My wife and mother-in-law and I were watching CNN at a restaurant last night and the shock and awe was pretty awesome, so much so that my rabidly pro-war wife suddenly grew squeamish: "aren't civilians in there somewhere getting shocked, awed and blown up?"
I had the opposite reaction, the amazing power displayed by those pictures to the world is very much a part of the plan and Tommy Franks' briefing this morning confirmed that things are going remarkably well. This is a targeted campaign, and the tragets - and only the necessary targets - are being destroyed with a precision unknown even a year ago in Afghanistan, and undreamed of 12 years ago in the first Gulf War.
The war has begun, and once that decision has been made, the focus must be on winning in the most efficient way possible. I was very heartened to realize that "winning" in this instance is as much political as military, and "winning" means keeping civilian and EVEN IRAQI MILITARY casualties to an absolute minimum.
Rather than being the end of the world order leading to the ostracism of the US by the rest of the world, this campaign to remove a murderous, prevaricating, Stalinist thug and his cronies from power - and the damning evidence against the regime that will be found in the aftermath - will the be the beginning of a reinvigorated international order based upon a new conception of what is "acceptable" behavior: attacking neighbors, mudering and torturing your own people, defying international bodies, lying about weapons of mass destruction will no longer be viewed as acceptable. And, rather than punishing the populace - which has been the primary REAL, and even intended, result of military action over the last hundred years or so - the steely precision and awesome destructive power now afforded by US technology will allow the removal of unacceptable regimes - North Korea take note - without undue harm to those who shouldn't be harmed, the people.
I am very cheerful today and the world is very much a safer place than it was a week ago. Is this "might makes right"? No it's "right makes might makes right" for only by choosing the right system could we have ended up in this position: only a democratic system that places the highest value on the individual could have - ironically - created a collective power that we now enjoy.
Sometimes the good guys win.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - andy
amen
2 - Eric Olsen
Thanks A
3 - Brian Flemming
Eric,
I truly do hope you're right about the world's suddenly deciding that this country's criminal behavior (that's not hyberbole--it's fact) is excusable in this one instance, and that they'll no longer fear that we'll do what every nation in history has done in our position, and that we won't do what every nation in history has done in our position.
I know that isn't worded like I mean it, but I do. My skepticism comes from the way Bush handled this--almost nobody on this globe, save the Iraqis (and I, too, am delighted by their liberation) thinks we mean well. Do we mean well? Now we're going to have to prove it.
It matters what we do now. A "success" in this war will have no bearing whatsoever on the primary reason to oppose this war--the primary reason was never "we can't win it" or "we can't win it with minimal casualties." I don't believe I've ever heard this in all the speeches I've heard at rallies and all the anti-war opinion I've read.
That's why protest is still valid. Bush jumped into this war with eagerness, not regret. He clearly wanted it. And the public record of his statements is clear--he never, EVER, believed in waging war for humanitarian reasons. He never said anything like this at all until it was used, late in the game, to increase public support for this war. He disparaged "nation building."
The purpose of protest now is to send a message to Bush and the world: the American people know. We know that this war, for all its potential good effects in Iraq, has potentially destabilized the entire globe. We know it is illegal. We know it was wrong to leap into it with such zeal, bypassing those pesky procedures designed to keep the peace and keep imperial dreams in check.
This delight that we all have in seeing a people freed is natural. We live in freedom--we want to share it. But this feeling can be grossly misused by power. And it frequently has been. Convincing the population of a nation that any aggression on the part of that nation is right because that nation does it is a step in the direction of empire.
And it's happening now. And it's working. My proof? Your statement:
I am very cheerful today and the world is very much a safer place than it was a week ago. Is this "might makes right"? No it's "right makes might makes right" for only by choosing the right system could we have ended up in this position: only a democratic system that places the highest value on the individual could have - ironically - created a collective power that we now enjoy."
Eric, read this statement over again. Do you not see what is in there? "Right makes might makes right"? "Only by choosing the right system could we have ended up in this position"? Has any imperial power EVER not believed this? Ever? Britain? Spain? Name an empire that has not believed this. Name it.
It's called hubris, Eric, and it's a tragic flaw. You're not bad to believe in our system--it's wonderful. I get giddy, too, when I think about freedom. But the U.K. was giddy about their vision of the world, too. Spain, too. Athens, too. Rome, too. ALL OF THEM.
Why are we the first people in history to trust with spreading our good news with guns and bombs?
"We're good people."
"Right makes might makes right" is virtually the same sentiment.
