Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 609 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Condi's Last Chance
[Read the article: Condi's Iraq surprise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is she an "equal opportunity" sycophant--or a leader with a vision of her own?
So far, I think the tally is against her. The poor woman flies around the world as an "old boy" in drag. I'd probably like her as a teacher even if we fought like hell. There is nobody more respectable than somebody who wants to be respected. She can't be without ideas of her own to have gotten as far as she has--it's just that she hasn't shown any of them for a long, long time.
This is her chance. Time is running out. No doubt, she has her mind on the last chapters of her memoir and wants to give it a better end than the middle. It's not as if she is surrounded by the talent that can keep her in the background intellectually. There is even the possibility of leaving something behind that could mitigate the terrible damage that has been done so far.
It makes no sense to castigate her for the past. One has hope, given her story, that underneath the professional facade is a person who wants a better world. Like Colin Powell before for, she represents the best of the American dream--and how it can be co-opted and go awry.
-
Thinking Caps
[Read the article: Iraq's white-collar crime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I watched the hearings, and the question remains: WHAT COULD ANY MORE AMERICAN FORCES DO IN THIS SITUATION? A nation bent on suicide is like an individual: very hard to stop.
If the Generals actually had a strategy, they would say so--even if they didn't reveal the strategy itself. Since I'm not sure we really know what American troops are doing in Iraq in the first place, it's hard to come up with a plan. And then there is the very real issue of WHETHER THERE IS ANY WAY THEIR EFFORTS CAN BE EFFECTIVE AGAINST WHAT IS GOING ON.
It has an incredible Viet Nam feel at this point, but worse, since the enmity is sectarian in nature, not simply political. The militarists are basically out of options, but as usual will never admit it. They want us to believe there is basically no problem more bombs and bomb throwers won't solve. Their dominance depends on the American people not thinking in other terms, and they've been very successfull at it since the beginning of the nation.
Will the Dems begin to look at other "non-military" solutions? Can they initiate dialogue with Iran, and the rest of the Moslem world with a real view towards peace? Will the Baker report be a bandaid, or a new approach?
It is hard to say what will happen next with folks like Charles Rangle calling for a resumption of the draft. It doesn't suggest the Dems have put on their "thinking caps," as Clinton has suggested.
-
A War of Illusion
[Read the article: Iraq: War of imagination]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is another, deeper question that can be asked, which takes into account the "religious and sectarian" nature of this war--which make it so unlike any other for a long time.
As a fundamentalist himself, and a naive one at that, is it really that much of a surprise Bush would assume the necessity of "evangelising for democracy?" He believes that spreading the faith is a way to show ones belief in the faith. Perhaps even, that is the meaning of the faith--that we are all supposed to believe the same thing, and that is how peace will be achieved.
Sounds crazy? What do you think the Sunnis and Shias believe? What do you think drives them to such horrific attrocites in the defense of their version of faith? Why can't these guys leave each other alone? Why does it make any difference to them what anybody else believes if it wasn't for this maniacal need to propagate their creed?
If this war does have a genesis other that pure unadulterated K Street greed it is this odd 21st century convergence of politics with religion. The irony is that Bush and his "team" ignored the sectarianism of Iraq--or the Middle East as a whole. It barely enters into their calculations--though as evident as the nose on their own faces. And when it does enter in, as in the case of Israel, it makes no sense.
It isn't a war of imagination. It is a war of illusion where the blind are leading the blind. Or, to be more precise, where those who a citizen might expect have reason and perspective are the most paranoid because of their own unexamined prejudices.
Where Bush is "outed" the most in this regard is the unavoidable comparison with Clinton. He did not suffer from this myopia, and look at the difference. By this time in his presidency he was largely seen internationally as the harbinger of peace. The people who hated him and wanted him out were the zealots who wanted their parochial version of morality to be in control. And that is what they got with Bush, and now we can see where it leads.
Clinton's war was a war to stop sectarian genocide--not enable it. He was constantly trying to bring pressure to bear on Israel and the Palestinians, though he had very little to work with, he still almost succeeded. Bush has condoned Israel's genocide, and put us on the wrong side in the battle against oppression. You think such opposed policies and actions don't have root in the perspective of the nation's leaders?
If America is the propagator for something called "democracy," as a result of this war, it looks far better to model this form of government than to export it from the barrel of a gun. This is a lesson that Europe seems to have taken to heart after its colonial period--if I dare be so bold as to suggest the United States has a lot to learn--and if we aren't going to keep repeating the same mistakes.