Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Random Rant -- Iraq: Still A Good Idea?

Somebody asked me recently whether I still thought invading Iraq was a good idea.

First: I never thought it was a "good" idea or, more accurately, I thought it a good idea if we were in it to win. My response was going to go something like:

Invading Iraq: good idea, bad execution (and WMDs were not a crock; indeed, finding stuff in the desert is no small task. But, for the sake of argument, let us say that our intel was wrong: which is worse, being proved wrong about the EXISTENCE of WMDs, or their ABSENCE?).

My sense is that the US no longer has the stomach to win a war--the socialist/pacifist/marxist movement has really succeeded in sapping our country, our schools, our spirit. For example, we went to great lengths to secularize our stance (remember W's back-pedaling on the word "crusade?"), when we should instead have "hit 'em where it hurts."

Personally, I would have published a rank order of important (read: holy) sites and, Israel-like, worked my way up the list toward Mecca, varying the damage between destruction and utter destruction (that's a Classics joke for you biblical scholar out there; you know, the diff between the Greek pollumi and apollumi... ah, forget it...).

Here: I found one of my relatively impassioned notes from early in (cue scary music) THE WAR ON TERRORISM; let's see how things have held up, shall we? This, from a personal note to a friend, in 2003:

When discussing the current state of affairs, I often refer to an image of you, circa [some time in the '80s] post fall of the Berlin Wall, putting your two fists together, knuckles to knuckles, and explaining that the two superpowers had brought a certain, if uneasy, stability to the world, and that the post Soviet Union world would degenerate to pre-WWI balkanization.

Voila, et nous ici.

From my knee-jerk, extreme-right viewpoint, the US is under attack. Thousands have been killed. That the enemy is not circumscribed by some geographical construct should be of no concern. (For a prophetic take on this I refer you to the 5-minutes-from-now Neal Stephenson novel
Snow Crash.) The President is obligated to protect this nation ("nation" as concept); that his own people have been so coddled (or addled) by peace that they would rather bleat statements pro Iraq (choosing a man who has used mustard gas on his own people over the leader of one of the freest countries the earth has yet known) causes me physical distress. The communists (remember communists?) thought that the only thing keeping communism from succeeding was those pesky capitalists, and if those capitalists would all just disappear (or be disappeared), then life would be good.

Isn't life in North Korea good?

That islam, in addition to being a pernicious political system, also happens to be a "religion" (something we are required to "respect"), means little to me. That islam's adherents feel the need to transfer blame for their failed politico-social system (I mean, why else would G-d visit utter poverty and disarray on his chosen people--and wealth on the infidel--unless that infidel were in league with the devil and must needs therefore be destroyed?) and are therefore "victims" and not to be blamed is also of little import to me.

This. Is. War.

We did not choose it, we did not start it, but we had better finish it. If we want our daughters to walk freely and without fear again in these United States, then we'd better be willing to spend a few years in some very ugly times and supporting some very ugly policies. France be damned.

I leave you now with a few words from
A Few Good Men, with which I have no doubt you are already familiar:

Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.
Kaffee: Did you order the code red?
Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!

3 comments:

Gates VP said...

Wow, I just snuck in from the MyMoneyBlog and this is definitely a very impassioned speech. I have a running theory about the "war" that may be a little out there, but seems very relevant to your quote.

You're talking about protecting the American people, but I'm actually talking about defending the American way of life. You see, I figure this whole war actually has several levels of smokescreens about "what's actually going on", but I think that at the very fundamental level, this "war in Iraq" and "war on Terror" is actually about defending the American way of life.

You're on the money Blog, you know a little about international markets, you know that the USD has definitely seen better days (CDN is almost par right now!). And the USD is going to continue its slide, b/c everyone has USDs to cash in and they need to cash them in for something, but things in the US are still too expensive globally.

I suspect that the whole Iraq thing is intentionally not going to end b/c it makes for a great smokescreen. The USD is the currency of choice for trading in oil. And right now, American workers (and Co.) are running the oil rigs helping to maintain the value of the USD and thus the American way of life.

