tncorgi
May 25th, 2003, 2:34pm
Posted on Sun, May. 25, 2003
We've turned Iraq over -- now what?
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/5937476.htm
NEW YORK - Much as I hate to interrupt what is apparently a deeply felt triumphalism on the American right, now that it's over, does anyone see any reason for our having invaded Iraq?
I realize that's what we kept trying to figure out before the invasion, but don't you think it should at least be visible in hindsight? Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire.
These are early days, certainly, to attempt a full historical evaluation. Could be a case of the forest and the trees. Perhaps we're well along to having everything work out magnificently, and I'm just missing it.
Still, I can't see anything that's going right.
Iraq is in chaos, and apparently the only way we'll be able to stop it will be to kill a lot of Iraqis. Just what Saddam Hussein used to do.
The other day we announced that we were going to shoot looters, and when that produced nightmare scenarios of children dead for stealing bread, we had to cancel that plan.
Now we're going to try gun control -- that should have the enthusiastic support of the NRA.
Meanwhile, the chaos in Iraq seems to be costing us whatever good will we earned for getting rid of Saddam -- the one unmitigated good to have come from all of this.
I hate to be picky, picky, picky, but there are still no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, we've apparently even stopped looking for them.
Since Iraq never had anything to do with al Qaeda or Sept. 11 -- despite American public opinion on this issue -- it was certainly no surprise to see al Qaeda back again, with strikes in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.
President Bush's announcement that we had broken up the organization seems to have been a trifle premature. There was much unmuted griping from American intelligence about the total Saudi failure to cooperate before the attack there. (As one anti-war sign reminded us before the recent events, "Sept. 11 equals 15 Saudis, 0 Iraqis.")
Meanwhile, one of the other sales pitches we were given was that, for reasons never explained, getting rid of Saddam would make it easier to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
It's not looking promising. Didn't look promising before the war; doesn't now. Bush came out with his Road Map for Peace, and the Israelis took the first exit.
Ariel Sharon, so memorably described by Bush as "a man of peace," wasted no time undercutting that proposal. The always-unhelpful Palestinian terrorists attacked, and Sharon counterattacked and then canceled his trip here to discuss the peace plan.
The usual ugly pictures and refueled resentments ensued -- the same-old, same-old of this 50-year-old cycle. So far, getting rid of Saddam seems to have had zero effect on this old deadlock.
Meanwhile, Iraq looks more and more as though it will be costing us the high-end estimate of $20 billion a year, for which the Iraqis have yet to appear noticeably grateful.
The Shiites hate us; the Kurds are killing the Arabs; we're hiring old Baathite thugs to run things and generally becoming unpopular over there.
As John Henry's cousin Eddie used to say of the Vietnamese, "If they don't like what we're doin' for 'em, why don't they just go back where they come from?"
OK, if this is the situation -- and it's certainly what's being reported -- I don't get why we're still hearing Bushies saying, "Ha, ha, ha -- we won the war." Was there anyone who said we wouldn't?
Since I am in the happy position of having predicted a short, easy war and the peace from hell, I think I'm looking like a genius prognosticator about now.
I can't figure out why the Republicans are happy about this.
Sure, it was a great photo-op on the aircraft carrier, but if you think the American people won't notice $20 billion a year because of some nice pictures, you have sadly underestimated the common sense of this nation. I realize that what we see depends on where we stand, but there is a substantial body of emerging fact here, none of it encouraging for optimists.
We may yet see hopeful developments, but darned if I can see any cause for celebration now, or even for building a presidential re-election campaign around footage of our triumphant prez flying out to the Abraham Lincoln.
There's a very real possibility that by November 2004, Republicans will very much want everybody to forget the war now called Dubya Dubya II. (Sorry, I don't know whom to credit for that one, but it's not original with me.)
I've got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I've had a bet out that I hoped I'd lose.
We've turned Iraq over -- now what?
