The Wind That Shakes The Date Palm
Sorry for lack of rants, managed to pull a couple of muscles ranting. I'm just that good. But, tonight, we marked the sad anniversary and grim milestones that 5 years of American war in Iraq and 4000 American soldiers killed in Iraq. That doesn't count other coalition deaths, Iraqi civilian deaths, nor does it include exactly how many terrorists we've killed in Iraq. One would think they'd be publicizing that number like crazy, since our mission, now, is to fight them there instead of fighting them here. Dig all you want, there are no Pentagon approved numbers on this. Nothing collated nicely for dissemination, nothing easily digestible for the media and nothing for the bloggers to play with. Wikipedia being the best source, listing about 16-22,000 dead as of today, and you know things are bad when wikipedia is your best source. Looking over the archives, there haven't been any great rants about the Iraq War alone, so now seems like as bad a time as any. There are no good times for this sort of thing. There are no good times for war. This doesn't mean you don't go to war or ban war; war is necessary for the safety and security of states. War happens, mostly because occasionally there are bad people who needed to be stopped. Hitler, Tojo and Kaiser Wilhelm needed to be stopped. Napoleon needed to be stopped. And to the American mindset, Cornwallis and King George III needed to be stopped. So, war happens and men die. This is the nature of things even down to the simplest animals: there will be blood, but you don't have to do it for fun. The reasons in this war have shifted more than a bad clutch and although in terms of lives lost the losses have been smaller, this war is tearing this country apart in a way not seen since Vietnam. So, all we know is that people are dying, we don't know why, there's no good way to measure success and there's no great way to get out soon. And we don't know what it means.
There is no great knowing what it means. I've studied terrorism and history of war for almost 15 years. My focus was on terrorism long before most Americans were thinking of it, despite the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. Like everyone else, I was upset, but in a way not surprised, on September 11 when America was attacked. It was ambitious, vicious and desperate; everything a terrorist attack is. It was low-tech, planned years in advance and scared the ever loving hell out of everyone. That's what terrorism does and is, the threat or act of violence with the intention of affecting more than the direct targets. We're told Iraq is part of the larger War on Terror and that by fighting "them" in Iraq we are stopping them from coming here committing terrorist acts. Because, apparently, EVERY terrorist in the world is on the same page and they have all agreed to play by our rule book and can therefore not attack us since we're fighting in Iraq. Except, that's not in any way shape or form how terrorism plays. Terrorism is dirty tricks with better PR. Early Americans were called terrorists for contravening all known laws of warfare by, gasp, targeting officers first. This act of effrontery so galled the British it was used in anti-American propaganda throughout the Empire. Francis Marion was seen as a terrible brute for his tactics. William Wallace was himself prosecuted for all kinds of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his siege of York and Stirling. Terrorism, although in the eye of the beholder, is never beautiful.
So while terrorism is worthy of being fought, the war in Iraq is not the answer. If there were actual weapons of mass destruction were found, then that would have been one thing, but even that is not causus belli. We still haven't invaded North Korea, India, Pakistan or Israel, all states we didn't approve of getting nuclear weapons who nonetheless possess weapons that can irradiate their neighbors should they wish. They all destabilize the political balances of their respective regions and they've all been involved in some skirmish level conflicts in the past 20 years. But, we didn't invade them and we shouldn't have invaded Iraq since we couldn't prove they had weapons of mass destruction. I was really sure they had them. They had used them in past and all the stuff that was documented they had wasn't used up, ergo, they still should have had some. But a deduction is not evidence. I don't care how many philosophy, science or math course you take, DEDUCTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE! Evidence, as in tangible proof that can be pointed to, is evidence. Finding the weapons or at least real means for manufacturing weapons would have been proof, but they kept pointing to "well, we deduced it has to be this" as evidence, people bought it since we've been taught to buy deductions as proof and surprise, reality struck and there was nothing there. No nukes, no chemical weapons and biological agents that could be used against anyone. Just regular weapons, just a regular bad man and just a regular dictator, of which we've seen hundreds of. A bad world, but the best we had.
