Anyway, I agree with everything he says. He's right on. However, he doesn't add much to the discussion, dwelling on defensive negativity and not providing any new ideas.
I replied to my friend about this e-mail that says just as much, but I can't find it. (ed note: Found it! Scroll down) She hasn't responded yet. Maybe I was harsh? I don't know...but when I find my email, I'll post it,
Well, without further ado, here's Mark Mumford's Latest Perspective. Give a big hand for Mark Mumford!
Ah, the violent march of democracy.
Beautiful thing, really, seeing repressed and weary
Iraqis vote for the first time, and dance in the
bloody bombed-out streets, and avoid the suicide
bombers and of course not be able to travel between
provinces or drive anywhere in their locked-down
nation and by the way watch out for the snipers on the
roofs.
It really is amazing, watching the deeply flawed
system of democracy take hold in a raw and decimated
nation like a thorny weed cracking through shattered
concrete. All people deserve to be free and now Iraqis
have a tiny bloody taste of it and this is always,
always a good thing. I am not kidding.
So, should we be proud? Is Bush's thuggish and illegal
pre-emptive attack strategy justified? Are Iraq's
first-ever elections a defining moment in American
political history? Are we all righteous and good and
holy, despite all the dead bodies and the hatred?
Well, sort of. But then again, not really. Should Bush
get some credit for all the cheering Iraqis who are
now breathing sort of free? Well, no. Not even close.
While it's always heartwarming to see a brutalized and
disheartened people flex their newfound freedom for
the first time, the costs of this teetering, fragile,
force-fed, implode-at-any-moment democracy are
nauseating and appalling. You already know the
numbers: $300 billion, over 1,400 dead U.S. soldiers
and over 10,000 permanently wounded and countless
thousands of dead innocent Iraqi civilians -- and
many, many more to come.
And let us not forget the biggest disclaimer of all:
Not a single one of BushCo's alleged reasons for
dragging our fractured and bankrupt nation into one of
the most brutal wars since Vietnam has actually proved
valid or justifiable. The disgusting array of
WMD/nuclear/biotoxin lies and deceptions are not
suddenly erased because we set up some polling places.
How quickly we forget: A democratic Iraq was never the
reason Bush forced us into this war. Iraq's fledgling
democracy is a pleasant side effect, a bonus PR move,
a heartstring-tugging and patriotic patina of bogus
humanitarianism BushCo is now trying to slather over
one of the most disastrous and inept military efforts
in recent history. It makes for terrific photo ops. It
makes for miserable and debilitating foreign policy.
Look. Democracy is good. Treasonous BushCo dishonesty
and misprision and an outright ignorance regarding
exit strategies and the true costs of war are not.
Republicans and Bush apologists are quick to ignore,
in this momentary orgy of political spin and PR, how
not a single one of the problems Iraq faced before the
elections has been solved. The brutal insurgent
violence is only increasing. U.S. soldiers are dying
in record numbers. Iraq is a violent mess. And Bush
just asked for $80 billion more from the broke U.S.
economy to fund the occupation, with no end in sight.
Let's just say it outright: The ends do not justify
the means. A barely democratic Iraq is fine and good,
but you well know that if Bush had mumbled to the
nation three years and $300 billion ago that we were
going to start bombing this piss-poor country back to
the Stone Age and gut the U.S. economy and put
thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands
of innocent Iraqis in death's way to deliver it, all
while sending the nastiest possible message to the
world and actually increasing the threat of terrorism
while turning our backs on every major U.S. ally, I
doubt many Americans would have giddily waved the flag
of support (except maybe Ann Coulter, who apparently
loves anything involving guns and dead foreigners).
Let's put it another way: Here is your choice,
America: $300 billion and massive international
disrespect and a huge pile of dead American soldiers
in an effort to force a fragile democracy onto a torn
and fractured Iraq by ousting their useless dictator
who was, let us repeat, no threat to us, or to anyone,
and who was, in fact, our ally, until he dared to
threaten our oil.
Or: $300 billion to assist struggling nations and
battle AIDS and protect the planet, to evolve our
international relationships and set up treaties and
unifying alliances and maybe even have a little left
over to help fix our own schools, maybe help all those
destitute American city upgrade their hospitals and
fix their homeless problems and even maybe launch a
national health-care plan, spend that money on trying
to solve a huge host of social ills plaguing this
crumbling beautiful egomaniacal empire we call home.
Which do you choose? What cost democracy? Where do you
draw your lines?
