“There are criminals and killers — we know the scum who wear the mask of the Jihad and religion… They used to kill people as criminals and now they kill them under the cover of jihad.” — Abdul Qader Mohammed Jasim, the Iraqi minister of defense

Whuh??? Democratic Senator Biden’s op-ed in the Washington Post: A Plan to Hold Iraq Together.

Obviously since I’m a Republican, I’m obligated to question his patriotism and shout from the rooftops (c’mon everybody, join along), “CUT AND RUN! CUT AND RUN!” Karl Rove should make t-shirts and/or a song.

Or maybe I shouldn’t. Maybe I should say that this is a reasonable start, and we should have a civilized debate about what we should do in Iraq. Maybe I can disagree with his plan without saying that Osama wants you to elect Democrats. Alas, if only we lived in such a world. Still, I will do my small part.

Here’s Biden’s reasonable 5-point plan:

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid — especially from the oil-rich Gulf states — but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

I disagree with point 5, specifically. The keyword is stability. I believe that withdrawing troops will make Iraq less stable. A “small follow-on force” will not be enough to “keep the neighbors honest.”

I’m not sure that you can make “oil the glue that binds the country together.” I don’t see how this plan makes oil a unifying force. Still, a more federal system may be the least worst choice that we have when it comes to Iraq.

I really, really like point 3. Ever since I read the book about the Marshall Plan, I realized that an economic plan for Iraq was necessary. Unfortunately, Bush doesn’t realize that. Even in the provinces where we had modest success, the lack of jobs threatened to tear it all apart.

On the condition in Kurdistan.

In the Washington Post from Iraq’s ambassador to the US: A Call to Support Democracy.

So, I’ve finally made my way through about half of the book I borrowed about the Marshall Plan, The Marshall Plan & Its Meaning by Harry Bayard Price. The first few years of the Marshall Plan were about economic cooperation. There was massive planning beforehand to determine how best to get Europe back on its feet.

It seems to me that after the invasion of Iraq there was no (well-publicized, at least) plan to sustain Iraq’s economy. It should’ve been obvious that we needed such a plan beforehand. Firstly, war destroys infrastructure and secondly, Iraq was really hurt by sanctions. Why wasn’t there even a discussion about this? I don’t remember where I read this, but a while back, I remember seeing something about the people not having jobs. We should’ve had some program in place to help Iraq’s economy. But this isn’t something the military can do by itself. That isn’t the job of the military. We needed civilians on the ground. Did the ever-present violence prevent such a thing from ever taking place? I’m no expert on Iraq, but I’m a news junkie and I was never aware of an economic plan for Iraq. Lots of people were aware of the Marshall Plan. It makes me believe that it was a failure of planning, not merely execution.

A solid economy is a necessary foundation for a democratic government, I believe. (Something I will elaborate upon in my discourse.) I think the neocons somehow think democracy is the default condition of man, which it isn’t. If it was, then why has man lived under tyranny for so long and only recently really discovered self-rule? Even if the Iraqis desire freedom, that is insufficient. In this way, the neocon agenda is not conservative at all. There were reasons why the French Revolution didn’t work and there are reasons why Iraq isn’t working, but the neocons have ignored the reasoning at the heart of conservatism. Machiavelli expressed it centuries ago when he wrote, “A people accustomed to living under a prince, if by some accident becomes free, maintains its liberty with difficulty.”

To be honest, it appears to me that the agenda of the neocons is the same as the proponents of world government. Instead, their idea is that America is the world government. America is the executive power of the world with no legislative or judicial checks.

Slowly, some things are beginning to make sense.

… for American interests, that is. Excuse me for a little as I explore the realm of the super-cynical. Our best chance for defeating Islamofascism is to not let it unite under one banner. It seems like America should be doing everything it can to foster animosity between Shiites and Sunnis in order to contain Iran. It’s the old adage of warfare: Divide and conquer. To do that, though, doesn’t quite lead to a unified Iraq. A unified, democratic Iraq would be the best thing to contain Iraq, but that outcome is extremely unlikely with the level of violence we’re seeing in Baghdad. No stability, no government. So I ask if we should really be pushing towards a unified Iraq. Should we be trying to help the Sunnis, instead, in order to contain the Iranian threat?