But we're in Iraq, to fight terrorism and find weapons of mass destruction. Yes, this is US over there. Not them over there, it's us. I have friends and family (those who read my friends only rants know exactly whom) who are fighting there and they have a piece of me and their other friends and family with them. That's how human interactions go. I have friends who have left behind wives and children, including one who has not seen his youngest daughter since she was a couple of months old. They all signed up, sure. Some wanted to go over to Iraq to kill bad guys and others had other desires in the military, until they got shifted around and deployed. So, they're all over there, all trying to do what they think is the best thing, all trying to survive and all trying to make, perhaps, a better Iraq than the one they found. The people I know over there in the military are not there to destroy the place, they're not there to kill for the fun of it and they're not there for bad reasons (well, except one, but he's a long story.) Most the people I know are there to fight terrorism or just get through their tour, to get a few months home then they know they'll be rotated back in country. It's easy to think of them as just the nameless, faceless, heartless American military who are capable of things like Abu Ghraib and Haditha, but that's not all of them. And really, that's because we're doing the one thing that has guaranteed a messed up military: lowering standards of those we let in. Colonel Hackworth made some points about the draft being good (and some predictions that were wrong) and more to the point that draftees can clean up a lot of bullshit that goes on in the military. Draftees, people who don't feel like they'll be protected by the military upchain, are less likely to do terrible things. Whereas, losers who would have been rejected by any sane military who can suddenly get in, will do all the shit they can get away with. In a fairer world, Lynndie England would be living a life no higher and more vicious than getting into a slap fight with her baby daddy's ex-skank behind the laundromat. Yet, we've lowered standards to fill greater vacancies and need and now we've got people who shouldn't be let near guns were told to go fight in Iraq. And we wonder why things are getting bad.
So, an assload of problems. But it's even worse when you start looking at solutions. We're engaged over there, we've fucked up the infrastructure in ways that will take billions and billions of dollars to repair. We have people who are really pissed at us for invading since, well, no one likes being invaded. Even if people hated the previous guy in charge, they hate being invaded because, well, as much as you may dislike your parents, you're gonna fight off the burglar who breaks in during the middle of the night. There are people fighting Americans who, under other circumstances, wouldn't give a flying fuck about the US. Seriously, people fighting for their homes tend not to invade other people, they just want to be left alone. There are those who are in Iraq to kill Americans. There are a lot of people who came from other countries just to kill Americans. However, these people would not fly to America to kill Americans. These are not bad puppies who will follow us all home. And those who WOULD come to America to kill Americans by the thousands are going to do so regardless of what we're doing in Iraq. So, even if we win in Iraq, they'll still want to kill us. But, pulling out at this point means letting lots of innocent will get killed who would not have been hurt if we had not gone over there in the first place. We destroyed a country and are occupying it for God knows how long and took down many protections a lot of people had. Things were terrible under Hussein. Very bad. Torture chambers, persecution of minorities and generally not a place most Americans would want to live. But that describes lots and lots of other places in the world we have yet to invade. We can't pull out tomorrow, as the next person in charge might be worse than Hussein. We can't stay forever since we're just gonna keep getting killed for people who don't really want us there anyhow. We pull out, things get worse for people caught in the middle. We stay, things get worse for us.
Over and out, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that we've done
All these things that we've done
To butcher the song "All the Things That I've Done" by the Killers, although the best presentation of this was in the film Southland Tales. Justin Timberlake plays a traumatized Iraq War veteran who has this bizarre interlude that oddly sums up what America seems to be at this juncture of the war: Timberlake's best video.
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.
So it is written, so do I see it.
There is no great knowing what it means. I've studied terrorism and history of war for almost 15 years. My focus was on terrorism long before most Americans were thinking of it, despite the first World Trade Center Bombing in 1993. Like everyone else, I was upset, but in a way not surprised, on September 11 when America was attacked. It was ambitious, vicious and desperate; everything a terrorist attack is. It was low-tech, planned years in advance and scared the ever loving hell out of everyone. That's what terrorism does and is, the threat or act of violence with the intention of affecting more than the direct targets. We're told Iraq is part of the larger War on Terror and that by fighting "them" in Iraq we are stopping them from coming here committing terrorist acts. Because, apparently, EVERY terrorist in the world is on the same page and they have all agreed to play by our rule book and can therefore not attack us since we're fighting in Iraq. Except, that's not in any way shape or form how terrorism plays. Terrorism is dirty tricks with better PR. Early Americans were called terrorists for contravening all known laws of warfare by, gasp, targeting officers first. This act of effrontery so galled the British it was used in anti-American propaganda throughout the Empire. Francis Marion was seen as a terrible brute for his tactics. William Wallace was himself prosecuted for all kinds of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his siege of York and Stirling. Terrorism, although in the eye of the beholder, is never beautiful.
