Red Dawn: "Because *we live here!*"

[Vympel]

Nostradamus, Bush Is Not

by Thomas R. Eddlem

You didn't have to be Nostradamus to predict the Iraq war would come to this. Heck, even I was able to predict it clearly. In a column for Antiwar.com as the Iraqi invasion began (March 2003), I wrote the following:

"I'm not afraid of our troops conquering in Iraq. They'll do that in short order. I am, however, worried about how our soldiers will become prime terrorist targets after the military victory, since I expect they will be transformed into social welfare agents distributing free government surplus cheese and administering a whole array of giveaway programs to an ungrateful occupied nation. Our 'benevolent' occupation of Baghdad will be even less popular than the benevolent British occupation of Boston in 1768."

This is, of course, exactly what happened: the quick military victory, the increasing guerrilla war against our soldiers, the handouts in the $80 billion legislative package that Bush bullied through Congress, and an American occupation that is increasingly unpopular.

The question is, if even this freelance writer can see the Iraq invasion would lead to this (and virtually every other Antiwar.com columnist), why couldn't the president? Instead, Bush continues to peddle juvenile statements about those who engage in terrorist assaults against the United States, such as his rationalization of the reason for the 9/11 attacks:

"They hate us because we love freedom. They hate us because we love the idea that people can worship an almighty God any way they see fit. They hate us because we speak our mind, we allow public discourse and dissent. They hate us because we have a free press. And so long as we love freedom, they'll hate us. But we're never, ever going to relinquish our love of freedom in America."

The official transcript of this speech records applause at the end of this statement, but I suspect it was laughter. A cynic would sarcastically reply, "Ohh, that would explain the rash of terrorism against neutral free countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden." Because we are free, Bush says, desert Bedouins get off their camels, travel halfway around the world and kill themselves? Yeah, right. Bush may convince a fifth grader with that argument, but no person who has outgrown comic books could possibly buy such nonsense.

Bush has reiterated this idiotic statement numerous times, and has been using it this year to explain terrorist attacks against American forces in Iraq. I'm not sure which possibility is worse: that the president is deliberately insulting us with such an obviously false argument, or that he actually believes in this comic book world he is describing.

The Real Reason They Hate Us

One of my favorite Cold War-era propaganda movies, Red Dawn, provides a perfect example of why Iraqis actually hate us. In one scene, the American guerrillas fighting off murderous invading Cuban and Russian forces capture a Russian special forces soldier and are about to execute him in cold blood. Patrick Swayze's character holds a revolver up to the Russian's head as C. Thomas Howell protests: "What's the difference between us and them, Jed? What's the difference?" Then, just before he squeezes the trigger, "Jed" (Patrick Swayze's character) grunts back a reply through clenched teeth: "Because we live here!"

American forces are not comparable to the cartoonishly evil Russo-Cuban occupation forces, but the point is that "they" live there and "we" don't. Swayze's character didn't justify the murder, but his line did explain it. People will go to extremes to defend their native soil, especially when the foreign occupiers have killed family members. And America's two unnecessary wars against Iraq have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. Each death creates several more hateful enemies of the United States, and a frustration because Iraqis don't have the ability to take up conventional arms as our forefathers did. Therefore, they engage in terrorist car bombings and RPG assaults.

Consider the friendly British occupation of Boston in 1768. Boston's Sons of Liberty engaged in what today would be called "terrorism" to protest this benevolent occupation by an army from across the ocean. While the Iraqis who are committing terrorist assaults are not seeking the ordered liberty sought by our founding fathers, they are seeking the independence of their country from a foreign occupier.

President Bush is still keeping up appearances, denying in his disastrous national press conference on April 14 that Iraqis oppose the U.S. occupation. "It's not a civil war," Bush said, "it's not a popular uprising. Most of Iraq is relatively stable. Most Iraqis, by far, reject violence and oppose dictatorship." Oops. A poll of Iraqis released last week revealed just the opposite, that the British occupation of Boston may have actually been more popular than our occupation of Iraq. A majority ? 52 percent ? of Iraqis said terrorism against Americans could be justified and 71 percent viewed American troops as "occupiers."

When I wrote my first column for Antiwar.com in March 2003, those of us who opposed the unprovoked invasion of Iraq were hard-pressed to maintain we supported American soldiers. A few people called us traitors, but we simply wanted to keep our soldiers home and safe from an unnecessary war. Now, as American military casualties mount, those who seek to maintain our forces in Iraq are the ones who have the difficult task of maintaining they "support the troops." They are the ones putting our soldiers into harm's way for reasons unrelated to our national security. They are the ones throwing away the lives of our soldiers.