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/columnists/molly_ivins/5937476.htm
NEW YORK - Much as I hate to interrupt what is apparently a deeply felt triumphalism on the American right, now that it's over, does anyone see any reason for our having invaded Iraq?
I realize that's what we kept trying to figure out before the invasion, but don't you think it should at least be visible in hindsight? Good thing we won the war, because the peace sure looks like a quagmire.
These are early days, certainly, to attempt a full historical evaluation. Could be a case of the forest and the trees. Perhaps we're well along to having everything work out magnificently, and I'm just missing it.
Still, I can't see anything that's going right.
Iraq is in chaos, and apparently the only way we'll be able to stop it will be to kill a lot of Iraqis. Just what Saddam Hussein used to do.
The other day we announced that we were going to shoot looters, and when that produced nightmare scenarios of children dead for stealing bread, we had to cancel that plan.
Now we're going to try gun control -- that should have the enthusiastic support of the NRA.
Meanwhile, the chaos in Iraq seems to be costing us whatever good will we earned for getting rid of Saddam -- the one unmitigated good to have come from all of this.
I hate to be picky, picky, picky, but there are still no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, we've apparently even stopped looking for them.
Since Iraq never had anything to do with al Qaeda or Sept. 11 -- despite American public opinion on this issue -- it was certainly no surprise to see al Qaeda back again, with strikes in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.
President Bush's announcement that we had broken up the organization seems to have been a trifle premature. There was much unmuted griping from American intelligence about the total Saudi failure to cooperate before the attack there. (As one anti-war sign reminded us before the recent events, "Sept. 11 equals 15 Saudis, 0 Iraqis.")
Meanwhile, one of the other sales pitches we were given was that, for reasons never explained, getting rid of Saddam would make it easier to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
It's not looking promising. Didn't look promising before the war; doesn't now. Bush came out with his Road Map for Peace, and the Israelis took the first exit.
Ariel Sharon, so memorably described by Bush as "a man of peace," wasted no time undercutting that proposal. The always-unhelpful Palestinian terrorists attacked, and Sharon counterattacked and then canceled his trip here to discuss the peace plan.
The usual ugly pictures and refueled resentments ensued -- the same-old, same-old of this 50-year-old cycle. So far, getting rid of Saddam seems to have had zero effect on this old deadlock.
Meanwhile, Iraq looks more and more as though it will be costing us the high-end estimate of $20 billion a year, for which the Iraqis have yet to appear noticeably grateful.
The Shiites hate us; the Kurds are killing the Arabs; we're hiring old Baathite thugs to run things and generally becoming unpopular over there.
As John Henry's cousin Eddie used to say of the Vietnamese, "If they don't like what we're doin' for 'em, why don't they just go back where they come from?"
OK, if this is the situation -- and it's certainly what's being reported -- I don't get why we're still hearing Bushies saying, "Ha, ha, ha -- we won the war." Was there anyone who said we wouldn't?
Since I am in the happy position of having predicted a short, easy war and the peace from hell, I think I'm looking like a genius prognosticator about now.
I can't figure out why the Republicans are happy about this.
Sure, it was a great photo-op on the aircraft carrier, but if you think the American people won't notice $20 billion a year because of some nice pictures, you have sadly underestimated the common sense of this nation. I realize that what we see depends on where we stand, but there is a substantial body of emerging fact here, none of it encouraging for optimists.
We may yet see hopeful developments, but darned if I can see any cause for celebration now, or even for building a presidential re-election campaign around footage of our triumphant prez flying out to the Abraham Lincoln.
There's a very real possibility that by November 2004, Republicans will very much want everybody to forget the war now called Dubya Dubya II. (Sorry, I don't know whom to credit for that one, but it's not original with me.)
I've got an even-money bet out that says more Americans will be killed in the peace than in the war and more Iraqis will be killed by Americans in the peace than in the war. Not the first time I've had a bet out that I hoped I'd lose.