Page 3 Current Events
With the October 16 referendum onIraq’s new constitution widely anticipated tohave passed, the objectives outlined during theinvasion of Iraq have been met and are likely toendure. The “regime change” is basically com-plete. Sadaam Hussein’s Baathist-dominatedregime has been toppled. Iraq’s government isno longer sending money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It is no longeracting aggressivelytoward its nonmilitantand democratic neigh-bors. It is no longerseeking alliances withinternational terroristorganizations or seek-ing the technology tokill large numbers of civilians. Above all,Iraq is no longer open-ly defying the justdemands of the UnitedStates and the UnitedNations. Now, with ademocratic constitu-tion approved and amulti-party, pro-dem-ocratic system inplace, we can be surethat Iraq will never doany of these thingsagain.So what, youmight ask.Because wekept our backbone inIraq, other nationshave become significantly less defiant towardus and the free world. Libya and North Koreahave agreed to give up their nuclear weaponsprograms. Libya has even submitted to some UNinspections, and we have other countries back-ing us up against North Korea thanks to the six-party talks. European nations are now backingus up in our hard line toward Iraq, the onecountry that is all but openly pursuing its ownnuclear weapons technology.We have paid a heavy price. The failureto find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq hashurt the United States’ credibility. The lengthand difficulty of the Iraqi occupation hasstretched our military resources and made itclear that we cannot win the War on Terror uni-laterally or by force alone. We have done almostnothing to finish the job on al-Qaeda andallowed violent Islamic extremists to trickleinto Iraq to cause trouble. The Bush adminis-tration has been unwilling to hold itself accountable for its mistakes and failures, and ithas failed to put the nearly 2,000 Americandead into any context aside from lofty plati-tudes and unrealistically optimistic assess-ments. Bush himself has delegated most of themilitary and political strategy in Iraq, which isfine. What is not fine is that nobody is account-able. Bush hasn’t really told the American peo-ple who is accountable for Iraq, whose neck towring or who to give credit to.But we can totally destroy a rogue stategovernment, maybe two, and scatter it to thefour winds. We can find and imprison a tyrantand murder his sons. This makes othertyrants scared. This makes other countrieslisten to us and not openly pursue militaristicand terrorist operations. That’s half of thebattle won, half of the Bush doctrine realized,and it was an important part of the War onTerror. Now the terrorists themselves are allthat’s left. It’s time to put some seriousthought into that.President Bush has this idea that if democracy succeeds in Iraq, it will spread toother Middle Eastern nations and eliminateautocratic regimes that encourage and breedterrorism. Already, Kuwaiti women haveearned the right to vote for the first time, andPalestine and Lebanon have held free electionsof governments that truly represent and areaccountable to the popular will. Fine. But whatis he proposing to do about the al-Qaeda-linkedinsurgents in Iraq? They may have come in tofight the US forces,but they are stayingto overthrow the newgovernment by anymeans necessary. Histired line, “as theIraqis stand up, wewill stand down” isnot a satisfactoryanswer unless we’rewilling to arm themlike we did Israel (Ihave my doubts).Someone will have tohave to drive out theinsurgents andensure that Iraqremains safe.Someone will have toseal the Syrian andIranian borders andmake it unmistakablyclear that these coun-tries
are not
to assistor harbor militantsseeking to overthrowthe Iraqi government.Someone will have tobe accountable for making sure a stable, demo-cratic government remains in Iraq—and everyother country that adopts one. That someonewill probably be us.Decades from now, historians may have adifficult time parsing out when exactly the Warin Iraq transformed again into the War onTerror, when the ambition to destroy a roguestate and ensure it never again stirred took abackseat to the need to protect and promote thefledgling democracy and destroy the al-Qaedaforces in currently making Iraq unsafe. Thepoint is that right now, our mission in Iraq andthe world is definitely more of the latter.The anti-war left should realize thatmost of its old anti-war arguments no longerapply. Iraq was an unjust war? Against whom?Sadaam Hussein? The Sunni elites? Serves themright. The Iraqis don’t want us there? That waslast year. Civilian casualties? Absolutely. TheShiites want an end to the bombings that arekilling hundreds of army and police volunteersand assassinations that are targeting theirpatriots. We have an obligation to capture andkill the foreign interlopers who are murderingcivilians. International opposition? Maybe I’lltake that seriously when the French stop buy-ing books saying we blew up the Twin Towersourselves. Oil? Last time I checked, our oilprices were rising. No link with al-Qaeda?They’re there now; that means we stay. AndIraqis and other Middle Easterners have provedsurprisingly receptive to Western-style democ-racy, adapting it to their own cultural norms.Yet we do need a new strategy. All thatrazzle-dazzle of disaster preparedness reformand New Deal business Bush pulled after FEMAbungled New Orleans really needs to be broughtinto the War on Terror somehow. A couple of heads rolling wouldn’t hurt, either. This coun-try must make it a priority to break the spiritand the resources of the remaining internation-al terrorists. We have to ensure that the demo-cratic reform necessary to prevent the futuregrowth of terrorism sticks. Yet all this countryseems to have to choose from is bad leadershipon one hand and even worse ideas on the other.
The War on Terror, Post Constitution
ByJorgeSierra
On the website nowthatsfucked.com,site administrator Chris Wilson had a humblesetup. Amateur porn of mens’ wives and girl-friends was submitted and shown on the site.All was well. And Chris Wilson was a consid-erate administrator,who attempted to dis-tribute his material toall interested parties.Here’s where the sor-did tale begins…Soldiers sta-tioned in lands abroadfound themselvesunable to access thispornographic material,and complained. ChrisWilson said to himself that it was quite ashame, and decided to rectify the situation. Hemade a policy on the website whereby anyoneproving that they were really stationed in Iraq,Afghanistan, etc. would receive free access tothe site. This photo proof would be scenery,local places and events, and sometimes,corpses. Wilson maintains his FirstAmendment rights allow him and the public toview what’s really going on in Iraq. Few peopleblame him for it. The captions and the messagebehind the pictures are the matter for concern.The pictures depict grinning soldiersstanding over mutilated corpses, celebratingthe misfortune. The captions accompanyingthese images say things like “DIE HAJI DIE”and other derogatory remarks. The atmospherein general is one of gloating and intolerance. Asoldier interviewedanonymouslyremarked that thephotos represented tothe soldiers a reactionto the foreign and hos-tile conditions theyface, the constantprospect of deatharound every corner.To the Bush adminis-tration, however, itrepresents a PR nightmare.The government has continually triedto maintain the idea that the American peoplehave empathy for the plight of the Iraqis, yetthese pictures clearly contradict this senti-ment. In a recent development, Chris Wilsonwas arrested on 301 counts of obscenity, andput on $151,000 bail. He was released a week and a half ago after his parents had to put up$30,100. His lawyer and indeed the generalpublic are very aware that obscenity chargesaren’t the issue, and a long, drawn-out battleover the First Amendment is in the works.
Some Porn For Your Boys in the Army
ByJamesMessina
“...[G]rinning soldiersstanding overmutilated corpses,”
I DO NOT LIKE THIS MAN,Courtesy of Me
Leave a Comment