The Question
There is nothing more tragically amusing than watching the right-wing catch liberals off guard.
Bill O’Reilly has caught the whole crew flat-footed with one of those trick questions: Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? Set aside for the moment that this ignores the fact that the US government has already lost in Iraq, and that the question is constructed a little like, “Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?”
This is pissing off the Democratic Party establishment because it is outing them, the same way Republicans outed John Kerry by stating, quite accurately, that Kerry supported the war when the national blood was up. Not a single public official will answer this question the way it needs to be answered if we want go on record saying that the lives of people from abroad are as valuable as American lives.
O’Reilly needs his bluff called.
Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?
ANSWER: No.
The US occupation force in Iraq is there with a malignant purpose. It was sent there to install a puppet government and establish permanent US bases as part of the post-Cold War re-disposition of an imperial military. The invasion and occupation was illegal and immoral; and it has been characterized by the slaughter of innocents by US forces, by premeditated murder and rape, by prisoner abuse, by the systematic humiliation of the people who live there, by the destruction of whole cities, and at the material, mental, and moral expense of the people who — for a host of reasons — find themselves in the US military. The Iraqis have a right to defend themselves, and a right to fight invaders.
Moreover, the US reliance on the miltiary to prop up its domestic economy and justify the future employment of militarism against other people is a net negative in the world. It is also a net negative for the US people, as opposed to defense contractors and politicians. One way to inhibit the future use of military invasion and occupation as a tool of US control over other peoples’ lives and economies is to learn the hard way — by accepting the humility that comes with divesting of our overweaning naitonalist pride, our self-delusion of superiority, and and belief that we have the right to direct the affairs of the whole damn world (using soldiers, of course… none of the engineers of these adventures suffer a day of discomfort).
Not only do I not want the US to “win” in Iraq — whatever that is supposed to look like. More importantly, Bill, the US has already lost. What I want is, I want the US to acknowledge its loss sooner than later. Because the Bill O’Reillys and George Bush’s of the world are not paying the price; and neither are the Democrats who are wringing their hands when they are confronted with the terrible specter of their own inescapable national chauvinism.
You’re acting like cornered rats. Oh me, oh my, yes, we want to win, but it’s complicated. Your complication is your desire to further your shitty careers by avoiding the uncomplicated truth. I’m glad Bill O’Reilly put Democrats’ asses on the spot. You are walking over the bodies of the dead when you equivocate.
The price of this standing defeat is being paid right now, today, by Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq. And the civil war there now is not being quelled by the American presence; it is being catalyzed by it.
Bring them home now.
Randy Morris:
Bravo! Now, if you just had a chance to say this on his show…oh, wait, he cuts off the microphone of articulate anti-establishment folks–and then threatens to beat them up in the parking lot.
Still, it would be awesome.
Randy
1 December 2006, 2:10 pmHeide:
I have been challenged in similar ways by co-workers who are critical of my anti-war activities. I answer something like this:
“This is an illegal, immoral, and completely unnecessary war waged by a gang of criminals to further their monstrous illusions of world domination. They never risk their own lives but seem to experience little distress about thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dying for their vainglory. They profit shamelessly from this war while the needs of our people remain unmet and our country heads toward economic meltdown.
No, I do not want these deluded thugs to win, even if there was any chance of winning. Any success would set a terrifying precedent for generations to come, and I want better for my grandchildren. Believe me, America only wins if this gang loses, utterly and completely, and their dangerous ambitions are turned into dust.”
1 December 2006, 2:35 pmJulio:
I’d answer O’Reilly this way: “Yes, I want the U.S. and the Iraqi people to win — and U.S. imperialism to vanish from the face of the earth. That’s why I demand immediate withdrawal.”
2 December 2006, 1:45 pmEric Hamell:
I’d probably answer much the way I did someone shortly before the invasion, talking about the “danger” of Iraq’s having WMDs: “I think it’s dangerous when too much power is concentrated in one country’s hands.” The conservative I was addressing had no answer to that.
2 December 2006, 8:19 pmDon Bacon:
My answer: “I always root for the underdog, so I want Iraq to win. I mean, who ever rooted for Goliath to defeat David? Did you, Bill?”
2 December 2006, 11:17 pmTellurian:
The major historical reason against the US winning in Iraq is that it would encourage the Bushites to continue their militaristic policies. To the detrement of the American people and people of the world.
The worst thing that can happen when a person starts gambling is that they win. The quagmire in Iraq prevents the delusional cretins in power to continue in Hitler’s footsteps in an age of nueclear weaponss.
3 December 2006, 12:02 pmDon Bacon:
Yes, in that sense, quagmire is good. It tears up military equipment, ties up forces and reduces morale. The down side is that good (and bad) people are dying for nothing while Bush and his pals continue to be enriched. So my preferred scenario: al-Sadr gives the US government thirty days to leave under threat of choking off the US 400 mile Main Supply Route from the Gulf and we leave. The Sunnis compromise with al-Sadr under threat (and protection) from Saudi Arabia and a “loss” becomes advantageous.
3 December 2006, 5:40 pmify:
So what if we send in more troops and stop the violence.
3 December 2006, 9:06 pmWondering. What do you think in one sentence, we went over there for anyway. What do you say to the people who say we sent there to overthrow Sadaam. Are you saying that we just went over there to steal their oil. That is it ? Like basically WE WENT THERE TO STEAL THERE OIL AND PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO STEAL MORE OIL.
ify:
I actually hoped for a democracy. If its stupid I don’t mind losing. But I had always thought democracy works best for hearing the voices of every member of society. In Afganistan, the flegding democracy has amplified the voices of the oppressed women a little. They still can barely go to school though. There still is no freedom. You say that people have the right to defend themselves. We would not have heard Sadr’s big mouth talking if the US did not take out Saddam. Saddam would have killed Sadr, his family and his village. So I know it is fun to laugh at the united states even though the efforts of the US have given Sadr what he has. Sadr would not have gotten out of the hood into the Palace if it wasn’t for the US. And he is no better than Saddam Hussein. He is a weaker murderer. So sorry, I can’t pull my pom poms out as quickly as the writers above. What if the US fought the Badr brigade. Because I still see democracy as the only option. Especially with the options we have right now. So no I don’t believe in killing people to steal oil. If Sadr would be totally just to his people, I am mean if he would not do the same thing to his people that they US did in Abu Gharib, then I would support him. But I am not looking to Sadr for justice for Iraqis. I am wondering if I can look to the US.
So democracy is the only option if you start something. I am half way willing to believe that the correction of the military to its soliders on ground was worth something. No way am I willing to say the US is perfect. But I am rooting for increased troop levels and democracy.
3 December 2006, 9:40 pmDon Bacon:
The point is that the teachers of girls in Afghanistan are now being dismembered. The point is that it is none of our business if Sadr is worse or better than Hussein. The point is that democracy in Iraq has made life for women a living hell. The point is that we have no business in the affairs of Afghanistan or Iraq, just like they have no business in our affairs. Democracy is a good option for America, as a matter of fact. Why don’t we try it sometime, instead of meddling elsewhere, with our wanton raping, torturing and killing?
4 December 2006, 10:53 pmDon Bacon:
Ify: “So democracy is the only option . . . I am rooting for increased troop levels”
I bet ify’s rooting doesn’t include plans for any of his kin. Let’s just increase “troop levels.” Like topping off the gas tank or filling the glass. Increase “troop levels.” Like the kid next door, or better still, across town or even in a different state. “Troop levels.” These aren’t kids with ambitions and plans, these aren’t young women with kids being raised by Granny, these aren’t the guys down at the discount tire store–no, they’re “troop levels.” Just “others” who ify doesn’t mind if they get their legs blown off or if they’re killed at age 23 just so ify gets his Iraqi democracy. Iraqi democracy is very important to ify–we want these people to have a fundamentalist Islamic regime allied with Iran, even if it takes increased “troop levels” and more dead non-ify kin.
These “troop levels” are human beings, with the same fragile minds that we have. Nevertheless, they must put their lives and their minds on the line to please the ifys of America. Take Jesus Bocanegra, for example.
Jesus Bocanegra, a 24-year-old former Army sergeant, says he is haunted by countless shots he fired at Iraqis while serving as an infantry scout in Tikrit in 2003-’04. The McAllen, Texas, native says he lost track of how many innocent civilians he killed. “How the hell was I capable of that?” he asks now. Back home and plagued with anxiety attacks, he said he tried to close himself off from the world by drinking to the point of passing out. He progressed to marijuana use and then cocaine. Eventually, he stopped taking drugs. But he said it took nearly two years for him to get an appointment at the closest veterans hospital, a four-hour drive, because it was overbooked. He was diagnosed with PTSD and given pills, but with no VA therapists in the area, he sought help from a group called Vets for Vets. “It’s good to have someone to talk to,” he said. “It’s the only thing that keeps me going.”
Medical experts say mental health and substance abuse problems are intertwined. And drugs ranging from marijuana to prescription anti-depressants are easily accessible in Iraq, according to interviews with more than a dozen soldiers. John Crawford, a 28-year-old former Florida National Guardsman with the Army’s 101st Airborne Division, said soldiers in his unit drank alcohol, some took steroids, “pretty much everyone took Valium” and “some did all three.” Crawford said he bought 200 to 300 Valium pills on the street in Baghdad for $2 as a way to catch some sleep between patrols. After eight months, he built up a tolerance and was taking seven or eight at a time.
Army Maj. James Weeden, who directed a team of 200 specialists dealing with combat stress in Iraq, says senior officers recognize the strain their troops are under and have begun assigning some specialists to remote forward operating bases.
Weeden and other medical specialists say that they can only treat the symptoms of combat stress - with anti-depressant drugs and rest, for example - and that soldiers are sent out of Iraq only when they have clearly disabling cases of PTSD.
What the hell, they’re only “troop levels.” Small price to pay for a keyboardist’s democracy wet dream. Ify, do you have a conscience?
4 December 2006, 11:45 pmEric Hamell:
The problem is not that democracy isn’t desirable everywhere. It’s not even that we “have no business in other countries.” As a humanist, I’m perfectly willing to intervene anywhere I think I can be of help. I would intervene to stop domestic violence, for instance, not look the other way because “it’s not my business.” And I did, in fact, “intervene” in Palestine a few years ago by volunteering with ISM.
No, the problem with military interventions – leaving aside their frequently questionable good faith as to motives – is that you can’t impose democracy by force, except maybe of the most superficial sort. By its nature, real democracy can only be created from below, by the people themselves.
5 December 2006, 12:52 amDeAnander:
Are you saying that we just went over there to steal their oil. That is it ? Like basically WE WENT THERE TO STEAL THERE OIL AND PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO STEAL MORE OIL.
Yup. You’re catching on.
How much more explicitly do we need it to be spelled out?
I am going to commit a social faux pas and quote myself:
5 December 2006, 2:43 amDeAnander:
Are you saying that we just went over there to steal their oil. That is it ? Like basically WE WENT THERE TO STEAL THERE OIL AND PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION TO STEAL MORE OIL.
You got it.
How explicitly do we need it to be spelled out for us?
5 December 2006, 2:47 amMarilyn Farhat:
I think democracies are not all they are touted to be. Even in the United States, democracy is not functioning. I think that consensus is still the best way to go, especially in traditional societies where people do place kinship at a critical position in the political process and where religion and politics remain overtly intertwined (in the US, we have the illusion of democracy).
Historically speaking democracies have proven to be detrimental to those who lose the vote and, in times of war, the losers lose more than just their voice; they can lose their lives as well thanks to the military victories of the Athenian and other similar democracies.
When given a choice to vote, most people will vote on issues that concern them and their immediate relatives and communities. Most people do not vote based on the needs of all the people in the country, let alone the welfare of the rest of the world. We have not evolved that far yet. That is why we also have laws that should guarantee the same opportunities to everyone.
I think U.S. policymakers need to get off their high horses and let people govern themselves the way that suits them best. It is not our job to fix every political system out there and, if we were truly interested in the welfare of the women of oppressive societies, we would be assisting the world organizations that are actually trying to do something about it. Instead, we have tended to ignore the women’s movement in the Middle East in general and in the specific countries (yes, those countries have had thriving “feminists” for many decades now), but their role was not considered important enough to be included in the political, let alone, military options.
As far as tyrants are concerned, there are ways to deal with them without killing innocent people and waging war on countries. There are ways to minimize their impact without traumatizing the same people we are trying to protect. It is called the rule of international law and human rights legislation. Unfortunately, the same empires that have historically and currently used the “democracy” and “human rights” arguments when invading other countries are the same empires that have contributed to the eradication of the rights of women. In war, women lose much and have to bear the burden of taking care of the children as well as earning more income to support the family, especially if the male provider is gone. This makes them more vulnerable to abuse, and political and religious exploitation. It also contributes to their inability to parent their children in an effective manner, at a time when parental supervision is the most vital in a time of war.
We need to strengthen the reach of the United Nations (despite its shortcomings, yes, no one is perfect) and allow it to remove those tyrants who are oppressing their own people based on the request of the people themselves and without our interference. If we do not tolerate interference in our affairs by other nations, why do we give ourselves permission to do the contrary? The UN has saved the lives of millions of women and children through education and the provision of vital resources that “empowered” these women to take charge of their and their families’ lives (in the absence of or lack of interest by the men sometimes).
The United States can be a model, but it has to lead by example, not by force. I can never fathom how some people think that somehow democracy can be “imposed” on people. This approach is failing miserably because it is not being carried out with good intentions and because it is a fascade we use to promote the interests of those we deem are like us. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon are the current arenas where the bush administration has taken credit for the “positive changes” and “emerging democracies.” In all those cases, the intervention has failed because the Neo con ideologues have such a poor grasp of history, the human condition and psychology, the nature of suffering, the will to live and die, etc. and because they are so self-absorbed in their own greatness and superiority that they disregard all other human beings. This administration and its handlers are no more than racists dressed in the pompous clothing of academia and moral righteousness.
6 December 2006, 2:00 pmEric Hamell:
With respect to the UN, some distinctions need to be made. It’s true that its civilian arms have done considerable good. But its “police actons” too often are simply imperialist interventions cloaked in the forms of internationalism. We need to build the capacity for intervention by progressive movements independent of the capitalist and bureaucratic governments making up the UN.
8 December 2006, 12:34 amSks:
Hypotetical Relevant Interviewer: Bill O’Reilly why do you support the killing and raping of children.
BO: I don’t
HRI: Are you a pedophile murderer? You do support them you sick bastard! For example, in Haditah.
etc…
16 December 2006, 6:24 amSks:
Ify, there was once a man who belived he was fighting for democracy. As he tells it, a few months into killing and watching die in its name those notions, while still alive, were gravely wounded.
He went to self-destructive extremes. And continued on disillusioned to were ever next Democracy USA, Inc. was digging the next mass grave.
Then, in Haiti a last glimmer of hope, finally broke down all illusions of the possibility of the USA ever democratizing anything beyond the shareholder’s meeting (And only if you are a mayor one, mind you).
Today, he runs a blog and periodically pleads for employment. And writes books. And calls himself red as a baboon’s ass.
His name is the domain name of this site. Read his book on Haiti. It is the most personal, painful and ultimately hopeful indictment of the USA foreign policy since General Smedley Butler decided he was no longer going to be gangster for capitalism (his words).
For all our disagreements and agreements, I think this book will earn Stan my eternal gratitude.
And of course, his other books are not to shabby, either.
16 December 2006, 6:40 am