Posted on 02/03/2003 5:01:05 AM PST by Garegaupa
I'm trying to understand American foreign policy. It's like oil-painting on a trampoline, but makes less sense. I'm not sure anybody could do it--not even if you took St. Augustine and Jimmy the Greek and Carl Friedrichs Gauss and wired them together in parallel.
It seems that we're going to blow up Iraq. Some folk will call it a war, but it'll be more like drowning a litter of puppies. Iraq is a primitive country and hasn't got a chance. That's convenient, and lots of fun, but it ain't war.
Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. But…why Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire?
Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe.
I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy.
Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really?
It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. Grenada, the Philippines, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan twice, Laos, Lebanon twice, Iraq almost twice, Yemen, Angola, Kosovo, Cuba, Libya. We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan?
Why? Why always us? Can't we just, you know, spend an occasional Saturday night at home? North Korea is South Korea's problem, not ours, and South Korea is an industrial power. If it wants to defend itself, fine. If it doesn't, I don't care. Is Japan upset about North Korea? Then let Japan do something about it. Why are we always the International Mother?
What possible reason did we have for bombing Yugoslavia? Last I heard, Yugoslavia was in Europe. Granted, I haven't looked for a while. Maybe it moved to Mississippi or the outskirts of Detroit. Continental drift is like that. But if it's in Europe, I say it's Europe's problem. Let them bomb Yugoslavia till it squeaks. Or not. Why do I care? It's time Europe learned to diaper itself.
For that matter, why do we have troops in Europe? I don't get it. NATO was supposed to fight the Soviet Union, I thought, which we don't have one of.
Could we stop meddling for even a week? We're in Colombia and Mexico and Peru and God knows where because these folk work in the drug trade, and we have A Drug Problem. We have a drug problem because Americans want drugs. It's not Colombia's problem. It's our problem. Why don't we leave Colombia the hell alone?
Think about it. Suppose a Colombian crept up to you in a raincoat, peering around furtively, and whispered, "Hey, Meester, wanna buy some really good polio virus? Great stuff. You'll never walk again. Iron lung, guaranteed. Five bucks."
You would probably indicate that you didn't really need any polio just now. The Colombian would run off and starve, or jump his visa and get a job in construction. You can't sell what people won't buy. It's an economic law. (Unless you're the federal government, which consists of the compulsory sale of unwanted services. But Colombia isn't.)
Americans love drugs. Middle-schoolers through assisted living, black, white, blue collar, guttural lawyers in pricey turtle-neck sweaters, funny-looking urbanites, suburbanites with the little bag in the closet, country boys cutting ditchweed, growing hydroponic, cooking that righteous crank.
It's one of the biggest businesses in America. We'll pay any price, risk jail, do anything for our drugs. The cartel is just a service industry. Half the country wants them, and the other half doesn't have to take them. Why do we expect other countries to let us bomb their peasants to solve our problem?
If we have to poke our nose everywhere, could we at least stop being the Moral Nanny? Somebody said (me, actually) that the Brits fight for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for mommyish moral causes. Spare me.
It's embarrassing. Europe fought world wars to get the Germans off its back. We fought The War to End All War, and then to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, and now Iraq and Korea are the Axes of Evil. (Whether this refers to malintentioned hatchets or indicates that the White House doesn't know that points can't be lines is unclear.) I don't want to be a Manichean baby-sitter.
Americans may need to get out more. I recently heard that ferret-like little man in the White House trying to give a speech about Iraq and how we're going to liberate Iraqis and it's for their own good and they ought to welcome us like rich relatives bringing free stuff. Any day now. Can't we put George back into his storage box in Roswell? Last time we were in Iraq, we killed 125,000 of their men, or some other wholesome number, wrecked the country, set up an embargo that starved 100,000 of their children to death, and established an aerial occupation of lots of their country.
But they're going to welcome us because George has good intentions. We're from the government, and we're here to help you….
Why are we embargoing Cuba? When the Soviets wanted to put runways and missiles there, it made sense. Now we're making life miserable for perfectly decent Cubans because we don't like that tiresome gas bag with the beard. Yes, I know. We're rally doing it because Castro runs an oppressive communist tyranny. Like China, with whom we trade like starving encyclopedia salesmen. Consistency and churchy moralism go so well together.
I give up. It's beyond me.
Yes, Fred. Clearly, it is.
I wish someone would comment on the specific points.
Always killing the messenger.
I didn't know he got so dovish.....it is possible that he wrote this as parody as he has done that before?
Actually, I didn't ask for a response. I was mearly pointing out the fact that too often folks answer this type of post by attacking the author, rather than by debating the material.
I do, however, appreciate your efforts. Nice post.
Well said, and my sentiments exactly. I posted this to get some debate, which is (as far as I can see, at least) what this forum is all about.
Let's leave The mindless bashing of other people's opinions to the liberals... :-)
I know him well, I read his column every week, and I totally love it (most of the time, at least)!
I knew this would cause an uproar here on FR, and that's why I posted it. However, I had expected a little more debate and a little less angry bashing. Well, maybe I asked for it...
I wish someone would comment on the specific points.
There's not much reason to. All his points seem to be based on facts or misapprehensions of facts at least a year old, several of them many decades old. They have already been discussed for quite some time, and further discussion would not be productive.
Several of his points do appear to be ... disingenuous, at best. He ignores the legal rationale for attacking Iraq, makes no mention of Just War Theory, ignores the findings of the Blix Report, and cavalierly dismisses WMDs as "nothing," adding, "I don't care [...] bombing won't help." I'm geniunely confused by the "Axes of Evil." Has the White House put out a statement with that misspelling? Does the author know, or care, that three points can indeed define more than one line, id est axes? Is he even aware that three states have been explicitly identified as the Axis of Evil? Does he understand that historical allusions are not meant to be geometrically correct? Who knows. Who cares. To top it all off, the guy quotes himself. Only Gene Ray can pull that off.
Sorry if I'm "killing the messenger." He looked pretty sickly when he got here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.