2003-04-08
I haven't opined publically about the war, beforehand or since it started. I haven't thought it
tastefull. It won't "make a difference" and to most people I might as well just sum up by
saying: "Everything you know is wrong." At least if you pay too much attention to the media.
We seem to be approaching a "stopping place" now though. Here is all I can think of....
The Dictator Inside
Day 17 or so of the war with Iraq (I haven't been counting but someone on the radio just said 17
and so it must be about that) nor have I watched TV at all. Sampled radio and newspaper
coverage, and of course, the Internet.
US troops have ventured into Baghdad on a fairly permanent basis now, as well as taken over the
airport, changing its name from Saddam International to Baghdad International. Both facts being
strongly denied by Iraqi officials.
We don't know for sure if Saddam is in perfect health, has his ears bleeding, his legs broken or
has been vaporized (all of which has been reported at this point).
Some reporter asks an Iraqi why ordinary Iraqi people are so timid about speaking out when it is
clear that Saddam no longer has any power over them.
A very good question I think. Predictions of cheering crowds in the streets to welcome our
soldiers failed to come true. But another failed prediction was that ordinary citizens would
rise up against Allied forces in some way. A few car bombs, no more than the Israelis deal with
on a regular basis really and then most of the resistance stopped. Had we killed every citizen
of Iraq? Hardly, civilian casualties by almost every account have been extremely low.
So what IS going on in the minds of the ordinary Iraqi citizen, and why is he or she
being so reserved. The answer as given by the Iraqi (an ex-patriot) being interviewed: "the
dictator inside". People who have known no other life than obeying in absolute fear at some
point, in self preservation, internalize the loyalty. Fear cannot be maintained indefinitely.
You either conquer the thing that you fear or the fear eventually turns into something else.
Long lasting fears are covered with more pleasant rationales and hung on our mental walls as
decorative items. We know this from people who have been long term POWs, we know this from
people who have been hostages, Orwell knew it when he wrote 1984. I think "the dictator inside"
is the correct explanation. Gradually the Iraqis are becoming supporters (or as gradually as
can be imagined in the span of 17 days).
Today's big news is that Saddam, his sons, and several top members of his government have been
killed while in a restaurant, possibly planning their eventual escape from Bagdad. Optimistic
news from the Allied point of view. More importantly, I thought, such great credence is being
placed on this report due to the large number of civilian informants that participated in the
tip-off regarding his whereabouts. Could it be that they don't hate us so much after all?
How Wrong Can They Be?
At the outbreak of the war countless reporters laced their reportage with self contradicting
predictions of a gloomy outcome: There would certainly be heavy civilian casualties...
Bob Simon, of CBS news reports that US actions muster sympathetic support for Saddam.
"There's no way Saddam would want to risk that sympathetic support by killing our POWs."
Two days later most of the known POWs are discovered dead, having been shot through the head
execution style.
Peter Arnet became the news when he not only reported early war results in an
unrealistically negative manner, but also elaborated on that reporting for the benefit of Iraqi
TV. Later, in fear of losing his MSNBC job he apologized. After being fired anyway and getting
a new job elsewhere he retracted his apology. So much for the courage of one's convictions.
His "reporting" included an assessment that the Allied war plan had failed miserably and was being
re-cast. For a few days the term "quagmire" was the most popular word on TV.
One week into the war the media begins asking "when will it all end?". Through a glass darkly
comparisons are made to Vietnam for which there were very few early protests and in fact no
major protests until after it was clear that the war was being conducted poorly.
Polls in the US show increasing support for the war, but other than the announcement of
those mathematical facts, you'd never know that we weren't bogged down in another Vietnam:
"When will it be over?", "Are we defeating the enemy TOO fast?, we will be thought to be a
bully.", "What if he uses WMDs?", "What if he doesn't have WMDs?", "Won't we alientate the
other Arab countries?", "Won't we alienate the French?", "Shouldn't we let the UN be more
involved?"
To slant news coverage you don't have to express an opinion outright, you have only to select
what you cover. Similarly reporting bias can be indicated by what questions are asked,
and how they are cast. I don't think the average reporter realizes how transparent they are
when they ask such questions, particularly the ones who ask only such questions. If they
did of course they would compensate so that their claims of objectivity would ring true.
"Objective journalism" is a relatively modern concept. Newpapers of the past had a point of
view, and they were proud of it. You got the news by reading more than one of them. Then you
formed your opinion. Modern journalism would have us believe that we need only check with one
newspaper or one cable network (theirs of course) and we have all we need to know. This
is such a nonsensical concept. There are far more people who read NO newpaper than read only
one, and of those that read one I'd bet that most get alternate point of view from the other
"objective" publications. Nothing has really changed since the 1800's except the pretense of
objectivity, which is a pure fiction, and ironically, an unnecessary one.