Bush does not get credit for Iraq's fleeting glimpse
of democracy for the exact same reason you don't give
the tsunami credit for cleansing the streets of
Indonesia. His motives were never, repeat never, to
bring democracy to Iraq. His motives were to oust a
pip-squeak dictator who threatened our access to 10
percent of the world's oil. It was about power, and
regional control, and ego, and petroleum. Period.
Does this matter anymore? Iraq gets a glimmer of
democratic hope and all lies and broken international
laws and oily policy shifts are forgiven? Hardly.
Because if this is our new agenda, if we are suddenly
the Hammer of Democracy that slams our political
system onto every country we feel deserves it and damn
the fiscal, emotional, spiritual and human costs,
well, let's get to it, already.
Let's right now start preparing for U.S. forces to
march into that pesky repressive China. Let us look
forward to BushCo declaring war on Iran, and then
North Korea, and then huge parts of nondemocratic
Africa. Any day now, yes? How about Egypt? And
Pakistan? And Jordan? Dictatorships and monarchies and
repressive, antidemocratic oligarchies, all. Man,
we'll be at war until 2045! Whee!
What about poor, beautiful Nepal, where the king just
shut down the government and closed all the airports
and severed communication with the rest of the world,
and over 10,000 people have died in rebel fighting and
the military is patrolling the streets and citizens
are terrified and repressed and democracy is dying on
the vine? Shouldn't we be marching in there next week,
Georgie? Saddle up, cowpokes!
Oh wait. Won't happen. Reason: Not convenient. Not
strategically lucrative. No oil reserves. No real
power gain, except for maybe Iran, which is why BushCo
is already busy working with Israel to map out bombing
strategies.
In fact, to prove we don't really give a crap for the
lovely "march of democracy" Republicans so love to
gloat over, let's note right here how the U.S.
regularly gives billions in aid to those very same
repressive, dictator-friendly burgs of Egypt and
Jordan and Pakistan. Ah, flagrant hypocrisy, thy name
is Bush.
Look. Does America have a responsibility to the world
to promote peace and democratic ideals in the world
whenever possible? Hell yes. Does the world's richest
and most gluttonous superpower have an obligation to
intervene when absolutely necessary and help repressed
peoples taste freedom and emerge from the shadow of
evil dictators? You're damn right.
But not this way. Not at this cost. Not via a
staggering and soul-mauling string of lies and abuse
of power and a brutish foreign policies that only
alienate and aggravate and inflame. Not through
torture tactics and economic plundering and fear
stratagems designed to keep the exhausted American
populace from asking too many questions about this
administration's real motives.
And not by way of a thuggish pre-emptive attack-first
policy that goes against everything America has stood
for (i.e., defense, containment, peace) for the past
100 years.
Meanwhile, in related news, an international team of
scientists and researchers announced that the world
has roughly 10 years before the effects of global
warming become permanent and irreversible. Before the
Gulf Stream is permanently weakened and massive ice
shelves melt and the world is plunged more deeply in
danger than we could ever imagine.
You really want to protect democracy, Dubya? Ensure
its survival? You really want to have a lasting
legacy, one not tainted with blood and war and
humiliating claims of "mission accomplished?" Here's a
tiny reminder: that $80 bil you just asked for to kill
more Iraqis is 17 times higher than the EPA's entire
budget. Maybe, just maybe, something is just a little
off in our nation's priorities? Just, you know, a
thought. Go democracy!
-------
Here's the email I sent to my friend regarding this essay. I don't think I was being unduly harsh or anything, but for reasons unbeknowst to me, I haven't gotten a reply. Not yet, anyway.
Who is this guy? You know, I believe in everything he says, right? I've proven my liberal credentials to you. I'm sure I sounded a lot like him before the election, too. However, I think that the election proved that pointing out others' stupidity, ignorance, idiocy, etc., just doesn't get the votes. Sure, everything he says is logical, but it's completely devoid of new ideas, focusing entirely on what's wrong (there's, plenty, I know) and feeding negativity and hopelessness.
I am sick of it. I don't want to be hopeless anymore.
I still believe I can effect change by acting locally and thinking globally. You did it by sending out those petitions. I signed every one of those you sent, and I became a member of those petition sites, too. I think that finally the naive idealism of my youth is growing through the wall of cynicism I've put up. No matter the state of affairs, I think the world can be better, but only through positive, proactive ideas and not negative, reactive thought. I think I'm going to stop seeing the world for what it is, but rather for what it can be, and then work to make it so.
I'm sorry to bombard you with this on a monday morning. This is probably more of a reaction than you expected when you sent that story out. Don't hate me!
No comments:
Post a Comment