0
   

Iraq Through Uncle Sam's Eyes

 
 
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2005 11:38 am
To the moderators, I know that I just posted this in the creative-work forum, but wonder if it would Have a better spot here, given what it is about. So far, it has had 9 notices, but no replies. Here, I might garner some more feedback.

Here's hoping you allow it, and here it is:



People worldwide could not understand Uncle Sam'sa obsession with Saddam Hussein. Why was he so fixated on an Iraqi regime change while tolerating other dictatorships? Why act then when he did so at the potential loss friends and allies?

Why, why, why?

Well, whether or not Uncle Sam was right, here is why he set his face towards Baghdad.

First, realize that Uncle Sam styles himself as a hero. Given his power, that's not a bad aspiration, and besides, that's how much of the world views him. At least, that is how much of the world views him.At least, that is how it works in theory. Like mythic heroes, Uncle Sam has headaches, and must constantly cope with his fallible human nature.

Sam has come a long way from the Spanish-American War, but to him the problems begin to rival his growth in power. After WWI, he decided to wash his hands of affairs, and left. At Pearl Harbor, Uncle Sam learned negligence's price. Justified or not, he unleashed the atomic horror to end the war his absence allowed.

Entering the Cold War, Sam believed in himself and his cause, but Vietnam unnerved him. Could he ever summon the will to fight on foreign soil again? Was it worth it? These were open questions.

It took years for Uncle Sam's confidence to recover. He found it again in places like Grenada and Panama. It felt good to feel successful, not like some baby-killing loser.

Then came the Gulf War.

Saddam was Sam's ally at the time, and if he let the thug keep Kuwait, they probably could have cut a mutually beneficial oil deal, but instead he chose to face him down. Sam liberated Kuwait, but the Gulf War accomplished far more.

Uncle Sam was a hero at home again. "You took a stand for what we stand for" declared American ads. The Soviet Union collapsed, making the jubilation complete. It felt good. It felt cleansing. It felt right.

The lone irritant was Iraq. Sam had created an embargo, weapons inspections, and no-fly zones, weakening Hussein militarily and economically. Thought almost as good as dead, Sam left him alone. In a war filled with pleasant surprises for Uncle Sam, the final surprise was a downer: embargo and sanctions were not enough.

Like a fantasy hero, he had not totally vanquished the foe, but merely sealed it up behind an enchanted barrier. Also like the storybooks, barriers never last. The Berlin Wall, the Maginot line, and the Great Wall all failed. Sam's barrier began to failwhen the embargo collapsed, the inspectors were restricted, and the jet patrols were attacked.

The reason Sam opposes Baghdad is the same reason Rome destroyed Carthage: it was insolent. By the Third Punic War, Carthage was no Roman threat, yet they were not quite vanquished. Rome could not abide that.

Superpowers have no tolerance for crushable foes walking around under the sun. They never have and assuredly never will. Like Napoleon against England, Sam tried to bring his quarry down through economic isolation, but like Napoleon, he found it unworkable. Unlike Bonaparte, he need not accept defeat for lack of a road. No ocean, much less a channel, is his barrier.

That Sam chose the barrier approach as a first resort, unlike Bonaparte, largely reflected Sam's acquiescence to international pressure. The coalition was only in it for the Kuwait's liberation. Proceed further, and he was on his own. He simply chose the expedient choice.

Besides, Uncle Sam also had personal reasons. Vietnam's specter restrained him, exhorting him to quit ahead, regretless. The sanctions, however, made him a baby-killer again, and the Kurdish massacres made him treacherous. To Sam it was the best thing he'd done in decades, and the Vietnam criticisms still resurfaced.

To just leave Saddam alone was unthinkable to Sam. His American fear of doing too much is only superseded by his fear of too little. Vietnam runs deep, but Pearl Harbor and 9-11 run deeper.

Since the Gulf War, Uncle Sam has triumphed first in the Balkans, and then Afghanistan. These have given him a greater peace of mind in imposing his will on the world. His successes outnumber the solitary failure overwhelmingly. Simply put, Sam like his track record.

Now, when Saddam cast his periodic glances at his antagonist, a thin smile crossed Sam's lips; a disturbing look entered his eye.

Saddam knew it well: It's that of a predator eying its prey.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 672 • Replies: 1
No top replies

 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2005 11:59 am
A writer-friend sent this to me the other day. I thought it belongs here in this forum.

Friends, Personal reflections, stemming probably from the fact that I can't help writing editorials. I don't watch television, so I don't know what the talking heads are saying about the bombings in London. I don't listen to AM radio, so I don't know what the right-wing hate-mongers are saying. And I don't even read newspapers anymore (though I do catch samples via google news) so I can't pretend to know what the major news outlets are saying. This is just my instinctive reaction to the news, based in my pretty long view of things. (I first began following the news in 1956, when I was ten years old.) Friends, I don't see how it could be any clearer that there just isn't any "elsewhere" anymore. What's perhaps harder to see is there isn't any "us" and "them," either. And what's even harder than that is that the line between good and evil runs not between us, but within us! All those bodies; all that destruction. Those victims were innocent victims, just going about their daily lives. They got hurt only because they happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time. Others who had been a minute ahead of them or a minute behind them in some queue got off unscathed. The victims were innocent! How different is it for non-combatants hit by American bombs in Afghanistan or Iraq? (Or, earlier, in Vietnam?) People trying to go about their lives, suddenly and impersonally attacked by people who had nothing against them personally. It's a subject I wrote an editorial about as long ago as 1986: It gets ever harder to distinguish warfare from terrorism. Mainly it appears to be a matter of resources. Those who have warplanes use them; those who can only plant bombs do that. It isn't a matter of one side being angels and the other being devils, though each sees the other through that particular convenient lens. Each side ALWAYS thinks it is protecting its own people from danger, and resisting the forces of evil. Hatred kills. So a useful and constructive response to something like the bombings in London cannot be based in hatred. Some people seem to think that it is somehow "weak" to understand your enemy's motivations and attitudes. Presumably they think that strength consists in not understanding it? Or in deliberately mis-understanding it? Hatred breeds hatred. If we are ever going to stop the killing; if we are ever going to live together in a more peaceful world, we have got to stop the hating. And that will only be done one by one. Peace will be nourished in the human heart, day by day and one by one, or not. It is up to each of us to make our choice. Hatred + anything = hatred. Love + anything = Love. Your choice, every day. Be well, friends.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iraq Through Uncle Sam's Eyes
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 05:11:50