Of course, if we’re doing everything we can to divide the Middle East, it means the Islamofascists will naturally try to unify the Islamic world. It’s not too hard. Terrorists hide behind women and children and if anyone strikes back at the terrorists, there’s some instant propaganda fodder. Look at what those evil Americans and Jews are doing. It’s working, too. The Arab League denounced Hezbollah, but they’re backing off from those statements due to pressure from the people.

But yuk, I can’t honestly say that we should actively foster civil war. (I like to put titles that will grab attention.) Still, I will say that we should contain the Iranian Hitler, Ahmadinejad. My initial thoughts are to provide economic aid to Arab countries such as Egypt in exchange for their cooperation in the War on Terror. Or something to show how we’re not out to dominate the Middle East, but to contain Iran and their Islamofascist allies.

The battle might already be lost, though, depending on what the opinion of the mainstream really is in the Arab world.

The situation in Iraq further complicates things. If you compare it to a game of chess, we’re only in the beginning of the game, and Bush is putting all of our pieces in the wrong places.

Breaking news (heard on Fox News): A recently declassified document reveals that America had found some 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and there are still more sarin-filled and mustard gas-filled artillery shells out there. We found WMDs.

Now that’s some big news. Let’s see what fronts the big newspapers tomorrow.

The biggest question is: Why was this kept secret so long? Senator Santorum and others had to fight the Bush administration to get this declassified. My guess is that they didn’t want insurgents looking for those chemical weapons, finding them, and then using them. They can’t look for chemical weapons if they don’t know they’re there.

Smart move? Not so smart move? I’m undecided.

I’m not saying this revelation should change anyone’s mind, especially since now we’re focused on what we should do next, not why we went in the first place, but this should force some people to reevaluate their ideas about Iraq.

I’ll still be commenting on Election 06 today, but I thought it’d be nice to provide some linkage to the latest good news from Iraq.

Papers show ‘gloomy’ state of insurgency: Papers taken from raids show the insurgency struggling and reveal their latest tactics. Here’s the actual text of the document.

Post-al-Zarqawi raids kill 104 insurgents. The numbers: 104 insurgents killed, 28 significant arms caches discovered, 759 anti-Iraqi elements captured, 452 raids, 143 of the raids carried out by Iraqi forces alone.

Now that’s progress.

I’m going to refrain from further analysis until after I’ve done some posts on religion.

EDIT: Never mind, I will be posting Election 06 stuff tomorrow.

The big news today is the death of Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. It’s a good day.

Something that piqued my interest… When Iraq’s Prime Minister Maliki announced the death of Zarqawi, the press broke out in applause. Just wondering what the reaction of the American press will be if bin Laden is captured.

Another interesting thing… The Washington Times, in Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt, reported this: “‘This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer’ for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. ‘Iraq is still a mess — get out.'”

That’s my Congressman, the one who represents my district. I wish I could get the full text, but if he’s dismissing this as a stunt, that’s disgusting.

Perhaps the bigger news today is the appointment of an interior minister, defense minister, and national security advisor in Iraq. This just might be a turning point in Iraq’s struggle for stability.

From the Associated Press: Mosque Suicide Bombers Kill 79 in Baghdad. Further sectarian violence, this time Sunnis attacking a Shiite mosque. We also have Shiite militias still causing trouble. Unfortunately, we’re stuck in Iraq, and I think we’ll have to preside over civil war until it ends in bloody stalemate in order to prevent anyone else from coming in (*cough* Iran *cough*) and screwing things up worse than they are now.

Well, just read this from Lloyd. Follow the links within.

My response was pretty much summed up within my title, “Aw fuck.”

