So it's been a busy month and I haven't had much time for blogging… doesn't mean a few things haven't crossed my path that I haven't had thoughts on.
So here, all along, while I've been assuming Cheney's one of the "bad guys" it's really been Bush and Ashcroft (and, presumably, other members of the Bush team) that have decided the Constitution's "not a suicide pact" and that the Bill of Rights is really just an interesting historical document? Or maybe, just like the Republicans are trotting out every moderate they can get their hands on at the Convention to try and make people believe that, despite 4 years of aggressively neo-con policies, they're really the party of the people, just trying to do their best for the country, Cheney's saying what he thinks needs to be said to make the party a little more "palatable" to anyone on the fence about who to vote for. (A story on the convention pointed out that both parties are doing their best at their respective conventions to put on a popular face—the Dems trotted out Kerry's veteran status to show they can be be military, the Republicans are trying to be moderates.) I'm sure you can figure out which side of the coin I think we're landing on here.
See, after the Gulf War in 1991, US forces met with little resistance and had to deal mainly with refugees and former combatants fleeing for the borders. But that makes sense… Kuwait had been "annexed" by Hussein, we came and liberated the country, effectively kicking out the invaders. Everyone we met in Kuwait after the fighting would either be Kuwaiti, happy to see our troops 'cause they've gotten rid of the invading Iraqi army, or they're going to be Iraqis doing their damnedest not to end up a casualty of war.
But we're not IN Kuwait. We didn't liberate a sovereign country from someone that had just invaded… we came in and toppled the existing government of the country and, much as many—or even most—of the Iraqi people might have welcomed getting rid of Hussein… you still can't ignore the fact that we invaded their country! Expecting flowers and kisses and "thanks, good job!" seems to me naive at best, if not downright delusional.
So if our policy really was based on our experiences in the Gulf the first time around, and no adjustment's ever been made for the differing circumstances, is it any surprise we've got the mess we do now on our hands? (This is, of course, based solely on Schelsinger's comments during his NPR interview, so take it for what it's worth.)
So, am I supposed to respect Dick Cheney now?
Early this week, Cheney "broke ranks" with the Pres to say that he doesn't support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, that it should be a state-by-state decision and that he's always felt that "freedom means freedom for everybody". The backstory here is that one of Cheney's daughters is a lesbian (who happens to work for the Bush/Cheney campaign—my comments on revising posts after the fact, here) and he's very familiar with, and apparently sympathetic to, the debate because of this.So here, all along, while I've been assuming Cheney's one of the "bad guys" it's really been Bush and Ashcroft (and, presumably, other members of the Bush team) that have decided the Constitution's "not a suicide pact" and that the Bill of Rights is really just an interesting historical document? Or maybe, just like the Republicans are trotting out every moderate they can get their hands on at the Convention to try and make people believe that, despite 4 years of aggressively neo-con policies, they're really the party of the people, just trying to do their best for the country, Cheney's saying what he thinks needs to be said to make the party a little more "palatable" to anyone on the fence about who to vote for. (A story on the convention pointed out that both parties are doing their best at their respective conventions to put on a popular face—the Dems trotted out Kerry's veteran status to show they can be be military, the Republicans are trying to be moderates.) I'm sure you can figure out which side of the coin I think we're landing on here.
The Schlesinger Report on Abu Ghraib
John Schlesinger was interviewed on NPR this week after the release of his committee's report on the abuses at Abu Ghraib. One of the things that struck me in his interview was that he commented several times on how the administration had underestimated the needs for adequate personnel after the fall of Hussein's government (the ratio of prisoners to military police officers at Abu Ghraib was 75-to-1, versus 1-to-1 at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, naval base).See, after the Gulf War in 1991, US forces met with little resistance and had to deal mainly with refugees and former combatants fleeing for the borders. But that makes sense… Kuwait had been "annexed" by Hussein, we came and liberated the country, effectively kicking out the invaders. Everyone we met in Kuwait after the fighting would either be Kuwaiti, happy to see our troops 'cause they've gotten rid of the invading Iraqi army, or they're going to be Iraqis doing their damnedest not to end up a casualty of war.
But we're not IN Kuwait. We didn't liberate a sovereign country from someone that had just invaded… we came in and toppled the existing government of the country and, much as many—or even most—of the Iraqi people might have welcomed getting rid of Hussein… you still can't ignore the fact that we invaded their country! Expecting flowers and kisses and "thanks, good job!" seems to me naive at best, if not downright delusional.
So if our policy really was based on our experiences in the Gulf the first time around, and no adjustment's ever been made for the differing circumstances, is it any surprise we've got the mess we do now on our hands? (This is, of course, based solely on Schelsinger's comments during his NPR interview, so take it for what it's worth.)
Comments