|
DECEMBER 20, 2003 – We've seen this before. Numerous times. In fact, it has been the main staple of Bush-brand foreign policy for decades now. Disastrous "victories," events that make good headlines in the short run, but down the road a bit show themselves to have been far-worse-situation-creating missteps. It is so common a story line with Bush family foreign policy, that we ran this story months ago satirizing how the phrase "pyrrhic victory" was actually renamed "Bush victory" by the heads of several major dictionaries. When our arming, training, and financing of Saddam helped him defeat Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, it was reported as a "victory" that made America safer; the same was reported why our arming, training and financing of Osama helped al-Qaeda chase the USSR out of Afghanistan. And so again now, the one-instant-and-local-focusing non-Moderate-Independent media is reporting not only that Saddam's capture has made the world safer, but that anyone who suggests otherwise is a drooling, brainless imbecile. But this conclusion - that the capture of Saddam has made us safer - can only be reached if you refuse to look at the simple facts of the situation and pretend not to be able to understand any answer more complex than "yes" or "no." So, if you truly are suffering from a brain disease, mental handicap, or just somehow of such low intelligence that any answer that has more than one word is too complex for you, then please go back to reading one of the other media sources. But if you simply want the truth - and can handle the truth - then no other answer can be clearer than that the capture of Saddam has made the world a far more dangerous place. All along there has been a feigned ignorance of the argument many made against the war: it was not that Saddam wasn't a bad man who should be removed, but that you have to deal with him the right way or you will just make things worse. President Bush, the non-M/I press, most of the Democratic hopefuls, are going around pointing out now that if we had not invaded Iraq, Saddam would still be in power and not in prison. Their point is that this proves the attack has indeed made the world safer. But in making this argument, they leave out of the equation all sorts of other things that would not be the case if we had not invaded Iraq, numerous of which now present far, far more horrible, massive, and dangerous situations to America and the world than Saddam ever did or could have even in his wildest dreams. Immediate effect one of launching the pre-emptive, unilateral invasion that led to Saddam's capture: the return of the former Soviet Union. Immediate effect two of launching the pre-emptive, unilateral invasion: hundreds of thousands of Americans now can - and are - being harmed and killed by Iraq, while not a single one was truly in immediate danger before. Immediate effect three: the ability of nuclear power Pakistan's President, who is a rare American ally in this nation teeming with extremist Muslim militants, to keep his hold on power - and on that nation's nukes - is far, far more tenuous and, in fact, could end and any second, as two recent near-miss assassination attempts in the past two weeks and his being forced to renounce his ties to the military by his parliament have shown. There are more, but let's just talk about these for a second. We detailed what is occurring in the former Soviet Union a few weeks ago here. The reason this has been happening is simple. The Soviet Union fell because people in Russia like America better. They wanted its freedom, they wanted a chance at capitalism, and they didn't mind shaking off their powerful, protective military because they didn't see America or anyone else in the world as a threat. The West sought to free them and would be benevolent, especially if the embraced democracy and democratic reforms. With the invasion of Iraq, the Russian people - as many in the world have - have now come to fear American power and aggression. And so when Putin sought to tighten controls and his hold on power, and as he moves them back toward the old Soviet days and ways, they actually feel more secure. Instead of being upset to shed the western style democratic reforms that had been undertaken, they now view these things in the light of their new view of America as hated tyrant, and so don't see why they should keep things put on them by the US to begin with. And when recently, for the first time in recent history, the Soviet Union even went ahead and ordered up a whole new supply of massive nuclear weapons - in addition to announcing plans to design another generation of even more advanced tactical nukes - the people of Russia cheered. (see the CNN story here) Russia, in bad financial shape, had not only not been making new nukes, but had been letting us come in and dismantle the ones they had if we would pay for the task. Now, not only did we never take advantage of the opportunity to finish the job of the Cold War by dismantling, by open invitation, the nukes that been the biggest threat in the first place, but the attack on Iraq has stirred them back into a renewed nuclear arms build-up. This is on top of the human rights rollbacks and dictator-like power grab Putin, a former KGB strongman, is making. All possible because we lost the goodwill of the Russian people and, instead, severely raised their fear by invading Iraq the way we did. There is not a person dumb enough on the face of the Earth to dare say that trading Saddam - who had been contained to begin with - for a re-arming, reforming Soviet Union has made us safer. There is not a person dumb enough to say that having massive nuclear power Pakistan far less stable and far closer to falling into the hands of its extremist militant Muslim majority has made us safer. And the simple fact is that with the world united against Saddam and UN inspections underway, the hundreds and hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqi civilians who have been killed and 140,000 troops attacked now every day would have been far safer under those circumstances - yes, even with Saddam still in power. As would their families have been back home, for both of the first two reasons mentioned above and a third: because the end state of Iraq is not known yet. Even if Iraq were completely at peace now and there were no insurgents fighting, we will not know if Iraq will be less of a threat to world peace until we, in the long run, see who ends up in power and what becomes of it. As we've seen in the past, a Bush may say we have ended up with a wonderful ally on top, such as Saddam or Osama or whoever they will tell us is a trustworthy leader to leave in charge there this time, but in the end, only time will bear whether that is fact or not. And remember, these are only three of the direct effects of capturing Saddam in pre-emptive, unilateral manner President Bush did. From Indonesia to Europe, Colombia to the Cayman Islands, the terrorists have new friends, sympathizers, and activists. The rest of the media pretends to be daft, incapable of dealing with the particular invasion of Iraq as launched by President Bush. They pretend, as directed by the Bush administration, that the equation is the very basic, grade school-level x=y=z, or in this case attackiraq = captureSaddam = wonderful. We at The Moderate Independent present our news for actual adults, and so give you the accurate equation: attackIraq + pre-emptive + unilateral = returnofsovietpowerandnukes + increasedthreatfromPakistan + increasedthreatfromIraq + earnhundredsofmillionsofnewenemies = damnwewerefarbetteroffwhenwewereaworldpartner. Whether the actual removal of Saddam fits into the equation as a plus or minus can only be determined once we see who comes to power in his place and how the nation's future plays out. So while the non-M/I, right-wing puppet press may try to say only a dolt could think Saddam's capture has not made us safer, it is clear that only mentally inept individuals, liars, and simpletons can possibly assert that America, as the actual events have occurred, is safer because of the pre-emptive, unilateral invasion that has landed Saddam in prison instead of in power. |