) of Iraq. It is reasonable that a statue of limitations apply: the US should not be granted infinite time with which to bring to the court, so to speak, evidence, corroborating its claims. In fact its claims are so strong that the bringing forth of evidence should take them about 15 minutes, but we’ll give them 15 days. To justify pre-emptive strikes through to removal of personnel supplying necessary governmental services to several million people and thus bringing hardship to them and occupation something should be findable, easily. Knowledge of eminent attack should be easily corroborated on the ground. Further, the notions of history bearing information to contradict statements of Saddam Hussein to the effect that he (Iraq) has no WMD is rendered mute by direct inference from fact: none were used by him, despite eminent and enacted massive threat; and none were found by inspectors completely free of Iraqi (SH) restraint within 15 days (now 100 days). The assertions made in an ad hoc way within a non-judicial (comical) venue were that he had chemical agents capable of being reconstituted into effective chemical weapons within 45 minutes is rendered false by the assertion that he had 45 minutes with which to so reconstitute and use such weapons, he had great motivation to use them, and he did not. The inferences that follow from these factual observations are far different than what is being said by the US and others.

The final upshot of such analysis is not that Saddam Hussein lied; it is the party who sought relieve from Saddam Hussein who at best was mistaken (civil lawsuit pertains) and at worst knowingly made false statements (felony, criminal category 5 hurricane – all charges possible preceding from the unilateral action pertain). In a legal, rational venue false statements (now confessed or apparent) render the burden of proof on the plaintiff (the US/Britain) and the disposition of any rational court strongly biased against the advocate of wrongs committed (threats) by an opposing party. Tony and George you can’t normally just make up stuff (some true and some false) till the judge nods “well okay, go ahead and make millions of people suffer and kill however many you feel like, remove the personnel administering their government and subjugate them to your whimsical ideas of democracy, etc.” You make one false statement and you are in contempt of court; the case is dismissed and you are arrested. If you carry out the actions without judicial supervision (without a favorable ruling), charges against you accumulate apace. The censure of commentators on TV and the senate seems a little tepid, doesn’t it? Taking the statements (the 16 words) of George Bush and others as testimony within a court of law (they are in fact testimony within the court of public opinion) and observing such as made such statements are representatives of the US and observing the US is a member of the UN and thus has obligations to obey its rules, the US has violated its UN charter, international laws, and must likely United States law, precedent, and expectations of the people. It is a rogue, criminal state and should be removed from the security counsel; the offending leaders seized as war criminals, the citizens of Iraq compensated, and agents of the offending criminal organization (the US/Britain military) subjected to a cease and desist order and removed by force (if necessary) from Iraq. A restraining order might also be helpful.

The defense attorneys (so to speak) of the above parties argue in, again, a comical non-judicial venue – the TV – that they are doing good. The notion that the ends justify the means, like Enron CEOs talking to accountants, does not work. It is extra-judicial and immaterial: I robbed a bank thinking to save the world should not work, even if you might save or could have saved or perhaps do actually save the world. The delusions of criminals are notoriously subjective: Tony and George say they are going to save the world (bring democracy to it) and save their countries from terrorism. Hitler and Mao have pretty words; Saddam himself paints pretty pictures. The usual hype of weak countries is to paint emotions on the canvas of the populace and do outrageous things at will. The heretofore discourse of disputatious nations, especially the US and Western ones and others (cf. the First Gulf War), was laden with legal (boring) talk, deep explorations of consequences to precedent – you know all that mumbo jumbo of the debating society, the UN. Now the venue is TV and emotional appeals as heard in Congress (TB recent speech). Think about it are these claims to helping Iraqis meaningful in any kind of rational proceeding? They play well to ignorant audiences awed by Presidents and Prime Ministers, fancy backdrops and large planes, fancy cars, etc., but technically it is all psycho-babble relative to the serious and required justification for such military actions. Indeed the severe remedy of conquering a nation should require more than TV commentary and political speeches.

