Jack from over at The People's Republic of Seabrook is an unashamed liberal, and wonders what pretext we have for invading Iraq, in a comment to my recent post about psyops in the coming GWII. I started to answer in the comment, but then decided it should be it's own entry, as it was getting a bit long.

He asks: I'd still like to know under what pretext Shrub would justify invading a country that has committed no overt act of hostility against the US?

Not liking a regime is hardly sufficient justification for an invasion, much less interfering in the internal affairs of that country.

Well, I've already expounded on this at length, both here, and in comment threads in other places. This post was written under the assumption that we are in fact going to war in Iraq. I think even the most fervent anti-war protester can see that we are.

Personally, I think it 's the right thing (as in morally right) to do. I say that without any religious feelings at all. It's one of the few times where our national interest, self-defense, and Doing Good all intersect.

You use of the word "pretext," rather than "cause," or "reason," I think pretty much defines your mindset towards this war. \Pre"text\ (?; 277), n. [F. pr['e]texte, L. praetextum, fr. praetextus, p. p. of praetexere to weave before, allege as an excuse; prae before + texere to weave. See Text.] Ostensible reason or motive assigned or assumed as a color or cover for the real reason or motive; pretense; disguise. Saddam has already given us plenty of reasons to take him down. I don't think any of them are "pretexts."

Perhaps I can quote the man himself: "Regardless of details, and of the nature of evolution between successive historical chapters, the human lesson derived is that the present of any nation or people cannot be isolated from its past; and that, according to this, nations and peoples have established their present, even though it might be distinguishable from their past in terms of advancement or retraction." That's Saddam, in a speech he gave on the 14th anniversary of the end of the Iran-Iraq War.

War criminal (he gassed the Kurds - and Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Convention) Eco-terrorist (the destruction of the Kuwaiti wellheads, and the intentional release of crude into the Persian Gulf) murderer (he has personally shot many of his opponents on the way up to power) military aggressor (war with Iran, invasion of Kuwait, lobbing Scuds at Israel) promoter of terrorism (cash rewards to families of suicide bombers, links with Al-Qaeda (Atta with Iraqi intel types)) I could go on. But if those don't move you to think that the world would be a better place without him, nothing I can say will.

Jack then asks: I find it difficult to believe that Shrub and his minions would violate international law in such a blatant manner (well, no, actually I CAN believe it...). "Who's next, Zimbabwe?"

Some folks think that so long as it's not their ox getting gored, their family getting gassed, their freedoms nonexistent, then the world is just fine. I suppose that's fine for some folks, if they can live with that. To me, it's like telling some malnourished, sick, dying little kid over there:

"Hey, I got mine - sucks for you. Sorry you were born in Zimbabwe, and I was born in Kansas. Good luck with your life - call us when you get rid of that Mugabe dude. I know you didn't vote for him, so now he's starving your village to death by not letting the international food shipments come through, but hey, it's not happening over here, my national interests aren't at risk, so it's none of my business. Besides, I doubt I could get a resolution making it legal past the UN, where every tin-pot despot gets a vote, and if we start messing around with the autonomy of one, the rest are gonna have a hissy-fit, because they don't like the precedent. It means that someday they'll be next. We're gonna have stability in this New World Order, even if it's the deathly silence of a charnel house.

So, I'm gonna sit over here with my new SUV, three meals a day, and the hockey season coming on the dish, and do my very best to be an international law-abiding, non-interventionist respecter of the rights of other governments to do whatever the hell they want to inside their own borders, because I am a thoroughly post-modern cultural relativist, all peoples and ways of life are equally valid, and we don't have either the moral or legal standing to interfere."

Fuck that. I know that there are intelligent, well-meaning, kindly people that believe this to be the right action, but I think you got to have a heart of stone to read of what goes on in the world, and think we, with the power to fix those things, should ignore it.

... Link (2 comments) ... Comment

...was the salute of the gladiators to the Emperor immediately before they began combat. (Though, in many more cases than the average Joe, influenced by Hollywood's version of life in the arena, thinks, the fights were not to the death)

I wonder how it tranlates into Arabic? It seems that the phrase could come in handy for some diehard denizens of Baghdad.

"Those Who Are About To Die Salute You!"

This isn't news to me, as I wrote the same damn thing a few weeks ago, and have thought that for months. While I'd like to beat on my chest and claim clairvoyance, it's a fairly obvious predidction for anyone the least bit familiar with matters martial to make.

There is a more important, and difficult question. What are we going to do about it? I've been thinking quite a bit about this, and here's what I would say to Bush43 if I could get his ear for five minutes:

"We need to start the psyops now. Yesterday, two weeks ago, in fact, and for a few reasons.

