February 28, 2003
These are just some of the statements that Bill Moyers made at the end of his PBS program tonight (NOW with Bill Moyers) as he explained why he was wearing an American flag pin – something he hadn’t been doing because it has become associated with support for the current administration’s policies.
The flag has been hijacked, he said, pointing to the fact that everywhere you look on Capitol Hill, a flag lapel pin adorns the suit of every lobbyist who is there trying to get tax breaks for his/her billionaire corporate clients. It is purposely visible over the political hearts of those who go around explaining that sacrifice is good – as long as they don’t have to make it.
The flag been hijacked, Moyers said. And he was taking it back.
I wish it were that simple.
Moyers’ conversation with Josesph Wilson, a former senior American diplomat who had met with Saddam Hussein and who is an expert on the Middle East, was not simple either.
To me, one of Wilson’s most important observations was regarding Hussein’s personality: Hussein is a creature of his country, Wilson stated. His world view is limited, largely by the information fed to him by his sycophants. He is a coldly rational actor, but his very logical arguments are profoundly affected by his skewed premises. In Saddam’s mind, he personifies Iraq, and that means he expects his people to die protecting him.
Wilson implied that Bush’s decision about war ignores who Hussein is, ignores the culture of which he is a product. He admits that the Iraqi people would be better off without Saddam Hussein, but a war that involves invading, conquering, and occupying Iraq is not necessarily going to accomplish what Bush thinks it will.
Millions of people on the streets have been sold a war on disarmament, Wilson explained. First, we were led to believe that this war is about the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Now we’re being told that we’re going to war in order to overthrow a regime and supplant it with a democracy. The president has made it evident that this war is not so much about weapons of destruction as it is about changing the map of the Middle East -- getting rid of regimes that are problems for America and replacing them with ones that we can control. The president has made it obvious that he wants a dead Hussein, not just a disarmed Hussein. He’s left Hussein no choice.
Wilson’s discussion of what happens when you try to forcefully replace a dictatorial regime with a democracy was based on how he has seen it work – or not work – in Africa. Trying to set up a democracy in a benign environment is tough at best, Wilson said, and post-war Iraq would not be a benign environment. And, in a truly democratic election, chances are that whoever the people elect as their leader will not be pro-U.S.
Wilson suggests that there are several other steps that can be taken before embarking on a full-scale war. One of these options is using force (the precision bombing of weapons sites) for the purpose of achieving the objective of disarmament.
Instead, he said, there is talk of using “shock and awe” – several days of air assault to destroy Baghdad — sending in thousands of missiles the first day and then waiting to see what happens before sending in the next wave. What Bush wants is to destroy Hussein, and to do that, he has to destroy Iraq. And that means much of the Iraqi population.
The flag has been hijacked. So has intelligent planning and human decency.
Trackbacks (2)
-
Bill Moyers' American Flag on 02 Mar 2003
Earlier today, thanks to randomWalks, I read an article by Bill Moyers in which he expressed that he is Reclaiming
-
Another contender on 31 Dec 2003
This is the newest possiblity for the Corima Puma paint scheme. I'd just have to be careful around the University of Chicago. I read, via Professor Drezner and others, that some of the faculty disapproves of this kind of blatant...
Comments now powered by HaloScan. Click here to read this entry's comments (if any), or to post one of your own.
Old Comments (7)
myrln on 28 Feb 2003
Iraq: We've destroyed all the weapons.
Dubya: No you haven't.
Iraq: Yes.
Dubya: Show us.
Iraq: Show what? They're destroyed.
Dubya: We don't believe you. Prove it.
Iraq: How?
Dubya: Show us.
Iraq: How?
Dubya: See, you're just delaying and deceiving.
CONCLUSION: US has no intention of ever agreeing weapons destroyed (if they are). Dubya and his rabid ideologues, Wolfowitz, et al, want only what they want...no matter how many may say otherwise. They are the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction on earth.
The Dynamic Driveler on 01 Mar 2003
They have no intention of bringing any form of democracy to the Middle East. All their allies there except for Israel are dead set against democracy in general and in Iraq in particular. THey have made that point quite clearly to Washington.
A democratic Iraq would quickly become a balkanized Iraq as the Kurds declared independence and quickly followed by the Shi'ite muslims. Currently the Kurds and Shi'ite populations in Iraq can not vote in Iraqi elections. In other words it would go back to its ancient roots. A balkanized Iraq would bring chaos to the middle east. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians want the Kurds to set up their own country as both have rebelious native Kurd populations of their own on their borders with Iraq.
The house of Saud only rules Saudi Arabia because they were installed there by the British (see the history of T.E. Lawrence) after the arab uprising post WWI. THey rule with an iron fist and know they would lose power instantly should democracy ever rear its head in Saudi Arabia.
From the US side a balkanized Iraq would be a disaster. It would make it harder to assert control over the various oil fields. Additionally Iran, while it would be concerned re: its Kurdish problems, would be very tempted to invade a weakened or dissolved Iraq in order to gain control of the water resources. It is water, not oil, that Iran and Iraq fought over in hte '80s. Iran used to be the breadbasket of the middle east as it has the most water resources of any country there.
drublood on 02 Mar 2003
I'm having a hard time figuring out how anyone could argue against the quoted statement by Moyers. Maybe I'll look around and see if anyone is.
buy Zithromax on 27 Sep 2004
Zithromax antibiotic info.
Amoxicillin cheap on 06 Oct 2004
Amoxicillin online information.
Google on 15 Nov 2004
AUTHOR: Google
EMAIL: comment@google.com
IP: 66.55.151.2
URL: http://www.google.com/
DATE: 11/15/2004 06:46:38 AM
enzyte on 12 Dec 2005
Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.