When its over, I hope there are a number of good tally sheets regarding which journalist asked what
leading questions, and which editorial page made each incorrect prediction. It might better
inform our source selection in the future. I have no problem with reading biased publications.
I prefer that they announce their bias rather than trying to conceal it. The detective work, of
figuring out what direction the bias goes is not difficult, but the concealment makes me
skeptical of the "facts" presented even more than I would otherwise be.
Whats it All About? Alfie?
During the lead-up to the war and even now there has been the relentless drumbeat: "It's all
about oil.", "It's revenge for threats against George Bush Sr.", "It's just the first of many
wars we will wage to achieve world domination.". "This is George Bush's war, and he is just
plain stupid."
Humans hate the unknown. We also don't like complex answers to things. A game of chess is so
complex that the biggest fastest computers still are programmed to play by mimicing imprecise
human thought processes rather than by considering every possible outcome of a move. And yet in
global politics, we demand, and expect to get, a single sentence that sums up the whole
situation. If you are against the war, or simply against George Bush any of the above
explanations allow you to dismiss the war as a horrible idea rather quickly. To avoid a
prolonged debate: Question the other sides motives, predict bad results as though they are
already facts, and when all else fails, call the other side names.
"It's all about oil". Would that it were so. The price of crude oil has already dropped
roughly in half since the war began. Why? Because it had risen in anticipation of scarcity
once the Iraqis set all their wells on fire. That didn't happen, hence the sudden downward
adjustment. In fact you could cut Iraqi oil off all together or turn it up full blast and you
would only marginally affect crude oil prices. Like stock market prices, oil prices work
more on day to day emotional swings for short periods of time. How would the clever George
Bush investor leverage this oil situation? Which oil companies stand to gain post-war? All of
them? Any of them? Would they gain more if oil prices shot up? Or if they got much lower? If
you characterize the Bush's as "oil men from Texas", it would seem to me that the best possible
outcome would be to shut down all but Texas oil production. I don't see anything like that
going on here. In many ways the country would be better off if it did. I'd love to see more
oil produced in the United States. Yet many of the same people that are against the war would
find that idea objectionable. To them, it is environmentally unsound to get oil from Alaska,
but the fact that much of our oil comes from Canada and not Iraq seems to go unnoticed.
"It's all about revenge for threats against George Bush Sr." The president (Bush, not Husein...
ever notice how many reporters refer to them as President Husein, and Mr. Bush? No, I'm talking
abut American reporters not Arabic or even French ones.) made the unfortunate reference
to this threat ONCE and has been beaten over the head with it ever since. The charge predates
his reference to it in my recollection however. I've heard individuals state that "it would have
been better if we had marched all the way to Bagdad the first time." But I've never heard any
high ranking government official (of either party) make such a claim. George Bush Sr. who leads
a rather comfortable retirement from all appearances has never come across as anything but
blase about the issue.
"It's just the first of many wars we will wage to achieve world domination." Hard to argue the
future. Nothing in American history supports this. Somehow the American character must have
changed practically overnight for this to be true. Is it still all about hanging chads after
all? Not only does this argument not ring true. It's mathematically impossible. Just how
would we go about dominating the world? Let's see, (1) draft everybody, (2) assign each person
to guard 3 people over in China. I'm not sure what we would do after that. But the people who
make this claim must have a plan in mind... maybe we should draft them first and get them to
disclose it. Once we've dominated about a third of the world I'm sure I'll be out there laying
the in the street blocking traffic too. I can hardly wait.
"This is George Bush's war, and he is just plain stupid." Well thats Cher's opinion anyway.
Pick 10 people from Hollywood and all 10 of them will share that opinion too. Oh, don't pick
James Woods, I've heard he is Hollywood's token conservative. What a nut case!! Little known
fact: George Bush's academic record runs circles around Al Gore's. Al dropped classes, skipped
classes, changed majors (to religion of all things) and barely got through. But he's a genius,
George Bush is an idiot. Al invented the internet though his President, Bill Clinton, never
got much use out of it. He couldn't type and got so frustrated doing the constant hunt and
peck that he always dictated speeches and other documents that he "wrote". Apparently the
dictionary everyone is using to evaluate people in Washington was authored by Cher, who dropped
out of high school, grade 9. Many Hollywood people never finished high school. Almost none of
them finished college or even attended. To be an actor, you need to learn to read. Fifth
grade, or 6th tops, and you are "good to go". Everything else is just on the job training.
Much of the American public however seems to confuse playing a President on TV with
being President. Acting can be defined as convincing an audience that you are someting
that you are not. Many Americans seem to be convinced that Hollywood is full of superbly
intelligent people. Proof, I guess, that they are doing their jobs well.
Oh I forgot one... Listen to the right late night radio stations and you'll also hear: "The
aliens who live in Area 51 are really behind all of this." I can't think of a single thing to
refute this theory. So I guess it must be true. It, at least, is not loaded with political
undercurrents.
The Politician Inside
When is the appropriate time to protest a war? I can think of only one situation where the
answer would be: "at any time", and that is in the event that you are a total pacifist, and by
that I mean someone whose core belief incudes the notion that good people should not fight evil
in any way. There are some folks that fall into this category. The Amish people I believe, and
some Quakers. I can't imagine that any of these groups have been laying out in the middle of
intersections, throwing rocks at cops or for that matter posting anti-war messages on the
Internet.
Then there are people who believe that "anything goes" if it is not on US soil. Pat Buchanan is
a noted conservative who pretty much thinks we should wait for the enemy to land on US soil
before we do anything. He is at least consistent about it. He thinks we should stop trading
with the rest of the world too. Kick out any foreigner that hasn't already been naturalized.
He also believes in a strong military. When the foreigners do approach our shores, we can nuke
them.
While I don't agree with Pat Buchanan on many things, at least I know where he stands. With the
left I'm never sure. They do an excellent job of describing what they are against ("That
idiot George Bush") they do a miserable job of describing what they are for. It often has
something to do with health care or education, but the left has just as much if not more trouble
laying out a plan for those things as the conservatives do. The Governor of California, a
liberal and a Democrat, narrowly re-elected after ruining the state economy with bad oil deals
now has to lay off 25,000 teachers. Don't forget he also arranged to purchase a copy of Oracle
for every state employee (when in fact about a thousand copies would have probably been sufficient).
Education represents close to HALF of the states budget. Somehow this mismanagement will get
blamed on the war with Iraq though.
We are in a recession, maybe comming out of it. The tech sector will continue to suffer though.
The dot-com boom-bust has less to do with the economy as a whole than it has to do with a tilted
playing field during the 90's. Sorry, but it was the Clinton administration that beat around
the bush while Intel and Microsoft defined our computing paradigm in their own favor. In
technology, or at least parts of it we are re-living the turmoil that visited the American Auto
industry. It is self inflicted, and both political parties get to share the blame. It is now too late for
a government assisted correction anyway. Wintel has blown both its legs off. They will suffer,
America will suffer, the rest of the economy will grow, but slowly and without a technological
lead. Be sure and update your virus scanner daily by the way.
This of course affects every state budget. The really interesting things in our lives, roads,
education, unemployment insurance are all run at the state level. The US congress gets to play
Santa Clause and order the States to fund all these gifts somehow. The federal government
DOES
have a huge amount of money to waste on its own however. People look at the federal budget and
say "just look how much of it is wasted on the military". There is truth to that of course.
Except look at the rest of the pie: Commerce, Energy, HHS, FTC... its a big long list,
including, whats this? Education. Keep in mind that this department does almost nothing to pay for educating your
kids. It will never be eliminated though, because so many people think it does.
I divide the American voting public into thirds. About a third are so dedicated to left wing
ideology that they will always vote for Democrats, or something they perceive to be to the left
of Democrats. An equal number will alaways vote Republican, or for something to the right of
them. The rest of us are "in play". And based on recent elections the rest of us are split
right down the middle.
While the war rages in Iraq, another war is being waged here at home for the hearts and minds of
that middle third. Like "the dictator inside" that attempts to give us the illusion that we are
in control of our own destiny when in reality we might not be, "the politician inside" convinces
us that the answers are simple, and that one side or the other has them all. The dictator
inside is born out of fear and the human need to deal with it. The dictator inside is a
forgivable human coping mechanism. The politician inside is not so forgivable in my opinion.
It is born more out of laziness, the need to pick a position and stick with it. Like the new
car buyer who can't bring himself to the realization that he may have purchased a lemon, as
voters we have trouble thinking that the people we vote for are wrong, even after history
proves it to be the case. More importantly, for complex issues, for which history hasn't yet
selected the right choices from the wrong ones, we are compelled to view that history from only
one spot in time so as to cast the best light on those we sided with.
All to satisfy the politician inside.