So while terrorism is worthy of being fought, the war in Iraq is not the answer. If there were actual weapons of mass destruction were found, then that would have been one thing, but even that is not causus belli. We still haven't invaded North Korea, India, Pakistan or Israel, all states we didn't approve of getting nuclear weapons who nonetheless possess weapons that can irradiate their neighbors should they wish. They all destabilize the political balances of their respective regions and they've all been involved in some skirmish level conflicts in the past 20 years. But, we didn't invade them and we shouldn't have invaded Iraq since we couldn't prove they had weapons of mass destruction. I was really sure they had them. They had used them in past and all the stuff that was documented they had wasn't used up, ergo, they still should have had some. But a deduction is not evidence. I don't care how many philosophy, science or math course you take, DEDUCTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE! Evidence, as in tangible proof that can be pointed to, is evidence. Finding the weapons or at least real means for manufacturing weapons would have been proof, but they kept pointing to "well, we deduced it has to be this" as evidence, people bought it since we've been taught to buy deductions as proof and surprise, reality struck and there was nothing there. No nukes, no chemical weapons and biological agents that could be used against anyone. Just regular weapons, just a regular bad man and just a regular dictator, of which we've seen hundreds of. A bad world, but the best we had.
But we're in Iraq, to fight terrorism and find weapons of mass destruction. Yes, this is US over there. Not them over there, it's us. I have friends and family (those who read my friends only rants know exactly whom) who are fighting there and they have a piece of me and their other friends and family with them. That's how human interactions go. I have friends who have left behind wives and children, including one who has not seen his youngest daughter since she was a couple of months old. They all signed up, sure. Some wanted to go over to Iraq to kill bad guys and others had other desires in the military, until they got shifted around and deployed. So, they're all over there, all trying to do what they think is the best thing, all trying to survive and all trying to make, perhaps, a better Iraq than the one they found. The people I know over there in the military are not there to destroy the place, they're not there to kill for the fun of it and they're not there for bad reasons (well, except one, but he's a long story.) Most the people I know are there to fight terrorism or just get through their tour, to get a few months home then they know they'll be rotated back in country. It's easy to think of them as just the nameless, faceless, heartless American military who are capable of things like Abu Ghraib and Haditha, but that's not all of them. And really, that's because we're doing the one thing that has guaranteed a messed up military: lowering standards of those we let in. Colonel Hackworth made some points about the draft being good (and some predictions that were wrong) and more to the point that draftees can clean up a lot of bullshit that goes on in the military. Draftees, people who don't feel like they'll be protected by the military upchain, are less likely to do terrible things. Whereas, losers who would have been rejected by any sane military who can suddenly get in, will do all the shit they can get away with. In a fairer world, Lynndie England would be living a life no higher and more vicious than getting into a slap fight with her baby daddy's ex-skank behind the laundromat. Yet, we've lowered standards to fill greater vacancies and need and now we've got people who shouldn't be let near guns were told to go fight in Iraq. And we wonder why things are getting bad.
So, an assload of problems. But it's even worse when you start looking at solutions. We're engaged over there, we've fucked up the infrastructure in ways that will take billions and billions of dollars to repair. We have people who are really pissed at us for invading since, well, no one likes being invaded. Even if people hated the previous guy in charge, they hate being invaded because, well, as much as you may dislike your parents, you're gonna fight off the burglar who breaks in during the middle of the night. There are people fighting Americans who, under other circumstances, wouldn't give a flying fuck about the US. Seriously, people fighting for their homes tend not to invade other people, they just want to be left alone. There are those who are in Iraq to kill Americans. There are a lot of people who came from other countries just to kill Americans. However, these people would not fly to America to kill Americans. These are not bad puppies who will follow us all home. And those who WOULD come to America to kill Americans by the thousands are going to do so regardless of what we're doing in Iraq. So, even if we win in Iraq, they'll still want to kill us. But, pulling out at this point means letting lots of innocent will get killed who would not have been hurt if we had not gone over there in the first place. We destroyed a country and are occupying it for God knows how long and took down many protections a lot of people had. Things were terrible under Hussein. Very bad. Torture chambers, persecution of minorities and generally not a place most Americans would want to live. But that describes lots and lots of other places in the world we have yet to invade. We can't pull out tomorrow, as the next person in charge might be worse than Hussein. We can't stay forever since we're just gonna keep getting killed for people who don't really want us there anyhow. We pull out, things get worse for people caught in the middle. We stay, things get worse for us.
Over and out, last call for sin
While everyone's lost, the battle is won
With all these things that we've done
All these things that we've done
To butcher the song "All the Things That I've Done" by the Killers, although the best presentation of this was in the film Southland Tales. Justin Timberlake plays a traumatized Iraq War veteran who has this bizarre interlude that oddly sums up what America seems to be at this juncture of the war: Timberlake's best video.
I got soul, but I'm not a soldier.
So it is written, so do I see it.