February 6, 2003
So, war is in the air. Bang! There was never any question about if, only when.
The war was scheduled years ago. Days after 9/11, I understand that prominent decision makers automatically began to look for an Iraqi connection.
For many months, we have had the tv news showing us the same footage of Saddam standing on a balcony in a tweed coat. Firing that shotgun. The same grainy clip over and over and friggin' over, interspliced with Scuds rolling in parade. Bang! We already know he's a really bad guy, but why do they always use the same grainy recycled footage of him with the shotgun and with the Scuds? Bang! Why? Don't they have any other clips of him? Bang! Of course they do, but the shotgun image is just to drive it home how extra-extra-evil and threatening he is. Bang! Just in case you didn't know.
Bang! He's a bad dude. Bang! See? He's got a gun. Bad dude. Bang!
Don't get me wrong. I thought driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan was appropriate. War is awful, but the Talib were in cahoots with terrorists who murdered thousands of people. It was a military response to a sneak-attack.
But regardless of what my beliefs are, I've got a massive question that's been going-on over and over in my mind. It is a question for future historians which has been bugging the heck outta me.
Okay, so late 1998 is when UNSCOM inspectors originally withdrew in advance of Operation Desert Fox. Since then, U.S. and U.K aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones have bombed Iraq on well-over 350 occasions in response to Iraqi fire.
These bombings became almost-weekly, ho-hum, routine occurrences. The Iraqis have been firing live ammo and these planes are going-out on combat missions. Targets have included radars, communication cables, AA guns, anti-ship missile sites. There is real danger: on one occasion a U-2 got shaken-up by an exploding SAM, and a few remote-controlled drones have been downed.
Now, here's my big question: when, exactly, will future historians say that Gulf War II began? In reality, there has been a shooting war going-on over Iraq for quite a while. A low-intensity war, to be sure. I guess this falls under the game of arguing what a 'war' is. Technically the Vietnam War wasn't a war, it was a 'police action' or some euphamism like that. Sure over 58,000 Americans and over 2 million Vietnamese died from the shooting and the carpet-bombing and the napalm and the toxic defoliants, but no war went on there. No way.
But will future historians say Gulf War II began at the time of the ground invasion in 2003? Or back in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox? I just don't know.
I imagine that most future historians will argue that Gulf War II started in 2003. But there will be a subculture of fringe historians who will claim it actually started in 1998. This might be a real debate one day.
I've also read some reports about a new weapon that is rumored to be in the U.S. arsenal. A weapon that fires bursts of powerful microwaves in order to fry electronics. I guess the hope is that if enough Iraqi communication gear gets fried in the first hour, they won't be able to fire-off whatever anthrax or nerve gas they might got stashed-away. I really have no idea how effective that will be.
Just for the record, I think that this war is going to be a big, damn disaster. I think it will be a one-sided slaughter. I think that huge numbers of Iraqi civilians will die and more terrorist attacks will occur. I think that recruitment for al-Qaeda will soar. I think that the long-term damage resulting from this war will not be measured in years but in generations. I think this has got to be among the worst ideas imaginable. Do I have a better solution? Yes, the first two-dozen assault waves against Baghdad should be comprised entirely of unarmed American feminists. Without a doubt, that is the best way to deplete Iraq's arsenal and absolutely no one of value will have to perish. (Also, you might want to read this bit I wrote last year: On Pro-War Women.)
And yes, I know I'll be only the millionth person to mention the following... I am about to be horribly unoriginal.
We are assured that this war is totally, 100% not about a grab for oil. Nope! Nope! Nosiree! Yes, we must all be good little citizens and ignore the obvious: that a pro-US puppet government situated above the world's second-largest oil patch (significantly, an oil patch with very low production costs) will dismantle present global petroleum-pricing structures by providing a new, independent 'swing' producer outside the present cartel. It has been revealed that the invasion plans involve early seizure of these oil fields so that Saddam doesn't blow them up as a scorched-earth tactic. If he does or doesn't blow them up, foreign oil firms will be invited-in for future field development regardless. Post-war plans bank on the idea that Iraq's future production will pay for repairing damage done by bombing. Just watch the post-war Iraqi government repudiate its production quotas and perhaps withdraw from OPEC.
And perhaps the new government will waste no time in recognizing Israel? If it comes to pass, I'm sure that this won't delegitimize the new Iraqi government in the eyes of its own people whatsoever...
Yes, there are a lot of concrete military plans for protecting the oil fields, but we are expected to swallow that this is not about plunder and greed and empire-building and creating friendly dictators. You'll have to ignore the obvious results of an invasion: the restructuring of the Near East's political alignments and the planet's energy supplies in a way that suits US decision-makers.
We are supposed to think that the good folks in the White House never lust for power or have motives different from their publicly-stated ones. We are supposed to accept that it's actually about standing-up to a shotgun-toting dictator who is pursuing nukes and who thumbs his nose at the UN...
Er... while conveniently ignoring that pesky North Korean dictator who actually admits he has nukes and thumbs his nose at the UN.
Kim Jong Il roared: "HELL YES, I have nukes! What the hell you gonna do about it, ya pansy-assed Yank?! I fart in your general direction!" (Well, practically.)
"Whoa, whoa, whoa! Slow down there, fella! No need to get all sweaty, we can talk this over!" We replied. (Not verbatim, obviously.) Recently, we've moved some bombers to Guam and thrown-around the idea of deploying more troops to South Korea.
Yup, we're gonna use diplomacy with him. And maybe some shows of force, but nothing too violent. Kimmy could do some real damage after all.
And... ahem... he's got no oil.
But look! Saddam's got a gun, see? Bang!
Return to NiceGuy's American Women Suck