Let's get out of Iraq now. They live there. We don't.

[AdmiralKanos]

One of the things I love about articles like this is the way so many people say things like "well, he's not saying anything that isn't obvious" even though in many cases, if you go back to the pre-invasion period, these same people personally failed to see it coming.

[Crown]

One of the things I love about articles like this is the way so many people say things like "well, he's not saying anything that isn't obvious" even though in many cases, if you go back to the pre-invasion period, these same people personally failed to see it coming.

My personal favourite arguement from the 'pro Bush' crowd was; 'we are going to bring enlightenment and democracy to the middle east' ... Could someone explain to me how you can 'bring' enlightenmnet and democracy on the heals of an invasion?

Hypothetical conversation;

Iraqi; Why are you here?

American soldier/politician; To bring you enlightenment and democracy.

Iraqi; Does this mean I get free speach?

American soldier/politician; Of course.

Iraqi; Good. Then get the fuck out of my country!

Amercian soldier/politician; ...?...



How can anyone respond to that without looking like a grade A moron?

[Ma Deuce]

It's not easy to get out Iraq now. The Americans made that mess, so now they have an obligation to at least try and clean it up. As wrong as the war was, pulling out now simply isn't an option.

BTW, credibility assassin: the author thinks that Gulf War I was unecessary.

[Vympel]

BTW, credibility assassin: the author thinks that Gulf War I was unecessary.

Where? Even if he does, his views on GW2 (GW1 was Iran vs Iraq) have no bearing on the subject at hand.

[Crown]

BTW, credibility assassin: the author thinks that Gulf War I was unecessary.

Where? Even if he does, his views on GW2 (GW1 was Iran vs Iraq) have no bearing on the subject at hand.

The author says the US fought two pointless wars with Iraq at one point, but you're right, it doesn't have any bearing on the issue at hand.

[Ma Deuce]

Where? Even if he does, his views on GW2 (GW1 was Iran vs Iraq) have no bearing on the subject at hand.

American forces are not comparable to the cartoonishly evil Russo-Cuban occupation forces, but the point is that "they" live there and "we" don't. Swayze's character didn't justify the murder, but his line did explain it. People will go to extremes to defend their native soil, especially when the foreign occupiers have killed family members. And America's two unnecessary wars against Iraq have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. Each death creates several more hateful enemies of the United States, and a frustration because Iraqis don't have the ability to take up conventional arms as our forefathers did. Therefore, they engage in terrorist car bombings and RPG assaults.

[Frank Hipper]

It's not easy to get out Iraq now. The Americans made that mess, so now they have an obligation to at least try and clean it up. As wrong as the war was, pulling out now simply isn't an option.

Which is exactly what I was afraid of from the beginning.

We've created a situation that did not exist previously, generated a vaster resevoir of hate against us, and we have no choice but to savor the piquant bouquet of this festering turd sandwich through 'til the end.

And all for no reason that served national security. We're less secure, as a matter of fact; I think the body American body count in Iraq illustrates that.

[Vympel]

American forces are not comparable to the cartoonishly evil Russo-Cuban occupation forces, but the point is that "they" live there and "we" don't. Swayze's character didn't justify the murder, but his line did explain it. People will go to extremes to defend their native soil, especially when the foreign occupiers have killed family members. And America's two unnecessary wars against Iraq have killed tens of thousands of Iraqis. Each death creates several more hateful enemies of the United States, and a frustration because Iraqis don't have the ability to take up conventional arms as our forefathers did. Therefore, they engage in terrorist car bombings and RPG assaults.

Missed that- anyway, regardless of his clearly isolationist views (and I sometimes think there is something to be said for the Founding Fathers views on this matter- namely that America is the protector/enforcer of its own freedom and noone elses), he has a point. I don't believe in 'credibility assassin'. Even Pat Buchanan can write an incisive piece on Iraq.

[Darth Wong]

I don't believe in 'credibility assassin'. Even Pat Buchanan can write an incisive piece on Iraq.

"Credibility assassin" is a common political tactic.

[Ma Deuce]

I don't believe in 'credibility assassin'. Even Pat Buchanan can write an incisive piece on Iraq.

You have a point here, but the author is still wrong. There is still no way the US can pull out of Iraq now. To do so would be arguably more irresponsible than going to war in the first place.

[Crown]

I don't believe in 'credibility assassin'. Even Pat Buchanan can write an incisive piece on Iraq.

You have a point here, but the author is still wrong. There is still no way the US can pull out of Iraq now. To do so would be arguably more irresponsible than going to war in the first place.

I believe the major thrust of the article is that bob and his dog could have predicted that invasion of Iraq would have led to this shitball, how did the Administration miss it?

[BoyRocketeer]

why doesnt the US just transfer power to the UN to have some legitamacy.

[BoredShirtless]

why doesnt the US just transfer power to the UN to have some legitamacy.

What, and lose all those contracts which are signed off to US approved companies?

[Rogue 9]

why doesnt the US just transfer power to the UN to have some legitamacy.

Because the UN is woefully incompetent. Yes, worse than what it is now, or did you not hear about how the peacekeepers are shooting each other in Kosovo?

[Ma Deuce]

why doesnt the US just transfer power to the UN to have some legitamacy.

Even if they did, the US troops would still have to stay. I doubt a UN-run occupation will make the rebels see things differently, because they will still see it as serving the interests of the Americans (the fact that the UN compound in Baghdad was bombed earlier this year should be proof of that).

[Stuart Mackey]

I don't believe in 'credibility assassin'. Even Pat Buchanan can write an incisive piece on Iraq.

You have a point here, but the author is still wrong. There is still no way the US can pull out of Iraq now. To do so would be arguably more irresponsible than going to war in the first place.

I believe the major thrust of the article is that bob and his dog could have predicted that invasion of Iraq would have led to this shitball, how did the Administration miss it?

Greed
Arrogance
Ego's
Self delusion on a grand scale.

[BoyRocketeer]

any chance WMD are buried 50m deep inside some unknown bunker? The US needs something like this right now.

[18-Till-I-Die]

My personal favourite arguement from the 'pro Bush' crowd was; 'we are going to bring enlightenment and democracy to the middle east' ... Could someone explain to me how you can 'bring' enlightenmnet and democracy on the heals of an invasion?

And of course, they want to 'enlighten' a group of people who had cities built before George Washington ever bought his first pair of pantaloons, and laws established before the Delaware was a puddle.

I find it to be arrogance on America's part to assume that they want us to 'demoncrotize' them. I mean, the Middle East has had civilization in one way or another for millenia, if they ever wanted to be a Little America they would've done it a thousand years ago. Maybe they like their countries the way they are. And if they dont, they'll change them on their own, with a revelution.

But thats what all that oil is for, isnt it, to help 'enlighten and democrotize' them. Or was it to line the pockets of the elite? I keep forgetting.

[Vympel]

You have a point here, but the author is still wrong. There is still no way the US can pull out of Iraq now. To do so would be arguably more irresponsible than going to war in the first place.

As I say, it cannot possibly be more irresponsible- going to war in the first place was an extreme act of awesome stupidity on an epic scale, and I'll go on the record now as saying that the only difference between leaving now and leaving later is how many will die as the result of a colossal mistake.

[Stofsk]

As I say, it cannot possibly be more irresponsible- going to war in the first place was an extreme act of awesome stupidity on an epic scale, and I'll go on the record now as saying that the only difference between leaving now and leaving later is how many will die as the result of a colossal mistake.

So you've got no hope for the future then? Of the occupation, I mean.

[18-Till-I-Die]

You have a point here, but the author is still wrong. There is still no way the US can pull out of Iraq now. To do so would be arguably more irresponsible than going to war in the first place.

As I say, it cannot possibly be more irresponsible- going to war in the first place was an extreme act of awesome stupidity on an epic scale, and I'll go on the record now as saying that the only difference between leaving now and leaving later is how many will die as the result of a colossal mistake.

Vympel's right on the money. The mistake was going to war, but the end result will be human lives lost on a large scale. The only way this could change is if we get out now and 'only' lose 700+ soldiers, or if we leave ten years from now with 1500+ dead. Either way, this whole thing has been a massive clusterfuck.

[Vympel]

So you've got no hope for the future then? Of the occupation, I mean.

Nope. I'd have to see some real changes in policy leading to a few visible, positive developments, and that's just not going to happen. All Bush blathers about is 'staying the course'- as if this is somehow the solution to all problems.

[Sharp-kun]

why doesnt the US just transfer power to the UN to have some legitamacy.

Do the Iraqi's like the UN any more than they do the US? Remember this is the same UN that help fund Saddam.

[BoredShirtless]

Do the Iraqi's like the UN any more than they do the US? Remember this is the same UN that help fund Saddam.

Eh?