A Miserable Failure

I'd love to bury the Spain elections story since I'm quite sick of it, but everywhere I turn I see another article or column which rants about how the terrorists won, Spain is supporting the terrorists, etc. Like today, when I looked at the op/ed section of the Providence Journal and this column by Froma Harrop was staring me in the face. I hardly ever take the time to read her tripe, but knowing that she's generally middle of the road politically and not a Bush supporter, I was interested in what this somewhat-democrat had to say about Spain's elections. To my surprise, she had to audacity to invoke Orwell in defense of her arguments:

Having been elected under such lamentable circumstances, Socialist José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero should have made a short and strong statement that his government would go after the monsters. Instead, he immediately ticked off the al-Qaida wish list: Spain would distance itself from the United States. It would pull its troops out of Iraq, unless the United Nations took over command there. He denounced the war in Iraq as "unjust" and a "disaster."

The last remark swarmed with sick Orwellian logic. The argument can be made that Saddam was not the grave international threat that he was believed to be. One might say that Iraq was not our business. But no educated leader would imply that the Iraqi people were better off under that mass murderer. To say that the occupation "hasn't generated anything but more violence and hate," as Zapatero had done, reflected a willful ignorance. [emphasis mine]

It's funny that she should mention Orwell. Couldn't it be considered Orwellian to have our "elected" leaders lying to the populace with the sole purpose of launching a war? But I guess we're not supposed to question the Bush administration on Iraq now, are we? Everytime one of their reasons for going to war is proven wrong, Bush's defenders can just whip another one out. Saddam doesn't have connections to al-Qa'ida or 9/11? Well, he has weapons of mass destruction! Saddam doesn't have weapons of mass destruction? Well, he is a horrible dictator! We can't argue with that, now can we? Saddam was a mass murderer who subjected his people to horrors that I would never like to experience. With that said, Bush's brownshirts defenders then look at pacifists as if we're some group of looney's for questioning the Iraq war. This attitude has extended to their commentary on the socialist victory in Spain's elections. How dare Prime Minister-elect José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero call the Iraq war a disaster! How ignorant! Can't he see we freed the people of Iraq from the clutches of a dictator?!

These people, in their haste to defend the Bush administration's actions, are willfully ignorant one huge issue: The war in Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the war or terror. Saddam never played a role in the mass murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11/01. The fall of Saddam obviously hasn't made the world a safer place if al-Qa'ida can slaughter 200 Spaniards on 3/11/04. Furthermore, after Bush gave the UN the finger before invading Iraq, thus shunning the rest of the world, his reasons for doing so were that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and harbored terrorists. Not liberating the Iraqi people. Before, during, and especially after the war, people like myself tried to tell as many people as possible that Saddam did not have connections to al-Qa'ida or WMDs, but Bush and his defenders labeled us as nutjobs. Even though we were right, that hasn't changed how closed minded they are. It has come to the point where no matter how wrong they have been for the past two years, they will still attempt to yell down people who criticize Bush's invasion of Iraq. But given the context that the Iraq war was supposed to be a plank in the larger agenda of the war on terror, and since it's been confirmed after the invasion that Saddam never had WMDs or connections to al-Qa'ida, how can this not be considered a disaster? How can it not be considered a disaster when you take an objective look at the situation? On top of tying up the majority of our military in this boondoogle, thus leaving us defensless for another attack, we have effectively neutralized our military in the war on terror. They aren't fighting terrorist organizations, save for the ones that have crossed the border into Iraq, they are simply fighting for Iraq to survive through the mess Bush has created out of it. In the meantime, al-Qa'ida has bombed Madrid, Riyadh, they may be involved in attacks on our soldiers in Iraq now that Saddam's out of the way and they can cross the border, and who knows what else they are planning. Iraq was supposed to be a battle in the war on terror, and given this context, it was a huge disaster. There's really no other way to argue it.

Personally, I'm sick to death of people trying to justify it. The only concession I can give is that yes, the people of Iraq are better off without Saddam. However, this wasn't the reason for going to war, and it can be said for other countries around the world that they would be better off if they weren't under the rule of a dictator. So why don't we send our troops to overthrow the governments in Zimbabwe or Uzbekistan? Their people would be better off without their current leaders, so come on, let's roll! Send in the Marines! If you think this argument sounds ridiculous, then you're correct; it's just as ridiculous to justify the war in Iraq by saying it was for the people there. Where Bush and his defenders will corner you with this argument, though, is by making you look insensitive if you try to argue against it. How can you argue against the betterment of a population? Don't you have a heart? Hey, I'd love to make sure that the world is better off, but where do we start? And how do we determine what to do? And is it wise to allocate our resources to this effort a couple years after we've been attacked, thousands of our citizens were murdered, and we're not hunting for the perpetrators of this crime? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was supposed to be a war on terrorism.

Given the facts, it's amazing that anybody can argue that the war in Iraq was a success. It was a complete and total failure as far as the overall war on terrorism goes, not to mention that Bush has no exit plan to speak of. While al-Qa'ida continues to stay intact and plot future attacks, receiving who knows what kind of support from powerful members of the Saudi royal family who just happen to be friends with the Bush family, we're tied down to nation building a firecracker. Bush's election year political aims to get out of Iraq this June are completely rushing the process, and Iraq could enter into a full blown civil war if we fuck this up. If that happens, we'll be stuck in the country for years when we should be focusing on actual terrorists.

Not like our media will question the Bush administration. Instead, when a foreign leader dares to question them on Iraq, the American Propaganda Machine goes nuts, trying to convince us that Spain was taken over by terrorists. They never question how al-Qa'ida still has the strength and organization to ignite 10 bombs and kill 200 people if the world is supposedly safer now that Saddam is in our custody. God, with the way the press has shit their pants you'd think Osama bin Laden just got elected. Zapatero has even said that he would keep their troops in Iraq as long as they are part of a UN effort, not US since Bush has done so much to bungle the Iraq war. In case you missed that, I'll repeat myself: Spain has offered to keep their troops in Iraq, but not in a way that suits Bush. Doesn't sound like there's much terrorist appeasement there, does it?

The press has sunk to new lows this week. They've told us everything but the facts. One article I saw on the frontpage a couple days ago even suggested that terrorists could try to influence the American elections, which was almost a blatant statement saying that terrorists support Kerry. Any questioning of American policy and the way we fight the war on terrorism is strictly verboten, tantamount to supporting al-Qa'ida. Meanwhile, Iraq is a disaster and the world is not safer from terrorism, but god forbid if you mention it. I wonder what Orwell would say about this.