This was the first go-around with Saddam. When I was a freshman in college, I wore a "No Blood for Oil" button, because I basically thought it was a sham by the Bush administration. Yes, we helped save the Kuwaitis, and that was good, I suppose.
But thinking about that war has helped me understand why the new war in Iraq was fought.
Before Gulf 1, we were in the shadow of Vietnam, the "one we lost." Movie after movie showed us how fucked up and wrong that war was, from Apocalypse Now through Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July. America was in a pretty healthy "we ain't goin' to war unless it's absolutely necessary" mindset.
Then we had Desert Storm, broadcast 24/7 on CNN, full of retreating Iraqis, cheering Kuwaitis, and confident soldiers.
This was the war that effectively erased our bad feelings about Vietnam. People felt guilty (rightly) about the shitty treatment Vietnam veterans got, and so the spring of '91 was filled with yellow ribbons and "Support the Troops" banners. And there was nothing wrong with that.
But the real sham of Desert Storm (and the great success of the US military and political leaders) was that No One Really Died During the War.
Not exactly. Not that many American soldiers died, but a lot of Iraqis died.
And that's what were used to now. We expect our wars to be quick, easy, and bloodless. Well, bloodless on our side. Don't show us any details of the deaths, and we'll let you do whatever you want.
That's why the military won't allow pictures shown of those 900+ US soldiers who have died for a war that didn't need to have happened. And why the number of civilian deaths aren't really reported. They have perfected the idea of a war where no one really dies. Like a video game.
I also blame our dear "liberal" media. They've become pawns of the US upper-ups, nodding vigorously at the military's request to show only the "fun" side of the war. (At least that was the case in the beginning. For a while the "story" was the quagmire aspect of the war, but even that has faded away.)
Yeah, Saddam was a bad guy, but there are a lot of worse guys out there, and why aren't we going after them? Why does Saudi Arabia and China and North Korea get a pass and we blow the fuck out of Iraq?
Lots of reasons. Lots more than Michael Moore brought up, too.
He focused on Big Oil. But what about Vendetta? Most of W's guys were H.W.'s guys, and they wanted to finish what they didn't get a chance to do back in '91.
Also: to bring "democracy" to the Mid-East, we need a launching pad for our future battles. Hence the permanent military bases being built in Iraq.
Plus, I guess it was a lot easier to get rid of Saddam than it is to find Osama (the real fucker whose head should be on a pike.)
A quick note on bringing democracy to the Mid-East. I love and believe in democracy, but I feel it has to come from within. Remember '89? Remember Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, and the Berlin Wall coming down? It was one of the most amazing historical events I have had the chance to witness. They saw democracy (and America) as something to desire, and fight for. They saw the West and saw a better life. And so they fought for it, and a remarkable man named Gorbachev helped them get it.
That's how democracy should come to other parts of the world.
The guys on "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" don't grab a complete stranger and give them a makeover. They wait for people to want it.
Should democracy come to the Mid-East? Of course. I'd like to think that Democracy is the natural progression of society, and that eventually all of the world will be that way.
But if you think that we got into Iraq because we're trying to bring Power to the People, you are badly misguided. We are in there for very, very different reasons.
And there are over 900 American soldiers who have died for those reasons.
No comments:
Post a Comment