 |
Week in Review
|
| Click
here for "Week in Review" subscription services. Welcome to Issue 6 of "Week in Review."
Monday Occupiers
usually have a tough
time maintaining their resolve, and the US soldiers in Iraq
are no exception. With
troop morale at "rock bottom," the neocon quest for
Imperium has stumbled. Unfortunately, the President ignored these
effects of war: he called for a new US role in "shaping
the world." In whose image? Wolfowitz?
Perle?
Kristol? Finally, the argument is made that we have a moral obligation to intervene in Liberia and, somehow, make things right, precisely because we spawned this bastard child, misshapen and unruly, and set him loose in the world, with no thought of responsibility or consequences. Liberia, it is said, is the offspring of our own guilt. Yet we have no moral responsibility for the bizarre direction taken by the original colonists, who created a mirror image of their own bondage and imposed it on the natives. I was in the mood for some good news . . . the best I could find concerned bickering between US senators over the missing WMDs. It was nice to know politicians were sweating a little. Tuesday In an admission that represents the tip of the iceberg of deception, President Bush stated that some of his "evidence" was flawed. Evidence of WMD isn't a requirement for all US interventions though – there any plenty of other possible justifications: humanitarianism, terrorism-prevention, oil, boredom, distraction or hubris. In Liberia – where "humanitarianism" is being utilized – the welcome committee was a bit unwelcoming when Liberian troops blocked the US military mission. In what I consider an insult to American history, Rumsfeld compared the war on Iraq with the American Revolution: "The task of taking a country that's lived for decades under a dictatorship and having it navigate toward something approximating representative government is a difficult task," Rumsfeld said, " "It was difficult for the United States back in the 1700s..." Finally, Alan Bock revealed the inherent paradox in interventionist thought: If there were a military, geopolitical or economic reason for the United States to intervene, you see, a benefit to American well-being or geostrategic interests, then a U.S. military intervention would be seen as yet another example of American imperialism, of America using its military might to advance its own selfish interests. If, on the other hand, everyone understands that there is no particular American interest to be gained in Liberia, the military incursion will be seen as a true, disinterested, purely humanitarian intervention, done strictly out of the goodness of the big American heart, for the benefit of the unfortunate people of Liberia. Then the world will appreciate us and love us. Wednesday Despite the proclamations of the administration, the war in Iraq was not over. On Wednesday, the number of combat deaths in this – the second round of the Gulf War – was near the total of its predecessor. The US occupation leadership, confused by the Iraqi resistance to foreign troops, offered a "hefty" reward for information about the attacks. Wonder if they will pay in dinars? Few politicians had the. . . guts . . . during war buildup to doubt the President's claims. Nearly a year later, the Democrats have finally decided to question the executive branch's infallibility. So why did the administration throw America into war? Ask Justin Raimondo: This war has, from the beginning, been a war for Israel's sake. In spite of the President's rather comic bookish scenario of unmanned drones catching NORAD unawares, Saddam's WMD, if they ever existed, never represented a credible threat to the U.S. Our massive and ongoing projection of military power in the region is clearly meant to secure some breathing space for our beleaguered ally. Thursday I
was going to post Thursday's big news "CBS:
Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False" but as you may notice, CBS
altered the
headline a bit...well, a lot. To all you twenty-somethings like
me, start saving your hard earned money, cause we're paying in a
couple decades: "US
Doubles Estimate: Now Spending $3.9 Billion a Month in Iraq."
Not that I wanted to reap the fruit of my future labor anyway! What's
all that money going for, you ask? Well, to ordinary Iraqis, the
money is not teaching the "smart" bombs a thing
or two about accuracy or precision: Iraqbodycount.org
revised its"minimum" number of civilian deaths to 6000. Friday In the "I Wonder What They Paid Him" category, CIA Director Tenet took the blame for the false information about uranium. While they continue to search for WMD in Iraq, US soldiers are attacked once every seventeen minutes. A new blogger - a US army sergeant based in Baghdad - is the closest one can come to understanding the plight of our soldiers. Those troops may soon get some new deployment orders: On to Liberia! Maybe America will bring democracy to that plighted African nation as we have (not) in Iraq. Will the public finally have enough of American Empire? Justin Raimondo thought patience was running low: But rising popular sentiment against this ongoing war isn't going away, and becomes even more volatile when it has no real political outlet. And dissent is on the rise in the most unlikely places. Here's a message Private First Class Matthew O'Dell gave to an American reporter to give to this administration: "You call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home." ::Previous
Week in Reviews:: ::DONATE:: We can't let the War Party win...Help keep Antiwar.com alive and donate! |