And you've modified that with, essentially, "our weapons aren't really all that deadly."
This is another familiar sentiment, Eric--that our methods of fighting are more moral than other methods of fighting. I daresay that a majority of past imperial powers have held the same opinion. Weren't British troops appalled by U.S. rebels who slaughtered them instead of "playing by the rules"?
This is a wrong turn. I do hope the rest of your article is an indication that you recognize this--that we can't keep doing this. That worldwide cooperation through an organization like the U.N. is the only way to avoid the fate of every other empire in history.
As an anti-war protester (not all wars--this war), I have had to resign myself to the fact of the war. And it is better that the military has used tactics designed to minimize casualties. If it's going to happen, it might as well happen with that goal in mind.
But that doesn't change three facts: This war is illegal, we've deeply scared the rest of the world, and those in charge of this war wrapped themselves in the "humanitarian" cloth very very very recently.
What's going to happen now? I don't know. Maybe Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld truly will reveal that they have turned their backs on the philosophies they have held for all of their political careers, and that they have suddenly embraced liberal notions of humanitarianism and nation building. Obviously, this is what you believe.
If it doesn't happen, though--if instead we see evidence that another motivation is operative, a desire to conquer the world at the end of America's gun, will you take to the streets with me to reverse this?
4 - Eric Olsen
Brian, as always I appreciate your humanity and sincere concern - I admire you - but this time around our differences can be summed up very simply: "a desire to conquer the world at the end of America's gun"
This just doesn't make sense: you said yourself that until 9/11 they had no interest in the rest of the world. Why in God's name would they want to conquer the world? What does the world have to offer us other than heartache, expense, disease, fanaticism, etc? They want to trade with the world in peace and raise the standard of living everywhere so the world can buy more of our stuff, and create liberal democracy everywhere because then we won't have to police their ridiculous asses.
This is a paranoid view with no good reason for the paranoia.
5 - rob
I have to agree with Eric. Sadly, there will be those who will still disagree, even hate the U.S. despite what comes to light in Iraq, despite the Iraqis themselves welcoming the U.S. It is those people who made up their minds that the U.S. can do no right, wants only to dominate, and must therefore be opposed at every turn, they will never be happy with this war.
6 - san
Why would anyone "take to the streets with [you] to reverse [American imperialism]" when we can all ride high and mighty, in comfort and style, on our ill-gotten gains?
7 - Brian Flemming
"This just doesn't make sense: you said yourself that until 9/11 they had no interest in the rest of the world. "
If I put it that way in a previous post, I didn't put it well. I do know for a fact that they had expressed no particular humanitarian interest in the rest of the world. The record is clear: GWB scoffed at such notions as the U.S. helping to liberate people and build their new nations.
And even if we accept that GWB has had a change of heart--hey, it's possible--that still doesn't address the question of whether this is the right way to do it. Save the world by making them all afraid of us? Has worldwide fear ever been a constructive force?
Robert Byrd, on the floor of the U.S. Senate:
But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
Do you disagree with me, Eric, that historically all empires have begun with what the U.S. is doing right now?
What's the difference now? That we're good people? I mean, we are. But is that what you think the difference is?
Rob,
Yeah, it's true that
"Sadly, there will be those who will still disagree, even hate the U.S. despite what comes to light in Iraq, despite the Iraqis themselves welcoming the U.S. It is those people who made up their minds that the U.S. can do no right, wants only to dominate, and must therefore be opposed at every turn, they will never be happy with this war."
But what does that have to do with this conversation? Are you accusing me of having these feelings about America? Or are you just dragging in a caricature from outside of this conversation to avoid talking to me?
For the record, I have never said:
1. I hate the U.S. To the contrary.
2. The U.S. can do no right. I'm out there pushing it to do right every day.
I have said:
1. The U.S. wants to dominate. I would say "the present administration" or "the primary influences on the present administration," not, "the U.S."--I'm the U.S., too, dammit. Terms aside, this assertion is utterly justified by the facts. What do you think the U.S. did in the Security Council? Have you seen this?
That the present administration feels a dominating and aggressive global military strategy is necessary to achieve "America's goals" is not even disputed by the administration itself.
I mean, it published this. Get past all the references to "peace" (in the preamble) and you'll see that the White House advocates the U.S. using its might to prevent anyone else from ever challenging that might. That unquestionably depends on "dominating."
So of your three (apparent) accusations, two have no basis in what I've ever written or said, and the third is an obvious fact that isn't even disputed by the White House.
I'd have to say we're not really talking.