We can argue up and down about why they haven't left and blame Islam and Communists and poor governmental strategies. But why don't we aruge about why they want to stay?

As long as the US has a military presence in Iraq they can continue to mine oil and generate revenue for the US economy with no questions asked. The Gov may be bleeding money on this war, but the USD is still grossly over-valued. The US owes tons of money to the world, they have huge trade deficit and they don't have any way of making that up.

You don't have enough energy (or oil), you don't have enough raw materials and your skilled labour is too expensive for all but Europe and Canada to afford. The US-owned companies need this oil to keep trade going.

Nigeria and Iran are next on the invade list. Iran may be too big a target, but Nigeria is filled with corrupt gov. officials, internet scammers and an underfed populace, and terrorists of course. So they'll likely be next. Needless to say, they have tons of off-shore oil rigs.

Without another invasion, the US economy will slowly slide back down due to global economic pressure. So the war won't ever really end, b/c there's no point in finishing it.

Either way, just my two cents about the "end of the Iraq war".

Anonymous Bosh said...

I will get back to you on this -- you bring up some good points (although I think you fall prey at some point to "straight line" prediction, i.e., you foresee outcomes if nothing else changes, which denies the one thing the US has in abundance: plasticity).

I am no knee-jerker when it comes to criticisizing the US economy (unless you advocate a gold standard, in which case I go off the deep end...). Your thoughts will take some time to mull over prior to reasoned response. Thanks for visiting!

Anonymous Bosh said...

You're talking about protecting the American people, but I'm actually talking about defending the American way of life.

Yes, the two are different, nowadays...

The USD is the currency of choice for trading in oil. And right now, American workers (and Co.) are running the oil rigs helping to maintain the value of the USD and thus the American way of life.

Oil is just one aspect of the multifaceted US market; in the long run, I am not concerned about currency fluctuations.

As long as the US has a military presence in Iraq they can continue to mine oil and generate revenue for the US economy with no questions asked.

I do not think Iraq is exporting oil to the US at this time in any meaningful capacity. Our "allies" in Kuwait--and elsewhere in the free market--have oil aplenty, and WITHOUT incurring the tremendous defense expenditures we have seen in Iraq. While I do not deny that oil is a "national security" issue, I do believe that Dubya went into Iraq with, on balance, good intentions. That he actually believed that one could install democracy in a non-Western nation (especially as it is failing miserably in the most Western of non-Western nations, i.e., Russia), shows that he definitely has more heart than brains...

The Gov may be bleeding money on this war, but the USD is still grossly over-valued. The US owes tons of money to the world, they have huge trade deficit and they don't have any way of making that up.

Uh, yes we do...

You don't have enough energy (or oil), you don't have enough raw materials and your skilled labour is too expensive for all but Europe and Canada to afford.

"Labour" is for...well, laborers. Our labor problems will be domestic (i.e., how to occupy inherently unemployable folks), our wealth stems from elsewhere. In the broadest terms: China will be the world's labor, India its customer service, and the US its managers and deal-makers. Not sure where this leaves Japan & Europe, but that's not my concern.

Nigeria and Iran... So the war won't ever really end, b/c there's no point in finishing it.

The US is not a dictatorship (sadly); the war will end when the Democrats regain power in the next election. As for invading Iran: I *wish*! Well, not for "invading" it per se, but for making it...less hospitable to human life. I suspect that all the smart Persians have already left anyway (moving, ironically, to California).

Iran, to me, is merely a signal that Bush lost the war in Iraq. Next, I suppose, North Korea will be acting up again. I fear for our future.

That the Brits can live with car bombs in their midst is amazing to me, talk about stiff upper lips!

We are likely next.

Canada will be funny too, rather like the Netherlands, I suppose. All friendly-like, all touchy-feely, until some radical pokes a hole in your prime minister...