|
Guest
|
i, too, feel you are out of line, holywarrior, and would like to see you apologise to john.
your ill treatment, however, cannot hide the facts. here's a more reasoned review of the events of the weekend. the italics are mine.
Quote:
In Victory, America Loses
The capture of Saddam Hussein marks a great victory for the US military and for Bush - or so the media and the administration would have us believe.
Finally, after the nine long months since the onset of America's war upon Iraq, there he was being paraded for all to see: Saddam Hussein. Looking somewhat more like a refugee than a deposed tyrant, Hussein was poked, prodded, and probed by an American doctor in full view of tens of millions in America and around the world this Sunday morning, just in time to pre-empt the Sunday political talk shows. As CBS surrounded its repetitive presentation of the tape snippet with Rather-blather about this being "game, set, and match" for George Bush in next year's elections, the media factories generating "American Pride(tm)" swung into overdrive; the swirling animated eagle-and-flag graphics, the breathless commentary about this meaning "a new respect" for America in the middle east and around the world, and the milataristic musical fanfares heralding the impending commercial breaks all conspired to convince the public that this was the most significant event since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Were that it were so.
Of couse, nobody would argue that it's a bad thing that Hussein has been captured; anytime a despotic regime bites dust, it is generally speaking something to be happy about, and in the sad case of Iraq - a country which not only had to endure decades of his rule, but an additional dozen years' worth of forced starvation caused by draconian sanctions - one can only hope that perhaps finally the beleagured people will get a break. Regardless of the administration's stated intentions, however, this is likely to be a by-product of events rather than a goal in itself, if it happens at all; more likely, the slow spiral into chaos in the form of tribal warfare, coupled with an ongoing conflict with the occupying forces, will visit continued suffering for years to come.
It's worth wondering what we all might be paying attention to this particular Sunday morning were it not for this "triumph of American intelligence." Most of us, of course, would be going about the course of our normal daily lives - holiday shopping, hangover nursing, child-minding, church, work. But at least some would have been riveted by a lower-profile but no less interesting news item, one that surely would have been a hot topic on "Meet The Press": The Halliburton overcharges.
Remember? Just a day or two earlier, it was looking pretty bad for the Bush administration in the endless Info-War. Halliburton, the company whose former leader just happens to be Vice President Cheney and which had the good fortune to get a fat billion-dollar no-bid Iraq reconstruction contract, was being excoriated by the Pentagon for some 60 million dollars' worth of inflated invoices. The malodorous stench of corruption was beginning to seep out of the hermetically-sealed Bush bubble, and things were beginning to look a bit bleak for the administration on the homeland propaganda front. There would be tough questions asked, inquiries launched, and baying for blood from a newly-emboldened field of Democratic contenders for Bush's throne.
But as if on cue, along comes assistance from that most unlikely of sources. America's boogeyman Saddam Hussein rides in to save the day, replete with appropriately bedraggled appearance and whipped-cur onscreen manner, just in time to deflect all eyes from a good hard look at the character of the man serving as their Commander In Chief.
It was as if the final scenes of a John Wayne western had been deconstructed and had their "bad guy" replaced by a computer-enhanced, media-tailored uber-villain. America's vile scourge Saddam had finally been reduced to his animalistic, elemental form; good had vanquished evil in a single memetic swoop. We got our bad guy; therefore, America has a magnificent leader. Away with all of those tough questions about fraud and sweetheart insider deals. Guess the photo-ops and soundbites from this one will go a long way towards overcoming that "mission accomplished" gaffe, eh?
In the public eye, maybe. In reality: not by a long shot. A telling detail, somewhat glossed over in the television coverage, is the underwhelming response by the Iraqis themselves. Aside from the bought-and-paid-for Iraqi "experts" who were promptly plunked into studio chairs for cheerleading sessions, few seemed all that thrilled. For them, the issue stopped being Saddam months ago. For them, the issue is now American occupation, and the incontrovertible fact of America's failure to bring peace, stability, and democracy to the country it destroyed - not to mention its failure to justify doing so in the first place.
Besides the tough questions surrounding Halliburton that will now go unasked in the tide of SaddaMania, there are other compelling issues which this glorious victory seems destined to sweep under the carpet. Where are those WMDs, anyway? And how many civilians have we actually killed? Why are American service personnel still coming home in bags, or with limbs missing? And, given that the pre-war justifications for an attack have been systematically dismantled and discredited ad nauseum - no ties to 9/11, no nuclear program, no chemical weapons, no anything - why the hell have we sacrificed our global credibility, the goodwill of much of the world, and hundreds of U.S. soldiers in the hellhole that Iraq has become? If the Bush administration has its way, the world may never know.
Savvy viewers of the Saddam Sideshow might want to pursue one rather theoretical line of inquiry, however. If America wins a war it was never legally or ethically justified in fighting and which was launched on false pretenses, is our stature enhanced or diminished? And if doing so results in debt, death, and global ill-will for the victor, should the leader in charge be lauded as a hero - or denounced as a liar?
Note: © 2003 David B. Livingstone
|
|