The Devil's Dictionary. . . The Neocon Edition

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

The
US armed forces cannot win in Iraq under any circumstances. The
connection between Saddam's regime and 9/11 has vaporized. All the
rumored weapons of mass destruction have failed to turn up. The
hopes of an incipient Arab democracy will go the same way of the
sham imperialist puppets in the Balkans or the US will inadvertently
midwife yet another fundamentalist Islamic nation in the Middle
East. Now the government/media complex is searching for a new reason
to be in Iraq: terrorism with a twist. Ambrose Bierce would be proud.

We are hearing increasing media attention to "terrorist"
actions against US troops. It appears to be a last ditch effort
by the usual suspects in the DC/NYC Axis to scare the American people
into supporting a conflict they are quickly growing disillusioned
with. Follow the yellow brick road of the neoconservative mind:
Our troops may be in the wrong place at the wrong time for all the
wrong reasons, but we will keep them there because they are getting
killed and injured. Our troops in Kosovo hunkered down in base camps
rarely venturing outside the wire for fear of harm; in essence,
staying hermetically sealed to protect themselves e.g., force protection.
The fearful and timid desk warriors in the Pentagon have made force
protection the endstate of every occupation we engage in. So we
embark on sexy imperialist adventures with young men as bait, plenty
are maimed and some get killed, and we remain in spite of this in
order for politicians to prove their bravado at others' expense.
A subtle variation on Bastiat's famous axiom. I am not making this
up. We're now replicating that failure in Iraq. Let's examine the
United Nations definition of terrorism from the UN Office on Drugs
and Crime:

"In
order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert
A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch
that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what
constitutes a “war crime” as a point of departure. If the core of
war crimes – deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and
the killing of prisoners – is extended to peacetime, we could simply
define acts of terrorism as “peacetime equivalents of war crimes.”

I'm amused by the idea of a UN Crime Branch since I thought that
was the entire purpose of the United Nations: making the world safe
for larger and more lethal statist enterprises. Readers of LRC are
well aware of the elasticity of war crimes since the bankrollers
of the Criminal Tribunal in The Hague appear to have a structural
immunity to any of these charges for US/NATO actions. Note the overarching
inference to noncombatant victims and the distinction of states
of war and peace. The numerous incidents since our "victory"
was consolidated in Iraq on 1 May 2003 of US troops "accidentally
" maiming or killing civilians remains perfectly excusable
but when Iraqi resistance and guerilla actions kill US occupying
troops, it is "terrorism." Mind you, the Zionist guerilla
actions against sleeping British military garrisons in Palestine
by Hagunah and Irgun during the struggle to establish a Jewish state
in the aftermath of WWII can yield a fuzzy application of the terrorist
definition. I'm certain that if American forces received intelligence
on a guerilla base or movement and conducted a raid or ambush it
would not be labeled a terrorist action. The antiterrorism industry
for the longest time made a distinction about politically motivated
violence against noncombatants as the prime directive of
terrorist behavior. Now we see the trial balloon floated by the
neoconservative brain trust to see if the US military can cry foul
when they're fired upon. Can this definition now be expanded to
mean that any resistance or response to American combat action
will be unfair and terroristic? This is not as outrageous as it
appears to the new warriors in the Pentagon and may be a direct
result of the new feminized, antiseptic, and technocratic paradigm
that is permeating the US armed forces from the top. The "old
school" muddy boots warriors are now anachronisms.

The dirty little secret that is a universal trait among all these
conflicts throughout millennia is that resistance to uninvited invaders
by disparate and spontaneous groups or individuals will flourish
as long as foreign troops and the apparatchiks they protect remain
incountry. Just revisit Roman troubles in England and British difficulties
in India and Afghanistan. I suspect there may be pockets of influence
by Saddam loyalists, al-Queda operatives or vacationing mujaheddin
but the lion's share of resistance which is stiffening and expanding
in Iraq is just plain-vanilla Iraqi men who have had their fill
of being fodder for yet another experiment in "Statists-R-Us"
(patent pending by the USA). I would suggest another distinct possibility:
during our incessant bombing in the pregame festivities to the ground
invasion, how many women and children were maimed or killed and
their men left alive? If there was even one and I suspect there
were many more, these men would certainly have the motive, opportunity
and intent to harm the occupying forces in any way possible once
the foreign invaders made landfall.

Bush the Younger and his coterie of chickenhawks are reaching a
point of no return in Iraq. All the administration pretenses and
lies are falling like a house of cards. If they choose to remain,
they must convince the American people that the bloodshed is nothing
more than a continuation of the War on Terror and Iraq is a stepping
stone to finally eliminate the threat altogether. If they choose
to cut and run, it will be the greatest recruiting tool Muslim Murder,
Incorporated will need. Al-Queda and every other terrorist faction
will be emboldened like never before. (Memo to the world: If you
are a nation-state and you don't have WMD, get them yesterday. The
Stalinist hivestate of North Korea is a shining example.) They will
choose the former until the flow of maimed and killed US soldiers
forces the latter. All the usual suspects in the media will simply
follow the latest Orwellian twist to the English language and we
will continue to rush blindly into the future dustbin of fallen
imperial powers. After all, if we're not an empire, why didn't we
hand Iraq to the Iraqis on May 2nd, 2003?

October
13, 2003

William
Buppert [send him mail],
a retired Army officer, lives on a ranch in the Inland Northwest
with his wife and their three homeschooled children.


        
        

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts