For What It's Worth Dept

The Iraq Tree , Part I 

I'm done with The Iraq Tree Part II, and yes—it's more of the same folks! Without being revisionistic, I've re-written some of the following for clarity—the content remains the same—only some people's names have been changed to protect the Innocent. Wait a minute—there are no names—at least not proper names.

I've called the title of this piece 'The Iraq Tree' because there seem to be as many opinions in the Iraq arena, as there are twigs on a tree. And like a tree, it’s often difficult to move the focus from ‘that one little twig’, to the trunk which gives it its shape. Not to mention the roots, which have given the whole thing its being. And all in a present windstorm of war.

The problem with conjuring solutions, is breaking away from perceptions given by the media, or friends, or anyone else for that matter—our problem(s) in Iraq are rooted in our own past.

I’ll recount a little foreign policy story. Years ago I was a young man nearing the end of my last cruise on a four year hitch in the Navy. We pulled into the port of Djibouti, a tiny country on the eastern tip of Africa. The ones going down the gangplank were 'us'; the ones watching us, were 'them'. It's a tribal thing —not always bad, actually. But it does contain the potential for trouble.

As compared to most of the rest of the world, the United States is not the bad guy. I'm sorry to disappoint you, Europe. And you, Middle East. And let's not forget France, and yes, there's the old sell those newseys standby, the New York Times.

Actually, I'm not sorry.

Sorry.

Most differences between peoples are neutral; language for example, is one item. Some conditional differences such as climate or poverty may be harsh, but these things are not the fault of the United States. Again, I apologize, New York Times. (Not really).

Those who do think it is the fault of the United States —well, they'll throw bombs. Or bombshells. Either way, it makes a bang.

Ba ding. Ba-da-bing.

Poverty levels, police-state murders...incarcerations...lunatic fatwah's at the behest of religion —these are the things that bad dreams are made. The United States is by and large not responsible, excepting as how we (the US) laid a subtle hand of omission, or commission, pertaining to promises made...

In some places on this globe, there is poverty such as few Americans understand. In equatorial Africa the heat amplifies poverty; it routinely causes crops to fail. No farm insurance there; the conditions of low education rates easily allow for despotic leaders who delight in using murder as a civic tool. Yet we (the US) tend to view ourselves as morally superior (are we at fault?) Sometimes, we use the high-ground of 'Nation-Building'; so long as the Nation Building suits the fancy of some state-department official.

The public tends to perceive things as measured in the way of more consumables instead of doing the win-win thing and helping a country get themselves righted. And foreign despots are quite happy to keep murdering their own people. It took Bush guts to 'pre-empt'—but he underestimated the backlash—the mission accomplished sign just didn't help .  Regime change is so anti-isolationist, dude.

Tinpots, (small and large) don't want the US to interfere. There are times that the United States has wasted opportunities; now we're in a quagmire.

Do-gooding is a convenience that changes from US administration to administration —and dependent on who is in bed with which dictator, (or editor of the New York Times). Because quite simply, bad folk are bad. US administrations are not very able at doing policy as a means of changing our [well-intentioned?] foul-ups.

Most politicians hide behind populism and ideology; doing so with the wide grin of voter-calculation on their faces. Anyone is as guilty as the degree to which they turn their head. By the way, dear friend, is this a liberal, or a conservative stance?

On a narrow road, I stood and rested my forearm on someone’s roof. A roof close to six feet in height, it was cobbled together with cardboard and tin, the occasional scrap of plywood nailed on, it was the same as the others. Houses roughly five to eight feet in width. Many of whom spent their days chewing a substance called Khat; it eases life’s difficulties; endows the user with more courage than he's a right to.

I stood there as the sun set and the glare eased off. The temperature had dropped to around a 100 and there, in the late evening light not more than two dozen paces from me, stood the embassy. Not not as large as those in other, more privileged countries, it was nonetheless a handsome building of stone (or was it concrete?), its wide steps descending to road level where two limos waited. I stood transfixed by the contradiction of the scene.

As if watching myself in a picture, I could see the almost ridiculous juxtaposition of these cardboard shacks set against the granite palace. A small entourage of staffers had just exited the building, talking and laughing and flowing down the steps toward the waiting vehicles. Dressed in tuxedos, pale white and pink evening gowns, they chatted amiably and disappeared into the hot evening sun. In a minute they were gone; whisked off into an evening of cocktails and chit-chat no doubt, dancing and exchanging quips. Those embassy staffers and guests had not been aware of my vantage point as I stood leaning against that families residence. I guessed French and American nationals. Following orders, doing chores.

I understood then in an instant that the United States was not in the nice-guy business. Our sole purpose in paying governments for base and portage rent was to keep us at a distance from them. A new-age form of colonialism; the new frontier was not so much land; it was the shipping lanes, the trade routes necessary in order to supply America with what She needed. And what She needed was (and is) the materials necessary to build and maintain her distance.

Going back to Iraq, have you ever wondered how we got ourselves into a situation in which there is no easy way out? A hellish situation, in which to leave immediately means certain destabilization, yet to stay means certain frustration? Have the media considered what led us into where we find ourselves?

When I was very young, I watched the television reports on Vietnam—all in the best traditions of E.R. Murrow, of course.

But none of those nit-wits ever told about the unfolding events of Vietnam; a sequence of decisions that made Vietnam inevitable. A man named Ho Chi-Ming was himself ignored many years ago after asking for help from the Eisenhower administration. And part of this was the United States acquiescence to French colonial dreams. Ho Chi-Ming eventually got help —from the Soviets and Chinese. 

In those days across the United States, there existed a scattering of home-grown communists —it used to be avant-garde. You may have known a few, but there never were very many. O ccasionally one would run for local office and draw the attention of the local news stations. The communist party in the United States never really hit it that big; when the cold war ended, things really changed. 

Under glosnost, the former Soviets opened their archives and it became clear that the Soviets were responsible for murdering at least 20 million of their own people. China did about the same through state-sponsored starvation. Home-grown communist slunk back into the woodwork (excepting for those at the New York Times).

Part of what I'm saying is that Vietnam and Iraq are different animals, mostly, but both render the same outcome: the popularity needle is pegged. In the bad direction. The United States got (is getting) its ass waxed.

Both places have key similarities, systems where the populace feels a lack of inclusion —it doesn't matter whether the system is communism or Islam(ism).

But from our perspective, the only useful comparison is in the foreign policy foul-ups which caused the United States to get Her nosed pulled in funny directions. Not to mention that awful ass-waxing(s).

People love to scream, "get our troops out of Iraq now!", or, "finish the job!" May as well throw in a little, "Stop the Madness!"

But the United States, decades ago was in bed with the likes of Saddam Hussein, and the Shah, and Pinochet, and others: how in the world could we possibly expect gentle treatment from a mis-led world, after we condoned those murderous dictators? We apparently thought more of enjoying horsepower from non-Texas oil.

The quagmire is not in events over-seas, it's in the rhetoric of politicians profiteering from our polarization. They seem to fight each other in order to keep the status quo: I'm right and you're wrong! 

I’m a conservative, but I must say the Republicans are confused. And the Democrats are not far behind.

We are the victims of a lack of a nimble foreign policy; exercising such a policy is doomed to be an illusion as long as we practice what we do not preach, Jim. The people working for us in the State Department over the years have really fouled things up. The foul-ups are systemic: screwed-up thinking and actions are longstanding.

And how could we have done things differently, you ask? There are small companies, both profit and non-profit that make small loans to businesses in other developing countries. An example is of the individuals who dig wells in arid places around the world. A new and improved 'foreign policy', eh?

Has anyone asked why United States official policy has no room for the above example? Well, they do say, "If you go on doing things the old way, then how can you expect a different result." I'm stupid.

If you think this is pie-in-the-sky thinking, think again —change is possible but only by giving up a certain amount of narcissism: we Americans tend to be unbendable.

Separating truth from fiction is not always easy. There will unfortunately always be times when it is necessary to send out small teams to find troublemakers and take care of business. This carries no moral or legal ramifications if the United States is doing the right thing, both in actions and speech. Sound preachy? It ought to. It is.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. What's under that over-pass? Why, it's self-absorption, it is: claiming ourselves to be the great country of ideals. Ignoring the real world is something like a narcotic.

I'm not a total skeptic: we at least have good intentions —then again, intentions don't really do it. Sorry.

You may disagree, and no, I would not, and do not defend your right to free speech; that gig's lamed out. Is the world going to get better? Nah.

Some might say it's this or that; it doesn’t matter; the results of our policy are what they are—when matched with the realities, we exercise an inability to make quick/decisive movements in dealing with the unexpected. Had we done more in human investiture, instead of show-boating, the picture would be different.

In the aftermath of the US invasion into Iraq, I most definitely noticed the looting and other criminal activity. I had a sinking feeling because I knew the stage was set: this was to be the boilerplate for all the hellish sequence which followed. Again, I preach, had the United States had a different set of rules for its foreign policy —one of investing in the lives of others, we would probably never have even been involved in Iraq: things have a way of taking care of themselves when the moral high-road is traveled. Because when the Bathist criminal element noticed the wide open buffet, it was effectively over. The insurgents opened a breech, and al-Qaida march into the void. 

Unfortunately, the opportunists weren’t us. Given our policy history, it never could be us; the initiative was left to the suicide bombers. Quickness to correct mistakes when there was yet time, never was possible.

Is there a solution? If so, what is it? There is a spirit which guides the United States in all of its foreign and domestic policy’s. It causes, in a thousand small ways, interaction between us and the rest of the world. And this ultimately leads up to cabinet meetings which give advise to sitting presidents on how policy should be conducted. It is called the will of the people. At present, there is no solution to the Iraq situation, simply due to polarization, and unfortunately, most of our fellow-citizens are not going to give up their ideology. Does this mean that the debacle goes on and on with no end? As it stands now, yes. At least in one form or another. In one country or another. But the problems we have, will from time to time, rise or diminish like the tides. That’s about the best that we can hope for. It is my hope that the ‘spirit’ of will wakes up and changes direction.  

Having painted a picture of the United States as doomed to repeating it’s mistakes—believe it or not, I’m an optimist. Change always happens from without; time marches on. But change from within is a choice. While some might get hung up on this-or-that point I've made, and completely disagree, they may then take solace in knowing that things are pretty much going to be tomorrow, as they are today. 

For What it's Worth Dept

Home