I don’t know what to think other than: The war is lost. We screwed up. And as for my support for Bush, I dunno if I can in good faith support such a failure. There’s a difference between missteps and failures. I thought we were on track in Iraq. I thought we could turn things around as long as we had patience. I was encouraged by American progress in Mosul. That’s why I said what I said.

I’m not sure what we should do in light of this. Establish an independent Kurdistan? Cut and run? I’m afraid we might even have to leave troops there because I wonder what Iran will do.

The old-fashioned way would be to install a puppet dictatorship. I’m not sure how that would work.

Heavens, the insurgents outsmarted us. Bombing that mosque and starting civil war. I tell you, though, it didn’t have to be this way. We just acted too slowly and I guess that’s Bush’s fault.

Perhaps that’s why Bush has seemed so distracted lately. He’s been trying to deal with (and cover up) a civil war.

Still, who do we turn to? I fear we have no leaders who can step up. We still have 3 years of Bush. What will he do now? Hide it as much as he can until midterm elections? The Republican Party can take a big hit. And then what, the Democrats censure Bush? Then what? How does this accomplish anything? This is what I fear.

We need to detach Bush from the War on Terror.

I’m sorry for being so choppy, but I’m just so flustered, and I need to throw out some thoughts now.

It’s a complex world. I still don’t think we should’ve gone into Iraq in the first place. Yes, that’s right, I don’t think we should’ve gone in Iraq and I said this a while back. Still, what do we do now? That’s the problem.

There was an article I read a while back… It said something about Iraqi civil war and the US funding each side for a stalemate. I need to find it.

One more thing, I wonder how long Saddam’s regime would’ve lasted without our invading. I’ve heard opponents of the war make the case that it was close to collapse anyway. We would be in kind of the same mess anyway, then, wouldn’t we?

And what’s up with Russia feeding intelligence to Iraq during the invasion? Something smells fishy. I wonder who is really funding the insurgents.

I don’t know. I really don’t know what to think at this point. Sometimes, it’s okay to be that way.

“President Bush seemed assured of reelection as Democrats had fallen short in an effort to elect John Kerry. The apparent acceptance of Bush…”

I’m surprised the AP didn’t run that story in 2004, when they’re running stuff like this: Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote.

“Iraq’s landmark constitution seemed assured of passage Sunday after initial results showed minority Sunni Arabs had fallen short in an effort to veto it at the polls. The apparent acceptance was a major step in the attempt to establish a democratic government that could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops.”

I recently read Fred Kaplan’s We Can Leave Iraq by 2007 article in Slate. It discusses pulling our troops out of Iraq, not because it’s a quagmire we’re about to lose but “to force the Iraqi government to start taking their sovereignty seriously.” It reminds me of William Saletan’s article from June 28: Stand Aside: It’s time for welfare reform in Iraq, arguing that we need a withdrawal time table in order to let the Iraqis begin to take care of themselves. Only this time it’s really going to happen.

How is the left going to portray this? Of course, to them, it’s a plot to win the midterm elections. You know what? Maybe it is. Yet “it also has the virtue of being a good idea,” as said in the article. So, you will hear the Democrats vociferously complain in the media, but they’ll still go along with it. Once again, they’ve been outmaneuvered by the Republican Party. The Republicans get to have their cake and eat it too, while the Democrats are left cluelessly rationalizing why they have no cake at all.

This is the right move for Iraq. The so-called “insurgents” will cease to be battling an occupying force and will be seen as attacking the new, legitimate Iraqi government. The movement will fall apart once it lacks any sympathy from the common people, who want democracy, and the foreign terrorists will be seen as just that, not “insurgents.”

Read the valiant attempt in: “The 18½ Minute Gap“, by a guest blogger on Patterico.

Luckily, I’m not a Yellow Dog Democrat, so I can point out some holes. Like, the false dilemma he sets up. The war may not have been a failure, but we could’ve gone in for the wrong reasons. The Mexican-American War was not a failure by far, but was the US justified in its invasion? But I’ll forgive that. After all, he’s talking about crazy Democrats, right?

