I was going over my old emails when I came across this one to several friends. It was a few days after the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated, killing all 7 astronauts. For a few weeks this story pre-empted that of the war we all knew was approaching, in spite of President Bush looking America in the eye and saying that he had not yet decided.
We need to keep, and to share, personal documents such as this. It allows us to refute the big lie of “No one could have known it would turn out this bad?” If I knew; if we knew, how could our elected officials not have known?
History is being rewritten. This is becoming a no fault war, fomented by a no fault administration, and acceded to by a no fault opposition party. We must keep our own notes, our own records, to preserve the reality of what actually happened.
Here's what I sent to my friends, only slightly abbreviated:
February 4, 2003
Dear Marta,
Yesterday, I watched a panel discussion on CSPAN titled "Iraq after the War" sponsored by the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Most of the speakers were pessimistic, seeing the war as bringing internal chaos and possible invasion by Turkey and Iran. Each time I watch one of these discussion among knowledgeable people it is like an onion being peeled, with infinite levels of complexity being exposed, each with their own unsolvable quandaries.
I discussed the goals that the administration was defining, and the hope of achieving them.
What are some of the things that are desired when nations are formed? Democracy, self determination, stability and, in Iraq's case, maintenance of existing territorial boundaries. Self determination of ethnic groups, the old Wilsonian ideal, is not even part of the idealized blueprint. The historical antipathies between sects have had too long to fester. Historically, when you lose in Iraq, you lose big. You do not simply get put out of office, you and your family and your tribe all die.
So, what will the new Iraq be like? Democracy as an ideal- forget about it. One person-one vote would bring something akin to the Ayatollah in Iran. But maybe not. Do we check this out by sponsoring an election with the caveat that it only counts if the outcome is to our favor? That's what we did in Iran in the 1950s when we deposed Mossadegh, the elected prime minister, and installed our Shah. This worked for a few decades, but then we reaped what we have in that country now. So, in the new Iraq we will be left with no democracy, no self determination and our providing an autocratic government that will impose pro-American policy . From Saddam being the despised ruler, the US puppet will soon have the honor.
I commented how we were ignoring the larger question
Watching this panel yesterday, made me aware that the antiwar movement is focusing on the war against Saddam, while we should be looking at what comes after. Of course, Saddam will fall quickly. Yet, I am not so sure about that either. The point is I don't know, and I fear no one else knows either.
How many American soldiers would have to die before we pack it in?. It took only a dozen for us to abort Somalia (did Bush see the film "Blackhawk Down") a couple hundred and we were out of Lebanon. Just how great will be the American resolve if the war does not go according to the hopes of Rumsfeld-Chaney et al. (I was about to say, if it does not go according to the war games, but the war games show us losing-but then we can just hit the reset button and do it over- like when we were kids playing war) So, a few hundred, or a few thousand casualties and the American mood changes.
Lets say a miracle happens; that the most optimistic scenario of quick victory and a breakout of amity occurs in Iraq; that the different tribes who have hated and battled each other decide to let bygones be bygones . This still leaves a monumental job of nation building to an administration that has no use for complexity. It leaves this solving of the ultimate Rubic's cube to a president who can't handle two dimensions, much less three. Without the simplicity of a mythical good against evil, this man and the rest of his cohorts are in un-chartered territory.
And then I considered how the characteristics of our president affected the prognosis of the outcome of the war:
As a secular Jew I was stunned at the President's covert reference to a hymn of praise to Jesus Christ during last week's State of the Union Message. Yes, we all know that Christianity is a religion of love, but over the course of history there has also been a good deal of hate. It has also been a clarion of death to non-believers. It was the cross of Jesus that inspired those who killed my family in the pogroms of Poland and this same cross that fueled the ravages of the crusades against the Muslim infidels.
While President Bush demands war against Iraq in language of geopolitical rationality, his subtext of religious fundamentalism grows. He seems oblivious to the Muslim view that Christianity represents a soul destroying rejection of Allah. How many American's will die at the hands of Muslims whose fears of Christianity inspire martyrdom? And who can foresee the ultimate course of events if this military operation becomes infected with the fervor of religious war? The President's spin doctor's explanation of his use of "crusade" just may not carry the day among the unwashed masses in the trenches preparing to die for their faith.
He slipped in the code words "power, wonder-working power" in his state of the union speech to evoke a praise to Jesus. What other code words have I missed. What are the lines to the hymns to the elite of corporate America that he uses to show his solidarity, and the verbal wink that means not only will they not see a jail cell, but they need not pay taxes on their ill gotten wealth. I wouldn't have any idea. The Democrats seem not to be to outraged about anything (Except Ted Kennedy, he seems pretty outraged)
I then expressed my disappointment with the Democrats in Congress who didn't resist the President:
Those in the Senate will not use the tools of Filibuster to stop the right wing agenda where they can, since they will not initiate “class war” or “weaken our commander in chief.” The decisions taken today will not be reversed after the next election, no matter the outcome, or the one after that. The course of events for decades to come are being set right now, both domestically and internationally.
George H.W. Bush (old #41) was shown briefly on the news yesterday when he visited NASA to express his condolences. There is an irony here of classic proportions. Years ago, George H. W. Bush referred to his son's tax policy as "voodoo economics." He refrained from toppling Hussein when the Shias were in full revolt after Desert Storm, while his son is going ahead. Bush Sr. volunteered to serve in the second world war, while his son sat out his war. He was shot down in a real dog fight, while his son protected the skies over Texas from his gilded perch in the National Guard.
Yet, it will be the son who will eclipse the father on the stage of history. It was the influence of "Pappy" (family name for Bush Sr.) that gave everything to his son, from admittance to Yale to the Presidency. There is a reason why dynasties do not work. Sadly, while using the mechanism of democracy, a dynastic succession has taken place. We anointed a leader, without the usual trial by political fire that winnows out those who lack the skills to meet a nations great challenges.
And I concluded:
Saturday, when the Shuttle Columbia was lost, we experienced a national tragedy. President Bush stepped up and, genuinely touched, led the country in mourning. But the fates continue to conspire to favor George W. Bush. Just as his war on terror resulted in terrorizing the Democratic party into passively ceding their constitutional war powers in order to get on with the election campaign, only to lose the election along with their dignity; the Columbia tragedy allows the President to don the robe of comforter-in- chief, while the fuse burns ever closer to the explosion that will make him once again the Chief of the Military.
The few precious days that had existed for this country to re-think what we are about to begin are thus lost in the mist of sadness over the death in the sky.
So, I wrote a letter. I also joined a rally that took several hours out of my enjoyable life in Southern California. I spoke at the rally, but so what. It was preaching to the choir.
I would like to think if I were in Congress I would have joined Wellstone, Byrd, Kennedy and Feingold in voting against the Iraq War Resolution. But, who knows. What makes me think that having worked all my life to gain political prominence, I would have risked it all by taking an unpopular stand.
Perhaps, rather than condemning those Democrats who folded, we should admire those who had the courage to go against public opinion. I wish I could be that magnanimous and understanding. But it is difficult for me to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment