I find it amazing how many on all sides of the current conflict seem to have already acquiesced to the inevitability of this new war in the Middle East. Four more wars, indeed, and the Gasman marches on.
On Friday, Our Glorious Leader took time out from a busy day of G8 summit prep-work to denounce Iran and Syria. His loyal cheerleader, Tony Snow (late of Fox News) told us from the comfort of President Bush’s crotch that “Iran and Syria also have a choice to make which is whether they continue provoking and supporting terrorist organizations within the region,” He then pleaded with journalists to ignore the striking similarities between this statement and similar ones made by his predecessors in their lead ups to the wars for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Seems we have another escalating war on our hands. And wouldn’t you know it, just in time for the mid-term elections. Wow.
Meanwhile, half a world away, the crazed leaders of Hezbolla are fleeing through the neighborhoods south of Beruit’s airport, the kind of horrific ex-urb that would probably face low flying, big engine planes on any given day of the week. Okay, so this week maybe the planes are dropping “precision guided missiles.” (Which, by the way, is about as big an oxymoron as “military intelligence” or “the U.S. Department of Justice.”)
This band of scuttling cockroaches is supposed to be a ruthless terrorist organization bent on the annihilation of the Jewish people? This band of ignorant, small-minded fools who saw a troop withdraw from southern Lebanon as a sign of weakness? I’m supposed to accept
them as the villains of this piece, and through them the remaining two Mid-East detachments of the Axis of Evil.
The Usual Gang of propaganda papers have already kicked their tires and stoked their fires. Can you hear the drums? Michael Laden, of
the National Review.
It is very good news that the White House immediately denounced Iran and Syria, just as Ambassador Khalilzad had yesterday tagged the terrorist Siamese twins as sponsors of terrorism in Iraq.
William Kristol of the
Weakly Standard:
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.
All of which ignores the overwhelming military assault Israel is displaying, with little or no regard for any of the spirituous evidence connecting the Hezbollah to Beirut to Iran. Or Syria. Most domestic news sources have focused on the
financial implications of the story: its effect on futures markets, consumer spending and the driving force of our empire, the price of oil. Occasionally a human interest story will emerge through the chatter, but they are few and far between. Certainly there are no images of this, or any armed conflict’s final costs. Images of burning buildings, shot from neighboring hills, are acceptable, but it must be the same one, played over and over again, like those shots of the Towers collapsing.
According to
Arthur Silber, it doesn’t matter whether Iran was responsible for anything or not. The connection is immaterial, as our Executive Branch has already decided to start a war.
I see that some people are questioning whether these recent attacks "were green-lighted by Iran." This is, still one more time, arguing about intelligence, and about whether it's right. Once again: intelligence is irrelevant to major policy decisions. If you're arguing about whether the intelligence is right -- in this instance, about whether Iran is behind these attacks -- you're playing right into the Bush administration's hands. Why won't people see this?
Let's say we knew for a fact that Iran is behind the attacks. Does that mean we should start the bombing tonight? No, it does not, unless you want to start World War III in earnest, and possibly bring on a nuclear Armageddon.
[Snip]
With regard to Iran, we have a card of profound significance to play; thus far, the Bush administration resolutely refuses to play it, or even consider it. We could grant full diplomatic recognition to Iran, and begin very broad negotiations immediately: on Iran's willingness to stop supporting terrorist groups and instead aid in anti-terrorism efforts; on Iran's relations with Israel; on Iran's desire to pursue nuclear power; and on many other subjects. Iran has made a number of overtures over the last several years that emphasize that this is precisely what Iran itself wants, but we refuse to engage that country except in the most strictly delimited ways, and even then, only with great reluctance -- and in a manner that makes meaningful discussion impossible.
Mr. Silber is one hell of a writer and a new personal inspiration, if that means anything. His blog is a testament to someone with a cast-iron stomach for the depravity of the human animal. His argument is, basically, our Glorious Leader’s gang follows a set pattern. They pick a target and message reality to fit their preconceived justifications for aggressive war. They are thus pre-meditated war criminals, and subject to all applicable laws.
Is anyone, anywhere, suggesting we go all Nuremberg on Bush (II) and the resurrected Tricky Dick (II)? Is anyone suggesting the United States use its diplomatic weight to force a ceasefire on the parties? Is anyone, anywhere, asking either of the opposing sides, “Are you people fucking crazy? You do know you’re killing each other…right?”
No.
The powers that Be have apparently acquiesced to this war, allowing it to continue for whatever reasons they see fit.
What honestly scares me is how quickly the public at large seems to have acquiesced as well. A coworker turned to me, also on Friday. I’ll call him Wellford, because he resembles the Quaker Oats man and former rodeo clown in more ways than I’m sure
he’d care to acknowledge. “Doesn’t it seem to you like a world war situation?” he asked me. It was eight o’clock in the morning and I was still asleep with my eyes open.
“You assume the first one ever ended,” I told him.
He blew air through his nostrils in acknowledgement. Yet his remark (more of a casual comment, really) kicked something over in my head. The historian Howard Zinn once cribbed this observation from an (unnamed) female student: “War is like cyanide, one drop and you’re dead.” I’m beginning to think war is a lot closer to the waters of Lethe. One drink and you forget your basic human morality. War (particularly distant war against small, brown people) becomes numbing, debased, even common. It increases the amplitude of its own inevitability. So much so that my coworker can blithely, and brazenly ask if I agree with his assessment that “it seem[s] like a world war three situation” to him.
I’d say God help us, but the two oldest gods of the Middle East are apparently helping themselves to double handfuls of their faithful followers. Well, okay, maybe not
double handfuls on the Israeli side just yet, but you wait until those ground troops land. Oh, yes, ma’am, just you wait.
Occasionally, I contemplate my own solution to the Middle East Crisis. I came up with it years ago. Around the time of President Bill’s Camp David meetings, in fact. It’s a monstrous,
Watchman-style plan, only without Ozymandis’ eclectic taste for mass murder and bastard children of science and technology.
I would give all the god’s children at least six months to relocate, with U.N. aid workers huffing around the clock to get
everyone the bloody hell out. Then, well…can I say this without getting arrested? Or getting blackballed by Homeland Security? How many times must I emphasis that I wish no loss of life to any living human being. I deplore violence, especially the organized violence that is war, and seek only a redress of Middle Eastern greviences with the least possible amount of bloodshed and suffering.
To that end, I wonder if it would just be best to irradiate the entire strip of land? Relocate its people wherever they could go (or leave those who chose to stay…but only with the full knowledge of what they were staying for) and shower the place until it glows in the dark for the next five million years. Then if Elohim and Allah still want to fight their dirty little proxy war they’ll have to do it without humans as we know them today.
Besides, Dr. Manhattan was right. Nothing ever ends…an aphorism that is certainly true of the Middle East…even toxically radioactive elements eventually decay.
Of course this is no
real solution. If I, or anyone, were to ever accomplish such a thing it would no doubt only inflame tensions on all sides. It would be
Superman IV: The Quest for Peace all over again, except in the really real world, where the really real leaders of the military-industrial-infotainment complex have quite the hard-on for smiting those who oppose the status quo. Much like the gods they worship, now that I think about it.
I’d rather not, but I find war distracting in the worst of all possible ways. Look at it here, and look at me, look at all of us wallowing in our own supposed futility. Where are the protests? Where are the riots? Summer’s here and the time is
right for fighting in the street.
But I know. It’s hot outside, and too damn hard to fight for peace and justice. Why bother? Why care? Why do anything but sit, idle, like the fat lumps we all know we are and stare into our machines?
Why indeed, when its so much easier to just roll over, throw our legs into the air, and believe it's already been decided for us. After all, it probably has.
Tagnation:
Current Events:
Israel:
Lebanon:
Iran:
Syria:
War in the Middle East:
George W. Bush:
Watchmen World War III:
The Apocalypse
