A constant theme in an American’s self image is that they are part of
a country of winners. The United States is the best and the rest of the world envies us. Oh, if it were true! In the long
panorama of western civilization, the promise of a nation where the people were above the government, was a shining star.
It’s not surprising that such a population would have a healthy psyche and confidence that their abilities could accomplish
lasting achievements. Isn’t this the country we all want to be proud of and wish to pass on to our children?
With the disintegration of the Hussein Iraqi regime, the majority clamor for
more. Pride in a quick overthrow, for this plurality - equates as victory. But is this a tangible triumph or is it a mere
mastery of a crippled country? Despotism is the rule in this world. Countries where constituents have a real voice in their
destiny are few and are becoming the actual - endangered species. History has but a score of examples where governments served
their citizens, and thousands where ruling parties abused inhabitants under their control. From this hullabaloo, the political
class would have you believe that our country is still one of those exceptions. Nevertheless, whatever the facts or substance
of our own condition - the public wants to be a winner!
So what does winning and becoming a victorious champion really mean? No doubt,
if people were totally honest they would answer the poll: CHEAP OIL. Another portion of the audience will vote that terrorism
was quashed. Still another, would have you believe that liberation of an oppressed population was the trophy - for the children
again - wrapped in a berka. But, the indisputable standard that the magnitude has come to internalize and demand is that the
United States won. For at the core of the popular culture is that the country, was at risk. Equating the nation with government
policy has been the most successful achievement of the victor in any and every war.
No matter that the design and prescription of that policy relies upon enforcement,
that’s what a winner does! Superior technology and refinement in tactics provides the means for subjugation. The sentiment
that liberation was the goal, lays in the lies that sold the conflict as a legitimate adventure. The smugness of the conqueror
always justifies the carnage as necessary, to attain the final objective. Where in the long annals of empires has a vanquishing
power brought liberty to another culture? What happens upon a surrender, is the imposition of a system of governance that
conforms to the codes of the triumphant party. Are the jubilant celebrators in this conflict Iraqis, or are they mostly self
Constitutions can be imposed upon a displaced regime, but transitions must
conform to the heritage and tradition of the ‘so called’ emancipated. Democracy has proven to be wanting in most
western countries. What possible evidence and reasonable expectation can one have that theories envisioned by John Locke and
Edmund Burke can be proscribed upon a society that has never known such concepts? Did the British Empire liberate India or
was it native and inspired leaders like Ghandi that expelled the foreigner from their land?
Let’s be candid with ourselves. The spin and duplicity has no place
when we consider moral issues. What is more profound than respect for the individual and their right for self determination,
as they deem it. The occupational administration will present a public relations facade like the overwhelming distortion in
the war coverage from the embedded and approved news agents. Prepare for reports of further success, while internal factions
vie for favor or conspire for unrest.
Most Americans won’t care about a durable and enduring settlement. They
only care about winning. Funny that all those weapons of mass destruction were never used against the crusaders. Amazing that
the average Iraqi was able to purchase firearms, was able to transact independent free enterprise and paid no taxes. Hardly,
signs of a regimented society. But, folks in the U.S., that land of the free, know that there is a cost to live in a democracy.
Do you think that the coalition model will allow for such chancy practices in the reinstituted Iraq?
When General Douglas MacArthur ruled Japan as an American Caesar, he did so
in the most benign and humane manner ever demonstrated by a winner. He was an original; however, the world has changed greatly
since the ending of World War II. The Japanese were entirely vanquished, and the United States became wholly immersed into
that society. To this day, Japan is essentially within the orbit of Washington DC.
Iraq and the Middle East are entirely different societies with totally different
heritages. The central issue that permeates the whole region is the blood feud with Israel. As long as occupation of Arab
soil continues, the war can never be won. We can exit our troops from their countries, and return to an honest broker in the
quest for a permanent settlement among eternal enemies, but we cannot be an American champion as long as we violate a neutral
policy. Security for our soil is not enhanced with the removal of Saddam. There are dozens of substitutes and thousands of
followers eager for a new replacement.
Zionist zealots only condemn this cycle to repeat itself. A spokesman
for the infrastructure minister, Joseph Paritzky, says Israel wants to reopen a pipeline which has been closed for more than fifty years
to bring Iraqi oil through Jordan to Israel's Mediterranean coast. Is this the intended meaning for a liberated Iraq?
The stage is set to breakup OPEC. The new principality of Iraq will still
have a vote in the oil cartel. Add in the intended removal of Venezuela’s elected president Hugo Chavez, and you get
the wedge long desired to put the Gulf States back in their place and re-colonize the region. Nevertheless, don’t hold
you breath for low-priced gas. Those days are relegated to memory, only the transfer in bank accounts will result from the
coalition ‘liberation’ monopoly.
Is this the real meaning of winning America? The festivities and parades
will shower acclaim, as the body bags keep coming back as occupation drags on and the years pass by. Do you really believe
that the WAR Party will settle for outposts in Afghanistan, a permanent presence in Pakistan and a client government for Iraq?
Syria has been put on notice, while Iran prepares for a coming conflict.
Sounds like the winning has a short life! Will the fans of synchronized warfare
ever be satisfied? You know the answer. Only if we win . . .
SARTRE - April 11, 2003