The evolution of excuses for blundering into and
maintaining the Iraq War is becoming comical.
The first excuse was weapons of mass destruction. Do you remember the constant
talk about weapons of mass destruction, "the worst weapons in the hands
of the worst dictator"? Do you remember how President Bush said the sole
reason for the war was to disarm Saddam Hussein? Do you remember how we were
warned about a smoking gun that could be a mushroom cloud? Do you remember how
Iraq was an "imminent" threat to the world? Do you remember how a
65-year-old dictator, widely acknowledged as not the smartest guy in the world,
was compared to Hitler, who had put together a regime and an army that conquered
Europe?
Well, oops. Not a single weapon of mass destruction was found in the country.
Furthermore, the Iraqis had said there were no weapons of mass destruction.
To cover their behinds, U.S. officials started peddling the story that Saddam
wanted people to believe he had weapons of mass destruction. That U.S. lie didn't
fly because Saddam and his government repeatedly denied that the weapons existed.
Furthermore, Iraq had invited in U.N. inspectors who were verifying the absence
of weapons, which was one reason Bush forced the inspectors out by going to
war. He had to start his war before the inspectors proved his bogus intelligence
amounted to a pack of lies.
Enter the second excuse: Bush wants to spread democracy in the Middle East,
starting with Iraq. That never progressed past elections because, as everyone
familiar with the country knew or should have known, a vote would elect a Shia
majority with two fractious minorities, Kurds and Sunnis. This is the government
that has proven to be totally ineffective. It also greatly increased the influence
of Iran. It has sparked the civil war in Iraq.
Bush lately has hinted that his faith in democracy is weakening by implying
that a reasonable authority would be acceptable. Trouble is, the U.S. can't
even find a dictator willing to take the job, given the present situation.
Now, when the issue has become getting Americans home from a war that has lasted
longer than World War II, the final excuse is to trot out the empire's favorite
ambiguity: stability. If we leave Iraq, instability will result. It's hard to
believe anyone can say that with a straight face. Iraq is unstable already.
It's in the midst of civil war, with a million refugees and displaced people,
hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded, its economy a total wreck, and virtually
all work on repairing the infrastructure at a standstill.
Ironically, the last time Iraq was stable was when Saddam was in power. Iraq
is unstable because we made it unstable. We destroyed Iraq's infrastructure,
its economy and its government. We did. One of the most shameful lies peddled
by the Bush administration has been to blame the poor state of Iraq's infrastructure
on Saddam. We destroyed that infrastructure with wars, bombings and medieval
sanctions. The miracle is that with all we were doing, Saddam managed to produce
more electricity and more oil than our occupation has been able to produce.
Finally, how is it the U.S. can claim that after four years, there is no trained
Iraqi army and police force able to handle security? We send kids into combat
with about 16 weeks of training. And why is the U.S. building the largest embassy
in the world in a Third World country that is in chaos?
What Bush has done is destroy the credibility of the U.S., sully our reputation
almost beyond repair, demonstrate the weakness of our leadership and the vulnerability
of our military, and convince many people in the world that we are an evil nation
of idiots led by fools. Let's at least hope that he destroys the Republican
Party, too. It deserves a zero existence.