This, however, I cannot forgive: “Given how little intelligence we had about that secretive country, the choice was to trust in Saddam Hussein’s restraint and good judgment, or trust in the United States military.” Wait, the reason why we trusted our military is because we had little intelligence?

Without this little piece, the whole article falls apart. The entire article is based on a false dilemma: war or wait for Saddam to develop WMDs. Of course, he assumes that the intent to develop WMDs equals cause for the US to invade. People can intend a lot of things, but if they don’t have the capability to act, then it doesn’t justify using up our military resources, and a whole lot of money, to invade — and occupy! — a country.

My impression is that even with the right intelligence, even if intelligence at the time had said there were no WMDs, he would’ve been in favor of a war. I don’t know about everyone else, but I think war should be a last resort, not a first resort. The fact is, Saddam didn’t pose an imminent threat to the United States, as we had all been tricked into believing.

But wait! What about the Oil-For-Food program?! So, a corrupt UN program is justification for the wholescale invasion of a foreign country? No way, I ain’t buyin’ that.

Because of our failed intelligence, we invaded the one country in the Axis of Evil that wasn’t actually developing WMDs. That, in my books, is not a success.

That said, now that we’re already in there, we must do our best to bring democracy to the region. The ends don’t justify the means, though. If we manage to salvage this mess, it doesn’t justify going to war based on faulty intelligence.

Americans are the real villains in Iraq. What right did we have to invade a foreign country and stop a legitimate dictator from filling more mass graves?

From article, Sunni cleric group calls Iraq’s vote illegitimate: “Iraq’s leading Sunni Muslim clerics said Wednesday the country’s landmark elections lacked legitimacy because large numbers of Sunnis did not participate in the balloting, which the religious leaders had asked them to boycott.”

I hope I’m not the only one who thinks their chain of logic is absolutely ridiculous.

Perhaps there is still reason for hope. Perhaps the Iraqi people do care for freedom. I think it will be funny to see criticisms in the coming days. Actually, now that I think of it, I got some good ideas for satire… look for it in the coming days.

All I want to say for now is just think of the situation in Iraq. Never take our own democracy for granted.

Okay, I understand that the certain military leaders wanted us to invade Iraq with more troops. And that more troops could’ve better stabilized post-war Iraq (remember the looting of the museum?). The military wanted something on the order of 10,000s more troops, or even 100,000s more troops.

I also understand that we have a veritable backdoor draft, with people serving two tours in a row, etc.

I also understand that there have been less than 2000 casualties.

So, I pose the question: Where would these extra troops to initially invade have come from? If we’re running out of troops now, after less than 2000 casualties, how would we have gotten way more troops earlier?

If containment worked for the Commies, why shouldn’t it have worked in Iraq?

(Okay, you can argue that containment didn’t work, but it was long-standing US policy, unlike preemption.)

Since the get-go, I’ve been almost for the War on Iraq, with the caveat that the idea of preemptive war made me very uneasy. Well, right now, I guess I’m going to flip flop, since I’ve been inspired by Lloyd’s comment. (But if you watch carefully, it’s not a flip flop.)

Saddam posed a threat to the world: He invaded Kuwait, showing his aggressive tendencies. He committed genocide against the Kurds. He was a dictator. Then, I thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there seemed to be some kind of roundabout link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. There was this impending sense of danger.

The world finds out later that there are no WMDs in Iraq. I tried to reconcile this in my mind. WMDs weren’t the only reason we went into Iraq; Saddam was deposed and he committed all the crimes mentioned above. It was right to get rid of a dictator.

However, when did it become the US’s responsibility to become the police force of the world? Let me put this another way: How conservative is it to establish a new doctrine of preemptive war? To me, conservatism does not espouse these principles of going out in the world and interfering. George Washington didn’t warn against preemption, but he warned against foreign entanglements. We are getting very entangled right now.

Yet, Saddam did pose a threat. Is it right to leave a dictator in power? Is it right to let the people suffer? Is it wrong to spread democracy? George Washington did not live when the United States was the sole hyperpower; we were a weak nation.

Ah, but fighting a war takes resources. Not only human lives, but money. Where does this money come from? The taxpayer. The United States does not have the resources to finance these kinds of wars.

However, if we don’t do it, who will? Should we just let dictators have free reign and not interfere with their sovereignty? Is that the right thing to do? Face it, nobody else had any interest in doing it. Why? Four words: Oil for Food program. And if we didn’t do it now when would we do it? We have the most powerful army in the world. There will never be a time when we have the unlimited resources to bring about world peace. We have to fight things in pieces, rid the world of dictators one by one, perhaps. And you know what, the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. President Bush and John Kerry both agree on that point.

There I stopped, and I thought I had it figured out.

Then, I read this: WSJ reporter Fassihi’s e-mail to friends. Even before the article itself posed it, I wondered: Is the world a better place without Saddam Hussein?

Think about this: North Korea has nukes. If I was North Korea, I wouldn’t give them up. The US could invade me, like Iraq! I need these weapons as an insurance policy! Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons for the same reason.

And guess what? We don’t have the resources to fight these guys because we’re stuck in Iraq! We avoided another Vietnam in Afghanistan by “outsourcing” the job, but then we went in Iraq, and the whole thing is one big mess. [I read a variant of this last sentence somewhere, but I can’t find it… I think it was in Slate… but I did add the outsourcing dig… I think.]

Therein lies the point I’ve been missing (ignoring?) all along: Saddam Hussein did not pose an immediate threat to the United States of America. And it’s precisely because he didn’t have the WMDs.

Now, it all fits together. We don’t have the resources to be the world police. The US shouldn’t be so far entangling itself in world affairs that do not concern it. Saddam didn’t pose an immediate threat. There was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Therefore, it was wrong to go into Iraq.

No, I’m not reverting a pre-September 11th mentality. A war on terror is one that will never be won on the defensive. But the world is not safer without Saddam, unlike what Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry claim.

U.S. Report to Say No WMD Found in Iraq. Ouch.

Tomorrow shouldn’t be overly busy. More commentary on Iraq tomorrow.

In a comment to yesterday’s entry, Lloyd said:

“The infinitely huge difference is that Sitting Bull didn’t deserve an ounce of that ignominy, while Saddam certainly would.”

That is a correct and important distinction. I just meant that I got the idea from that event. I did not mention that yesterday, so I wanted to make it clear that I’m not implying that Sitting Bull was on a level of high villainy like Saddam. If you know me, you’ll know I wasn’t trying to say that, but if you don’t… Well, that’s why I’m glad Lloyd brought it up.

From Enduring Vision, my history book: “For a time after his surrender, Sitting Bull suffered the ignominy of appearing as an attraction in Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show” (480).

Imagine if, for punishment, Saddam Hussein was subjected to American reality TV show appearances and sitcom cameos. I’m not necessarily advocating it; I’m just imagining it.

[01/28/04 – EDIT: I agree with Lloyd’s comment and clarify my intentions in the following day’s entry.]

I read an article on Bush’s State of the Union address at Yahoo! News. (Why is this the UK Yahoo! site? Because I use the Opera browser, and the default home page is giving me UK news.) I missed it this year. Oh well. When I listened in 2002, they clapped after just about every sentence. I noticed the same thing in Schwarzenegger’s State of the State address (not much to comment on that except it was good in ideals but skimpy in concrete ideas). I never followed politics much earlier than that, so I don’t know if that was a new thing, or what.

Anyway, this stuck out: “‘American taxpayers are bearing almost all the cost — a colossal $120 billion and rising. More importantly, American troops are enduring almost all the casualties,’ [House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California] said.”