One, is to get the civilians out. If they start now, some at least will be able to pack up and go before Saddam catches on. It'll be too late once our divisions are massed on the border. By then, Saddam will have the city locked up tight, and it will mean death for any Iraqi civilian to try and escape. Saddam needs his human shields, and he needs his citizens to die wholesale for the TV cameras, so he can try and drum up world opinion to stop the US Army tearing Baghdad apart brick by brick until we put his head on a pike.

The first combat air missions over Baghdad need to be dropping leaflets, not bombs. And they need to say exactly the opposite of what your dad told the world. He took pains to point out that GWI was not about Saddam. You need to say that's exactly who and what it's about. Let them know that you're willing to let him surrender peacefully, and go live out his life on Diego Garcia in comfortable exile. Make sure Saddam knows that offer ends after the first US serviceman dies in the war.

Saddam can bluster all he wants to the people about how he'll win this war, but when the Iraqi people see that he can't even stop the paper from raining down, they'll start wondering how he's gonna stop the shrapnel.

Oh, and forget all this idiotic surgical attack on Baghdad stuff. You try that and all you're going to have is a bunch of good men cut off. It'll make Mogadishu look like a paintball game. Bring 250,000 to this party, more if you can, and make sure the Iraqi street knows it.

Second, we need to start, in the minds of his troops, the process of delinking Saddam's survival from their own. His rank and file have already decided to fold as soon as they can. It's the hard-core troops, the Guards, that we need to work on, hopefully until only those few hundred of his fanatics are left to fight for him.

So, George, start beating the drum. Beat it so loud and hard that they cannot help but hear you on the streets of Baghdad. I don't care if the first airborne assault is on the HQ of Al-Jazeera news network - take control of the airwaves, radio and TV. Hack into his networks - you've only got the best geeks on the planet at hand. Start treating his people to the preview GWII vidclips, coming soon to a city near you. I'm sure we've got lots of footage from your dad's combat interruptus to use, and maybe you can get some of those Hollywood FX wizards to gin you up some more modern-looking stuff, with the latest weapons. Hollywood doesn't like you, but it's been proven they'll do anything for money.

Make sure you tell them that Saddam is going to gas them. You can bet he's not going to warn them. Reinforce the lesson with some of those pics of the casualties from the war with Iran, and from when he gassed the Kurds. Show them clips of the Iraqis surrendering in masse in GWI. Promise humane treatment if they surrender, and lots of aid for the country afterwards. The carrot and the stick.

Lie, fake 'em out. Make 'em think you've gotten pissed off, gone crazy. They're used to that in the Middle East. Chew on some carpet if you have to. If you're not that good an actor, find an actor that looks like you, and have him do it. Threaten to nuke the city if Saddam uses his WMD.

The world will go nuts, but what the hell are they gonna do about it? The press will jump you like Slick Willie on an intern when Hilary's not lookin', but it's tough to be the leader of the free world, and you have to have a thick skin. That flak you'll catch ain't harder than dyin'. You can always write in your memoirs later you never really meant it. The only people that won't believe you are the ones that hate you already anyway.

I really don't care if you do use a nuke, and I don't think most of the people in the US do, either. Use it to scare the hell out of them. Consider popping a little bitty one outside Baghdad, in the desert, far enough away not to hurt them, but close enough for them to see it. An airburst at the right altitude will mean little or no fallout.

Or maybe the bright boys at Aberdeen can help you rig up the world's largest fuel air bomb. Get it big enough, drop it a little closer, and it'll look like a small nuke. That one you can let the fireball touch the ground for that good ol' mushroom cloud look. Hell, forget the dropping. You can wheel it in if you need to, and build it in place.

Don't waste any more time trying to make the case against Saddam. There's no one anywhere, in any country, that has not already made up his mind, and nothing you can do will change them. Just go to Congress, and ask for a flat out declaration of total war. They'll give it to you. They've read the polls, and know that We The People will have their asses for a ham sandwhich if they don't.

But all this may not work, so you better get the American people ready for a tough one. Tell them before we go any farther that it might mean a whole damn bunch of sons and fathers coming home in body bags before it's all over. You owe it to them.

Because if all this bluster and intimidation don't work, if the Guards don't rout, and it comes down to a house-to-house, brick-by-brick knifefight, we're gonna lose about ten thousand troops, maybe more, and the Iraqis are gonna lose about ten time that many, with an awful lot of those being civilians.

That's an awful lot of people dying just because you don't like the taste of carpet."

... Link (4 comments) ... Comment