It pains me greatly (I’ve been OD’ing on John Adams DVD’s today) to give pause from my narrow commentary on the various and sundry musing’s on my life-to jump back into the fluid waters of political discussion. Ordinarily, I would have waited till the year was farther along, but when one reads cravenly incorrect diatribe, then like Mr. Adams, I must needs give comment. And context.
One of the things I truly despise about the idea that we somehow invaded Iraq for the purpose of “liberating” its 26 million Arab souls-is the exclusivity and selectiveness of that of liberation. The jury is still out as to whether Iraq has been truly liberated by the way of invasion, or whether America’s occupation has simply served as a way station for that God forsaken nation on its voyage from one failed government to another to yet another. Being supremely confident as I am in the Iraqi people, I quite confident in their ability to yet again hose up any good deal given unto them.
However for arguments sake, lets just suppose that the underpinnings of this “liberation theology” -the idea that a superpower that believes itself to be unique among the nations, and somehow above the mistakes of other, lesser powers- are sound. That these beliefs somehow provide it with a God given duty to invade nations willy nilly to “free” them.
That then begs the question then, namely, ‘Why doesn’t every oppressed nation deserve such consideration?”. Why then, given a moral duty to liberate oppressed people-are we at the same time, indifferent places and nations-and in certain cases, sometimes blatantly and sometimes obliquely, active participants in the oppression of other “less worthy” peoples through dictatorship?
Eh Jules? Maybe you could cut through your slobbering faith in George Bush as a misunderstood leader of history, and answer that one fundamental question. Except of course, you can’t.
Because you are an idiot sir-and so are those who believe that the invasion of Iraq was somehow the dawning of a Messianic turn from tyranny inside the Middle East. The leader of Iraq may have changed but the dysfunction of the region as whole will continue long after George W. Bush’s name will have been dissected ad nausem by historians. The reason? Because the fundamental causes of that dysfunction remain: Islam and and an economy dependent on outsiders for its basic labor.