Are we really enduring almost all the casualties? I notice in the news reports that it’s not only US troops being hurt, it’s also Iraqi citizens. If the American troops were taking almost all the casualties, why do the Iraqi citizens feel unsafe? Something to ponder, I’m sure.

Propaganda to the rescue, once again! There needs to be more spin on how the terrorists target “collaborators,” also known as an average Iraqi citizen. Try to take out some of their support base.

However, that’s not the whole problem: I’ve read that many simultaneously view the US as good, but as an occupying force. One part of the solution is holding direct elections that allow the people to vote. But let me hold off any talk about elections until any are actually held, or when some interesting news pops up.

On a side note, there were two more earthquakes last night, but none as large as the second earthquake. After the fourth one, I noticed how close my tall lamp was to my bed and wondered how it could hurt me during an earthquake. I moved it.

Because of an “Internal Server Error” there was a double-post. I have to “Rebuild” to get rid of it, but then I get another error. I’ve been having some problems with MT, lately. The error message is pretty generic, so I have no idea how to fix it, as of now. [EDIT: Few minutes later — double-post is gone, but I’m still having problems with MT.]

And so, Saddam has been captured. Let the media hullabaloo begin… oh wait, it already has. What can I say that’s new? Probably nothing.

This capture symbolic, but the symbolism can only been seen in hindsight. If the US is lucky, the attacks will begin to decrease. If the attacks decrease, we’re probably looking at Bush with a second term as president. Then again, the attacks could spike, or remain the same. Actually, it doesn’t matter what happens, as long as the “correct” spin is put on it.

Hm, or even better yet, we could find some more information on any stuffs or links that might still be hidden. Vindication of the war would be a better symbol, but I doubt Saddam’s capture could bring this about. Still, preemptive war is a scary precedent.

I think “no” to international court. Tried in Iraq would look better and be more symbolic. It would have better spin for democracy. Yeah, that’s my reason better spin. Really, though, symbolism is important, and I think that a symbol of democracy and independence for the Iraqi people is better than false “cooperation” among the international community. It’s also a good symbol for a new start, by punishing the head of the old regime.

I don’t understand this from Dean: “This development provides an enormous opportunity to set a new course and take the American label off the war. We must do everything possible to bring the U.N., NATO, and other members of the international community back into this effort” [emphasis mine; quote found in Lycos news article, can’t remember link, but those expire quickly anyway…]. Uh, “back”? When were some of them in it in the first place? I don’t see any reason why Saddam’s capture should change anything with the international community’s involvement. To the victor still belong the spoils. How can anyone else really take credit for Saddam’s capture? If anything, it’s positive propaganda that the US can do and is doing it right.

In any case, I thought that piece of news was important enough to preempt axiom number two. I’ll get back to that tomorrow, unless something else happens.

This marks my 30th consecutive weblog entry. Not too shabby. I’m going to keep working on it. And now, to the topic at hand:

Perhaps the reason I had such mixed feeling about the war was that I was being duped the whole time. It’s still the pre-emptive war idea. Throughout that time, Iraq did not pose any immediate threat. I still believe that the weapons inspections would have done no good. Once they let up, Iraq would simply start up again. I’m sure they had equipment, but, again, they didn’t pose any immediate threat to the world, as the Bush administration was trying to make us believe.

Iraq is a big place, but it seems they should have been able to, by now, act on some evidence they were holding earlier. I admired Bush’s handling of Sept. 11, and I do lean towards the conservative side, but this makes me feel dumb. I feel as if I was the recipient of a nasty prank, only multiply that by a lot. Maybe they can redeem themself if they ever find something.

I should have thought about this earlier, but just what the hell is a “weapon of mass destruction.” It’s a vague term. Is there even any real formal definition?

Gulf War II seems to have produced okay results, nothing too unexpected. (If you honestly believe all those people would be immediately pacified, you need your head examined.) I just wonder how long we’ll be there. How long is too long? How long is not long enough? Everyone has a different definition. It’s impossible to please everyone.

The main problem, I think, was that the stated reason for going to war was wrong. We didn’t go in for just one reason, but that’s the way it was presented to the American public, and the world. We already knew Saddam was a murderer. Could we have stated that we were going in there for humanitarian reasons? I’m just wondering if that would have been reason enough. In my eyes, it is, but for the UN…?

Saddam is still missing. If I was in charge of propaganda, I would emphasize that this is a non-issue. “Saddam is currently a loser, that ran away at the beginning of the war. He has no power. We just don’t care if he’s alive or dead.”

The Bush administration could also redeem itself if it emphasized any links it found with Saddam and Al-Qaeda. At least, that’s what I think. I don’t think they’ll find any WMD because the definition is too vague. Maybe if they just emphasized all the illegal weapons they had.

This issue is far from over, and I’m sure there’ll be plenty more opportunity to write commentary.

So, the war has been stated to be “officially” over. I had criticized the number of troops in the region, but they still got the job done okay. The public was too impatient. However, I still stand by my statement that they should have brought more troops because it would have increased the confidence of the public.

How difficult is the rebuilding going to be? It actually doesn’t seem to be going so badly. There is a certain catch-22 the US is in. There are some who want the US out right away. Yet, if the US gets out before a government is formed, an Islamic fundamentalist government will most likely form, and others will be repressed.

I know I was in support of the war but others saying that those troops were “fighting to protect our freedom” isn’t quite true. It’s a nice piece of propaganda, but not true. Those in the US weren’t in immediate danger.

Links to al-Qaeda are being found. Somehow, this doesn’t surprise me. With those, we don’t even have to find any WMD.

Debacle. Debacle. Has the word “propaganda” been erased from the vocabulary of the American government? As I said earlier, we would have been done with this war months ago if I was in charge of propaganda. Let’s see, America does a whole bunch of psy-ops, dropping fliers telling Iraqis to surrender. That worked… somewhat. Remember that Iraqi commander who surrended his whole division? He was actually a lower ranking officer and faked it. Then, there were those who weren’t really surrendering, but I think that was to be expected. People acted like it was a big surprise. I pretty sure the military is smart enough to plan for harassing by small enemies. Yet, they didn’t put enough information out there to make it seem like it.

So, Baghdad falls the day before. They could have bombarded the media with many images of happy people, but instead only a couple get showed ad nauseam. I think I’m seeing a tilt more towards the left in the media. Has anyone considered that the media may be doing this on purpose in order to get people to downplay the images? People want happy news right now. Why isn’t it being provided? Oh yeah, then it wouldn’t really be news.

Then there’s also the news of the riots and looting being repeated. Are images of looting supposed to make the news “balanced?” Again, this probably has been prepared for, although you wouldn’t be led to believe that.

The UN wants to get in on the action after it’s over. They didn’t help at all, why should they get a say? Personally, I believe the UN sucks and is not doing a very good job at all. I have a feeling America is probably going to consent, and this is most likely because we don’t want to use all our money. With the right propaganda, we could get the Iraqis to tell the UN to buzz off. Something like, “They tried to keep the US from freeing you” with the flags of the countries next to them.

There’s also the matter of bombing Saddam’s place, and then not knowing who died there. This isn’t a novel; you’re not trying to keep the reader in suspense. People are impatient and want to know what happened. Has Saddam managed to run away, like bin Laden? I think the message that should be put out is that it doesn’t matter if Saddam is alive or dead. Baghdad is free. He abandoned all his followers.

Finally, the issue of rebuilding is really coming into play. Before, I was really worried about this, but now, I’m not worried as much. There was some “anarchy” going on, but it’s being exaggerated. The point is, it’s not being directed at American troops. The issue now is speed. If we quickly vote in a resolution by Congress to supply humanitarian aid, and get it there quickly, the American people and the world will be satisfied. Being quick will satisfy the natural short attention span of the people. All we really need is something big and symbolic, then the true building can take place, without so much scrutiny.

