Because You Never Asked

IRAQ II 

            (Author's note: There is a tendency to forget that Bill Clinton pursued the glory of kicking the crap out of Saddam Hussein with almost the same zeal as the Bush Gang has. Not having had the "good fortune" of a September 11^th rallying cry, his task was made more difficult. This essay was written during that time.)

One of the most positive aspects of making a movie like "The Titanic" is that a great ocean liner can only sink once. This spares us a predictable string of sequels trailing behind the mother hen like an obedient flock of chicks. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Gulf War, which seems to have been given an open ended conclusion in anticipation of an eagerly awaited sequel.

But Iraq II turned into a box office bust. There seems to be much less of a market for military mayhem than the Clinton cowboys had expected.

I write this essay just two days after one of our now traditional "crises" with Saddam-the-fart-face-villain was averted. Translation: the United States, finally realizing that Iraq II was not a very rentable product, dispatched the elegant African who now speaks for the U.N. to the Middle East in search of a "diplomatic solution". For those of us with the "chutzpah" to know that the cowboys were folding their cards, the consummation of such an accord came as no surprise. The cowboys had invested in the wrong script and were minimizing their losses. As time goes on, they will surely look for a better script with which to amuse themselves.

 It is almost an impossible task for people such as this writer, or you the reader, to analyze the events leading up to Iraq II. Only the political-financial elites of the most inner circles of power could possibly know the real reasons for the clandestine subterfuges that truly govern the Global Economy. Such concepts as "democracy" or the "free press" are just meaningless illusions meant to stroke some self-congratulatory idea of civility when juxtaposed against this shadowy realm of genuine power. The "free press" is no more than a prop used in staging this game.

I, for one, am convinced that the Clinton-Albright animal was in heat and wanted to "get it on". Iraq I had been so much fun; we got to try out our new toys, we kicked some ass, we waved some flags, we lit up some poll numbers . a good time was had by all. Why couldn't they pull off Iraq II?

It's very easy to over analyze the reasons for Iraq II's short run on Broadway. In the end, perhaps it can be explained with things more primal, more carnal, more knee-jerk reflexive. Before delving into such things, allow me a cosmetic run at the political pundit game.

In assessing the potential market for Iraq II, its producers failed to see the almost complete lack of enthusiasm of the international community. Except for Great Britain, there was virtually nobody else at the dance on Saturday night. Why were the Brits on board?

 There is one word that is suspiciously absent from Iraq II's pre-opening hype: "oil". It should always be remembered that if there were no oil in this region, Saddam Hussein could be Hitler, Stalin and Mike Tyson all rolled into one, and no one would give a damn. Kuwait, which was a prime player in Iraq I, is really just a euphemism for British Petroleum (BP). This could have something to do with something.

But all the other prima ballerinas have other interests. France, Russia and China have their own business dealings in the region, some with Iraq and some with Iran, who hates the Americans as much as the fart-face-villain does. To have the cowboys go in and destroy much of the china in the gift shop cannot be an attractive scenario for them.

Not to be forgotten here is the Moslem-Christian face off, which has been one of history's traditional jousts going back to the discovery of females in heat. The Moslem world is a vast one, stretching from the western shores of North Africa all the way to the Indo-Malay archipelagos. One of the great myths perpetrated during the successful run of Iraq I, was the formation of some kind of anti-Saddam coalition amongst this constituency. That's a good one. Except for our most closely connected client state "oil whores", like Kuwait (see essay "Kuwait"), Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the Gulf Emirates, countries which make up an infinitesimal part of the Moslem world, the revulsion for the death and destruction could almost be considered unanimous. Given the circumstances surrounding Iraq II, not even this limited number of "oil whore" states could stand the thought of Christian bombs killing Moslem people. This certainly weakened Iraq II's box office appeal.

In spite of all this negativity, the Anglo colossus still seemed hell bent on having its fun . if not for one most unexpected development: the reluctant attitude of their own people.

The knockout blow was delivered one evening at a "town hall" meeting staged by a Clinton-CNN conspiracy. Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, who's generally sour puss has all the warmth of a hockey fight, and Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, who's well tailored, preppy glow is about as spontaneous as a waxed floor, were set before a live audience in something that resembled a pep rally before the big game. For weeks now, the American people were slowly being prepared for the eventuality of war --- excuse me, we never go to "war" anymore --- the eventuality of a military action (there, that's better). By now we all knew that a thimble full of a certain chemical agent could wipe out the Super Bowl and silence Hulk Hogan forever, and Saddam had tons of it. Why he needs so much of such a lethal material is somewhat perplexing, but I guess you can never have enough good pitching. In addition, if so little of this stuff could cause such apocalyptic disaster, what good would bombing Saddam have in controlling it? Better safe than sorry, I guess.

The Clinton cowboys, in holding this "town hall" meeting, completely misread the mood of the American people. It turned into a partisan shout down between skeptics and patriots, and although there could have been as much support for kicking butt as there was for peace, the expected flag waving love-in on the eve of our heroic defense of cranberry sauce and Nike's latest ghetto-leaper-dunking-shoe, never materialized. Albright and Cohen slipped away like mangled cats from a losing fight and Iraq II was put back in the can.

Why did the American people balk?

If you are the type of person that believes in such adolescent idiocy as the "world's only super power", or in America, America, "uber alles", then the failure to use military force against Iraq is a debatable point. But, as I alluded to near the beginning of this essay, it seems the American people were operating in a much simpler dimension. No such geo-political hieroglyphics played a role in the public reluctance. It could be that the American people are a bit tired of killing defenseless people. The country is doing fine; the kids are at soccer practice, the mortgage is being paid, and the sport vehicle is loaded and ready to go to Wally World. Why are we being asked to kill people? Nobody else wants to do it.

The American people are asking for a better reason to kill.

Bravo!

back to the Table of Contents

Email: JerryG@postcman.info