The first new weasel word of the war: "decapitation" for the killing of a head of state. It is a poor choice of word when you are trying to convince your adversary to surrender. Why not just call it assassination -- or tyrannicide, if you prefer? Oops, that would echo JW Booth at Ford's theater: Sic semper tyrannis. Never mind.
As this lopsided war begins -- though I don't recall there ever being a formal, legal declaration of war -- I agree that opposition to it has to continue. It's even more important given that the media and entertainment businesses -- newspapers and entertainers alike -- can't afford to alienate too many of their customers. They have strong financial disincentives to rocking the boat. The same goes for many public officials. But citizens with nothing to sell are free to express their political opinions and should do so with vigor. And dissent has to go beyond uncovering disinformation and obfuscation by official sources -- it means ensuring that some social good comes out of this conflict.
Iraq is a basket case and the war against this regime will be brief unless Allied forces stay on long-term as an army of occupation. The administration knows this: reportedly, American troops are being told not to fly any flags at all since this would be considered provocative in other countries.
The implications for anti-war advocates? My feeling is that if the US and UK governments describe this as a war of liberation, they should be beholden by their own citizens to act as though they mean it. I am sceptical that setting up democratic institutions in Iraq can trump economic self-interest, but without continuous public pressure both from here and overseas, it has no chance at all. Everything in this government's past conduct (and their predecessors') suggests they would prefer a cabal or an authoritarian regime in Baghdad.
And while "we" impose democracy, why stop at the borders of Iraq? -- let's have it all over the middle east, please.
|
As this lopsided war begins -- though I don't recall there ever being a formal, legal declaration of war -- I agree that opposition to it has to continue. It's even more important given that the media and entertainment businesses -- newspapers and entertainers alike -- can't afford to alienate too many of their customers. They have strong financial disincentives to rocking the boat. The same goes for many public officials. But citizens with nothing to sell are free to express their political opinions and should do so with vigor. And dissent has to go beyond uncovering disinformation and obfuscation by official sources -- it means ensuring that some social good comes out of this conflict.
Iraq is a basket case and the war against this regime will be brief unless Allied forces stay on long-term as an army of occupation. The administration knows this: reportedly, American troops are being told not to fly any flags at all since this would be considered provocative in other countries.
The implications for anti-war advocates? My feeling is that if the US and UK governments describe this as a war of liberation, they should be beholden by their own citizens to act as though they mean it. I am sceptical that setting up democratic institutions in Iraq can trump economic self-interest, but without continuous public pressure both from here and overseas, it has no chance at all. Everything in this government's past conduct (and their predecessors') suggests they would prefer a cabal or an authoritarian regime in Baghdad.
And while "we" impose democracy, why stop at the borders of Iraq? -- let's have it all over the middle east, please.
- bruno 3-20-2003 7:31 pm