There were some who said that going to war with Iraq would cause people to recruited to Al-Qaeda in droves. Some of those same people are still protesting this war on Iraq. I assume if they are opposing what’s happening, they want are troops taken out of there. I wonder how many people will be recruited to Al-Qaeda if we basically lose a war with Iraq. Hm. How weak will they view us? How much confidence will it instill in them that a weak little country like Iraq can defeat us? How many people will think it’s more likely that they can hurt us now? How likely will they believe that that time would be the time for attacking, once we are in retreat, when our morale is low?

According to a news article from Reuters, Mr. Rumsfeld ignored some advice about having more ground troops. Wasn’t shock and awe intended? I’m thinking it would have been more effective if we had twice as many troops, or more. Speaking of shock and awe, whatever happened to it?

Meanwhile, al-Jazeera, the television station, wins an award concerning censorship. I’m sure showing pictures of prisoners of war given to them by Iraq definitely contributes to their “maintenance of professional integrity.” I’m sure showing a picture of a child with its head split open rather than Iraqi atrocities helps “maintain free, independent and balanced reporting.”

Hypocrisy is the ultimate form of stupidity. And yes, yet another topic I will elaborate on in a future article. Most likely, tomorrow.

Oh, update: Minesweeper Intermediate time is now 39 seconds.

I was considering not writing on Iraq at all anymore, since there were so many people writing about it. Then, I thought, there aren’t very many of me’s writing this.

I was wrong about diplomatic options — not all of them were exhausted. However, I do believe that they were completely ineffective. One reason is that the weapons inspectors weren’t getting far enough. They were making some progress, but I hardly considered it to be working. It seemed obvious that Saddam was just buying time. I wonder how many weapons will be found through war that couldn’t be found through peace…. Yet, another reason was that Bush didn’t care what the UN thought. He wanted world legitimacy, but from the start, we knew that the US could attack anyway, without the UN. And now, the UN is really showing how useful it is.

Half of me is for the war, and half of me isn’t. I want Saddam to go down. I want the Iraqi people “liberated.” However, dangerous precedents are being set by this war. In a specific sense, I support it, but when I look at the broader ramifications, it doesn’t seem like such a good idea. I already mentioned pre-emptive war. Another would be the fate of the UN. How can the UN remain relevant when it seems that any country with enough power can go to war if it wants? Then again, was the UN ever so useful in the first place? It seemed like a dog that had no teeth.

What if Saddam uses biological or chemical weapons? That could have far-reaching effects, especially on how war is waged in the future. Could we drop a nuke in retaliation, as we threatened in Gulf War I? What kind of precedent would that set?

I’m betting the war will be mostly over by the end of this month, but it’s not just about the war. We still have to rebuild afterwards. So, even if the war is short-lived, the effects of it will still carry on. Especially in the economic area. We’ll be paying for it years later. The occupying forces will become targets for terrorists. I’m really worried that we won’t be able to rebuild at all. The American public has a short attention span (something I’ll bring up time and time again) and support could be cut off short, leaving it up to warring factions to decide who rules and how. *shudder*

How sickening the news is… the same repeated headlines repeatedly repeated, on every single station. Oh, but don’t forget the special headline with the special music to accompany it. Sometimes I get the feeling that it’s all been planned out from the beginning. The first strikes were to boost ratings for Bush’s speech. Saddam’s speech so many could debate on whether he was really dead or not. The scuds that actually turned out to be frogs — that’s to stimulate debate between conservatives and liberals. I’m glad for the news blackout, though. Intelligence needs to be protected. We don’t want Saddam and his cronies to learn of our troop movements from CNN, like they did last time.

I’m not going to talk about Iraq again until something drastic happens, or an interesting conversation occurs between another person and me. I’ve got other interesting topics lined up, and I don’t won’t Iraq to hog up all my talking space.