The Chronic Curmudgeon

« Random events from the past | Main | There was another unfortunate incident »

December 14, 2003

So they got Saddam Hussein.

So they got Saddam Hussein. I just woke up this morning from a flu-induced coma, logged on, and saw the news. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what I think - there are a lot of diffrent emotions that surface.

First and foremost, I am proud of our guys who got him. Acting on good intelligence, they apparently found him in what's being called a "spider hole" with ventilation shafts; they invetsigated, went in, and captured him without firing a shot. Can you imagine what it must have felt like for the first guy to go into that bunker? Not knowing what he'd find... Hussein might or might not be in there; he could have a gun (or several); the whole thing could be booby trapped and lined with explosives; what if the whole lair with infested with some biological agent; what if the whole thing was rigged to cave in at the touch ofa button or pull of a lever?

That individual soldier, whoever it was, was about to come face to face with the man who has influenced world events more than any other over the last fifteen years (how many world leaders in history can say that they got America to fight TWO wars against him?)... the man who, rightly in many cases and yet falsely in some, has been painted by George Bush and others as the greatest monster since Adolf Hitler. I simply cannot imagine the adrenaln, the combination of determination and fear that must have coarsed through that guy's veins as he went into the spider hole. I'm proud of all our soldiers and hold special respect for the team that went on this mission... but I hold special admiration for the first guy (or woman) in the hole. Man, that took some stones. Way to carry out your mission, guys.

My second thought, though it will drive my conservative friends nuts, is: Why can't we capture the guy who actually DID something to the United States? Did Saddam Hussein finance, train, and direct a small cadre of evil men to hijack airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center, the White House, and the Capitol? (Forget that the coward at the control of Flight 77 couldn't see the White House and so flew into the Pentagon instead, and that the heroic passengers on Flight 93 prevented the cowards on their plane from ever even getting to Washington; we pretty much know that the Capitol and 1600 Pennsylvania were the targets.) Did Saddam Hussein point two cowards in a raft full of explosives at the USS Cole while it sat in port in Yemen? Did Saddam Hussein organize and carry out the bombings of the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam?

No. He didn't. That was Osama bin Laden. But when the search for bin Laden proved to be more challenging than he'd hoped, George Bush turned to another bogeyman, one who his family has had personal beef with, and one who was keeping all his oil friends from making more money. And it still disgusts me. Al Qaeda directly attacked the United States on American soil; they killed more than 3,000 innocent civilians and military personnel, whose only "crime" was going to work that day. Al Qaeda are the enemy of America and all civilized peoples, and we should be throwing everything we have at them until bin Laden's head is impaled on a stick and his body dragged through the streets of New York. Every one of the Taliban and al Qaeda deserves every bit of misery and pain we can throw at them; Geneva Convention be damned (the Geneva Convention applies to conventional wars where the soldiers do the fighting and civilians are left out of it; if these guys want to change the rules, then so should we). And yet the United States went into Iraq instead, conjuring up fake evidence to support the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Saddam was a schoolboy. He gassed his own people; he ruled through torture and murder; he was a reckless and dangerous leader whose presence destablized the entire Middle East. (Note that I'm not calling him a madman; he was perfectly sane, because his every move and action was designed to accumulate, consolidate, and maintain power & control. Someone insane would not have been so measured.)

But all that said, it all remains a problem for someone else. Let's look at the list of people directly affected by Saddam's existence and rule. 1) The Iraqi people. Fine, they have legitimate beef. Let THEM go after him. 2) The Kurds. They've hated him - and borne the brunt of his wrath - for years. Fine, drop him off in the middle of Kurd territory and have them flay him alive. 3) The Kuwaiti people. He invaded their country, violated their soveriegnty; let THEM go after him. Oh yeah, they wouldn't; they pimped the fighting out to the US and British twelve years ago. 4) The Israelis. He dropped Scuds on their country in the 1991 war. Beyond Kuwait, Israel remains the only foreign country Saddam bombed or attacked. Let the Israelis go after him, or have him now. I would be okay with that - they've got legit beef with Hussein.

5) American oil companies who stand to reap billions from the reopening of Iraqi oil fields to western access. Fine, let Exxon send its army over to Baghdad, and... oh, wait. What's that you say? Exxon doesn't HAVE it's own army? They have to rely on the armed forces of the United States, whose responsibility it is to safeguard the interests of ALL Americans? They asked their selected president to send other people's kids into harm's way so that their piplelines - both physical and metaphorical - would be unimpeded?

Tina Fey did a bit on Saturday Night Live last night that really summed it up for me. She referred to George Bush's defense of his policy of excluding nations opposed to the Iraq was from bidding on rebuilding contracts, and his comment that those who did the fighting in Iraq should reap the financial rewards. She then cued the dramatic, patriotic music and went through a sarcastic monologue about the brave Halliburton executives who'd searched the back alleys of Mosul and Tikrit; the valiant businessmen of Exxon who'd braved firefights in Baghdad; and the courageous men of Bechtel who'd put on a suit every day and watched other men's sons and daughters be sent far from home for months or years at a time, not knowing if they'd ever return. She ended with, "You're right, Mr. President. Those who did the fighting should reap the rewards." I couldn't have said it better myself.

Now THERE'S a novel idea, Mr. Bush. I'd actually support you on that one, if you would pull it off. Let those who did the fighting receive the spoils. How about this - the profits from the reconstruction are put into a fund for the servicemen and women who actually did the fighting? Instead of Halliburton getting to make billions by cheating the American government (and the president then winking to the press and saying, "of COURSE we expect them to pay it back!"), we take the money that would go to Halliburton and create a new GI bill that provides free college education for not only our soldiers and sailors and Marines, but their children too? How about instead of letting your Texas oil friends go war profiteering, we do something noble with that money and put it into a fund that only military members who served in Iraq can draw upon - to buy a house, to get a car, to provide for their kids... after all, THEY'RE the ones that earned it, right? THEY'RE the ones who put their asses on the line. You're right, Mr. Bush. Those who did the fighting SHOULD reap the benefits.

If he won't do that, then this remains an oil war fought by proxy for the benefit of Bush's contributors and friends. And not even the capture of Saddam Hussein changes that basic fact.

Posted by Christopher on December 14, 2003 10:19 AM

Comments

Posted by: katherine at October 4, 2006 10:18 PM