Wednesday, September 06, 2006

the war against I.F.


Terminology. We need a new name for the conflict in Iraq.
The original phrase..."Operation Iraqi Freedom"...sounds like a bad joke these days. Ditto for talk about "Liberation" of Iraq.
While this may be part of the "War on Terrorism" or the "War against Islamic Fascism", neither one of those expressions is ready for the history books. As has been noted elsewhere, Terrorism is a tactic, and not an army. As for Islamic Fascism (I.F.)… while radical Islam is a threat, The concept of a war against an enemy as ambiguous as "Islamo Fascists" is too arcane for all but the most belligerent right wingers.
Another issue with the War against I.F. (there is a good name for something, the war against if) is the application in Iraq vis a vis the civil war that is now raging. Which side is the I.F.s? Is it the Sunnis, which is after all the source of much of the insurgency, and the beneficiaries of Saddam's rule? Or is it the Shia? They were brutalized by Saddam, and comprise much of the New Iraqi army. Of course, there is the question of ties to Iran, which is Shiite dominated. Or is it the Kurds, who are regarded as terrorists by our Turkish allies, and are avenging years of repression by the Baathist Arabs? Yes, who are the I.F.?
Is anyone confused? We invade a country to perform regime change, and yet have no plans for what is to replace it. Is it any wonder that we are apparently no closer to "victory" than we were before we invaded? “We did not anticipate the insurgency”.
There is a lot of talk about "taking the gloves off" and "fighting a p.c. war". Now, I suspect the families of civilians killed by our troops do not consider their actions to be p.c. Of course, our leaders have never taken the opinions of the Iraqi people/I.F. into consideration.
Whatever name we chose for this conflict, I do not suggest "P.C. War".
Well, I was opposed to this war, and can hardly be expected to formulate a coherent strategy for winning it, or even what victory would look like. While I think we should leave our troops in country until we have a functional government in place, I honestly don’t know how to achieve this. I do know one thing: our leaders, W. Dick and Rummy/curly larry moe, are clueless as to how to "Win" this war.


Putrefaction. Maybe I should focus on a new name for this affair.
The war of terrorism.
Mr. Bush's War. (The War Between the States was widely called Mr. Lincoln's War)
World War W.
Hopeless Mess.
The war against I.F.

Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem, “If”. Maybe if he was alive he could help with this, “The white man’s burden”.

Morphadite Frenzy
Being a delivery driver and listening to talk radio is not good for my mental health, nor the fact that this job is based in Cobb County. Driving is a monotonous job, with lots of time to think seditious thoughts.

Guantonamo Bay. Are p.o.w.'s from Iraq being flown to Cuba for detention? Couldn't we just build a prison in the Green Zone somewhere to hold them? Just take the cameras away from the guards.

Chemical Murder. It is becoming apparent from the trial of Saddam Hussein that, yes, he did use chemical weapons against the Kurds.
Where did he get them?
Keep in mind, Iraq was at war with Iran at the time. The invasion of Iran was apparently green lighted by the United States, which was upset with Iran about the hostages they were holding. The United States was supporting Iraq in this war.
Of course, at the same time, The United States and Israel were selling weapons to Iran, supposedly in exchange for hostages somebody was holding. This was very hush hush, until the press found out, and told how we were using the profits to send guns to the contras in Nicaragua.
Now, The United States was an ally of Iraq, and was making sleazy arms deals with Iran. Could the United States have been the source...directly or indirectly...of the chemical weapons that Iraq used against it's Kurdish population?
Or was it Turkey? A N.A.T.O. member and nominal ally of the United States, Turkey is engaged in a struggle with it's own Kurdish population, which wants an independent Kurdistan.
Or maybe it was Israel, or the not yet imploded Soviet Union. Or, the international black market, which could involve all of the above mentioned countries. And, last but not least, whenever there is money to made from killing, Great Britain and/or France must be considered.
And, once the slaughter with Iran faded away, what happened to the W.M.D.s? While our troops have not found the bonanza of W.M.D.s that was anticipated at the start of the war, that does not mean they don't exist.
Did Saddam use all of them in the 1980s against the Kurds?
What is the shelf life of W.M.D.s? Are the weapons used against the Kurds still useable?
Did Saddam ship the W.M.D.s out of the country, in anticipation of an invasion? And where are they now?

Tabulation. The preliminary exit polls show the winner to be:
World War W.

1 Comments:

Blogger Don Q Blogger said...

My vote is "Mr. Bush's War" (I've been using that term some in my own blog, Vaguely Logical). I think the name fits since this is so clearly a war of choice not necessity that it is difficult imagining any other American politician (Republican or Democrat) having started.

6:44 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home