Even accepting that the ends are noble it is unlikely, as I have argued, that they will be obtained. It is highly unlikely that Iraq was or will be better off after the intervention by the US/Britain. Saddam Hussein’s existence, internal existing political groups and structures of Iraq, dispositions of its people to dislike American culture, and other factors make the picture of democracy coming soon to the theatre of Iraq dubious. Some of these factors can change; Saddam could be killed, but people cannot be easily changed. More than all the price for noble deeds and ideas carried out via subterfuge and within the comical venue of TV is the loss of a sense of international law and order, as well as the impact of the existence of falsely speaking heads of important countries reverberates through the world. Culture is in part a function of the personalities and character of rulers and leaders. Thus the use of subterfuge, perhaps deception is a better word, weak, emotional, non-orderly discourse to determine critical decisions impacts and reveals a culture seriously degrading and degraded. The net is more negative than positive.

The final outrage…

As an American I confess the oil in Iraq frequently in a positive way has come to mind. Saddam’s strategic masterstroke: the oil will not compensate the actions. The hidden carrot (and arguably ulterior motivation) for all of this will be proven illusory. Shouldn’t matter to Tony and George; given their rhetoric Britain and the US will happily pay for the entire bill of democratizing Iraq with deaths of their soldiers, their populace’s money, and the future of their political careers; however many “we build it/they destroy it” rounds it takes. Such sacrifices, such humanitarians and philanthropists: all for the good of fellow foreign humans distant in dispositions! Saddam will effectively enforce their rhetoric by a guerilla war fed with delusions of gold (oil) just around the corner. The chemical and biological arsenal he was charged with having will be proven to exist in the delusions (biochemistry brought of the chemistry of octane) being indeed found everywhere in occupied Iraq. The wandering dazed conquistadors, the soldiers or forward men of corporations basting in 115-degree heat urged on by their safe and happy taskmasters will be symptoms of the disease and chemical poisoning of the cultures from whence they come. A nice test tube to see how much humans can take before they break and start wantonly killing the populace to express their fears and rage (see Viet Nam)! When the soldiers, corporations, and politicians (and the countries from whence they emanate) have been fully gassed with dead, heated, saturated-with-sand Iraqi air they will come to understand the law of humans is “He who tells lies looses.” The US/Britain lies. Moreover, the cultural Satan of the current world (and this situation: 2^nd generation trash culture breeds TBGB) is the United States. The US should put its own house in order and change its government and culture first. The willful, unsanctioned attempted subjugation of the Iraqi people is emblematic and mirrored by this owns country’s miserable culture and its power. Its diseased culture is now spreading to its political leaders and thence to their dreams of a world of tits and cars, ass and Free To Lay chicks: garbage in, garbage out, as they say.

A valid international law: People have the God given right to read the Koran in peace without having to look at heathens with guns and machines breathing on them the stink of their rotten culture and lawless rulers.

Where I think it is going…

Quagmire. The resistance will grow. The suffering will remain. The troops will grow more demoralized. The public will be confused and frightened. A leader that lies and with lies causes their sons and daughters to be killed in a pointless battle is frightening. He seems, I point out tangentially, unmoved by Americans dying. Part of his (and Rumsfeld’s) moxie (charisma?) is a total lack of “ouch” that was a real American killed there; it doesn’t phase either of them; per the previous paragraph, it’s part of the “we are always right” syndrome.

In the end, we will leave and one of the existing factions will rule the country, perhaps, unless he is killed, Saddam himself. It will prove all to be a total waste of money, lives, and resources. Further it will not have served humanity’s or national security interests. In fact, it will prove to be a magnet pulling humanity back into barbarism and emotional control from the high point of international order and law: the UN and reason based diplomacy have been stabbed in the back by the US and Britain. The question before the court of public opinion is how far do you exonerate these two under the defense of temporary insanity brought about the duress of 9/11?

Recommendation

To avoid this end: Bush does not get re-elected. A new president brings in the United Nations (if they will get involved) and NATO to form a police force. A fair brokering of power occurs; i.e. the Shiites get more power; the UN and the US (other) keeps the peace as best they can while the Shiite’s (or other existing group) perhaps brutally removes the illusion of a democracy in the making and returns a stable tyranny (maybe one rung up from Saddam). The best is it becomes closer to Iran. The worst is we are proven to be closer to Pol Pot and the Kymer Rouge than the Johnny Appleseed of democracy. Democracy must grow internally; otherwise it is just a cruelly disguised inefficient tyranny.