Some miscellaneous thoughts, as the war enters its second week
U.S. reaction to French opposition to war is so pathetic it's almost comical. As Donald Rumsfeld articulated so well, most Americans don't give a hoot about the French. So why are we all so worked up about their stance on war? If they're so small and insignificant then why are we the ones going nuts and boycotting French wines? It's immature and it demonstrates insecurity; just as the bully on the playground needs to make fun of others to feel good about himself, the French-bashing Fox News yahoos obviously have an inferiority complex. Freedom Fries? What's next? Freedom Kissing? And which nation was it exactly who saved our butts and secured our freedom at Yorktown? Just curious.
The anti-American backlash that will intensify as a result of this war could have been muted substantially if the United States was perceived to have some semblance of a conscience when it comes to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The hypocrisy of whining at the French for using their veto on the Security Council is stunning given the number of times the United States has used its veto to thwart the will of the Council on Israel. This includes incidences of 14-1 votes, including a 1990 plea from Palestinians to investigate their complaints after an Israeli murdered seven Palestinians waiting for rides to work in Gaza. The United States vetoed it.
Clinton was not exactly an impartial arbiter when it came to that conflict, but Bush is far worse. To call Ariel Sharon a "man of peace" and then ignore the conflict for the next two years (which is exactly what both Hamas and the Israeli right want at the expense of everyone else) is incredible. And then Bush claims that once Iraq is "disarmed" we can try to start peace talks. If he had done it the other way around, we'd have some Arab allies in this war.
Regardless of how the war turns out, Bush is going to have a tough time re-occupying the White House in 2004. If the war is quick and successful and Hussein is hung as a war criminal, Bush's numbers will soar immediately. However, a quick war will also give Democrats a full year to start talking about the economy, an issue they win on right now. This is especially helpful for pro-war Democrats like Dick Gephardt and John Edwards. If the war is no longer an issue, they stand a better chance of winning over the liberal base of primary voters. On the other hand, if the war is long and painful, then Democrats can pile that on to the economy in their criticisms of the President. If the war goes badly, Howard Dean stands to be the beneficiary.
As bad as this war is, comparisons to Vietnam aren't quite justified. The difference? While nothing good came out of Vietnam, removing Saddam Hussein would be a positive step for world peace, even if the means don't come close to justifying the ends. I also doubt that this war will last months, let alone over a decade.
Here in the U.S., media coverage has been awful. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a U.S. reporter use the phrase "shock and awe," I'd have enough money to fund Bush's newest round of tax cuts for the wealthy. In all seriousness, however, using terms like "shock and awe" to describe the taking of human life (whether one believes it is justified or not) is simply awful. Just as the media treats campaigns like horse races, it is treating war like a football game.
Here is a quick quiz. How many Republican congressmen have a son or daughter serving in the armed forces? Zero. None. How many Democratic congressmen have a son or daughter serving in the armed forces? One. Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota. There is a fundamental disconnect between the reality of life and the luxury of being a member of Congress. A society that does not share its collective burdens or its collective wealth is not a fair society. "Sacrifice" is a word that means very little to this government. It means much more to those serving in the military, and to the citizens of Iraq.
