Kerry and Gore WOULD have done better!

Now lets look back.

Two and a half years ago (March 2003) I corresponded with several people about the war (the fact that you already know which war I mean speaks volumes, doesn't it?).


Oddly (because I am a very flexible man, and always try to learn new things and understand different points of view), my opinion about the war has not changed (merely grown more complex and angry).


I reproduce some of the correspondence below (and if you recognize who you are, feel free to shout - I have changed your name). My correspondent is bold and italic (a description that he might very well appreciate).

Note that this was written in the day when we still believed that Saddam might have WMDs, because of what our officials told us - which has since been proven to have been wrong wrong wrong.
Not to say that they lied - they merely bent the truth, so much, and so selectively, that they created an entirely new life-form. And lying requires sentience, a quality that our gubbmint hain't demonstrated in any abundance.

--- --- --- --- ---

Small Dutch cigar wrote:
"My objection to a war of this sort in general and this one in particular is that it doesn't solve the cause of the Iraq problem (poverty, corruption, nepotism, clan-behaviour, ethnic diversity, religious items and so on).
-----cut------
Already now US and UK are arguing about the post war administration of the territory. US or UN supervised? Does Turkey play a role and if yes what kind of and if no what shall be their reaction? How to tackle the Kurdish issue? How to spread power among the various ethnic and religious groups et cetera. "


My dear SDC,

If this administration wasn't capable of getting their allies on their side before the war, it is quite probable that they won't be able to do any better getting things straight after its all over. Especially with every Abdul, Brahim, and Zalman in Iraq, the entire middle-East, and the world angrily demanding to be heard. This should provide years of very grim amusement. Neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoset.


SDC also wrote: "...but is the agenda of the US President filled with altruistic points in favour of the Iraqi people? "

You have just utilized one of the only two possible phraseologies in which both Bush and altruism can logically be referenced in the same construction.
Normally neither would crop up. After all, linking those two concepts is more than a little farfetched.....


Two things which need to be clarified:
1. This war is not about oil. But if Iraq had no oil, this war wouldn't have ever even been considered.
2. Hubris is a lousy basis for a foreign policy.

That being said, my main objection to this war is that it represents a complete and utter failure of politics, not only by Bushandco but also the international community - yes, I realize B&Co had no interest in any other outcome, and stormed onto the diplomatic dance-floor with all the subtlety of a rabid skunk with a bug up its arse, but in the same way that they weren't ready to dialogue with the world, the world made no attempt to deal with them.
[It does take two to tango, and if you ain't willing to dance, get off the floor. There have been no signs whatsoever that France or Germany were willing to dance. ]

The way we unilaterally and self-righteously plowed into this was a huge and arrogant mistake, and recognizable as such from the very beginning.
We could and should have co-opted France (just like us, they put their own interests ahead of everything else), and we could and should have co-opted Germany, Russia, and China.


The argument that the inspections were working and that we should have given them more time does not take into account that the inspections were only working (or starting to work) because of a credible threat presented by the U.S. army sitting on the Kuwait-Iraq border. Neither France nor Germany either acknowledged that crucial fact, nor offered a substitute approach to having the U.S. be the threat that pressured Saddam into compliance. Which is clearly also their failure.


But the arguments we presented for this war were flawed to a point far beyond cynical bullshit. And even though the base for this confrontation was laid during the Clinton years, and was inherent in our foreign policy, which in its principles (tho' not its practise) has not significantly deviated since those years, it can be argued that removing a threat is much more counterproductive than leaving it in place. Especially as any threat from the Iraqi regime was directed primarily at the other Arab states.

Entirely aside from which, B&Co are using this war as a distraction from their misguided domestic policies, and hoping that this will get them four more years come election time. Their first term has been a stellar disaster - how much more so will be the second four? And how much of a danger to all of us will this Texan mafia prove to be?

--- --- --- --- ---

Now, the main reason I post this is because rehashing my own e-mails is a cheap trick, an easy means of creating a post.

But honestly, has ANYTHING happened in the last two and a half years to prove me and my correspondent wrong?

Have any weapons of mass destruction been found?

Have peace and prosperity been established in a blighted land?

Have we achieved anything which makes up for the fear, loathing, and downright hatred with which many in the word now regard us?

--- --- --- --- ---