Mouse as War Protester
Actually, it's an old story, dates back to late November 2002 when I was still a 70 year old youngster. Seems about 20 or so of us Madisonians had decided to take to the streets to march against what was threatening to be a war in Iraq. I'm not sure what possessed so many people in this small county to decide that the war was something we ought to take umbrage with. For the longest kind of time I was not altogether sure what led me to protest, but I've spent the afternoon going through the notes I made in preparation for writing what turned out to be about 25 newspaper articles against Mr. Bush's decision and have finally traced my mindset to what must be its origin.
The earliest hints of outrage began in September of that year, and unless I've got it all wrong, grew out of what was essentially a grave mistake on my part. Milady and I were only mildly political before that time, so when we heard rumors of war falling from the lips of our great leader, I 'lowed as how it was all just saber rattling, an attempt to stir up the masses prior to the midterm elections which were to be held two months later. Because a war with Iraq made no sense to either of us, we were quite content to believe that after the elections, the war talk would gradually fade away.
We heard Bush's now famous speech in Cincinnati where he made an attempt to summarize all the reasons we should go to war, but were unimpressed, probably because we had already pidgeon-holed the "evidence" as mere politicking. At about this same time, the United Nations -- apparently at the USA's insistence -- had begun debating a stronger resolution which, if enacted, would send inspectors back into Iraq, armed with the authority go and do as they pleased to locate any weapons of mass distruction that the Iraqi government might be hiding. At about that same time, Mr. Bush's administration had asked the Congress for authority to go to war with Iraq. Connecting this request to the activities then ongoing in the UN, I interpreted this request for authority as an attempt to demonstrate to any recalcitrant UN members that the USA was serious. It was a strategem designed to get the UN to take action and pass the strong resolution.
That was my second major mistake.
As we know, the authority was granted with bipartisan support, and a week or so later -- after the elections had gone Mr. Bush's way -- the UN passed its resolution, and two strong groups of inspectors were sent to Iraq.
So, it seemed to me that Bush had scored at least two major victories, one on the home front -- winning inceased majorities in both houses of Congress -- and another internationally. If Saddam Hussein was actually a threat to us and his neighbors, the UN had taken steps to assure that the threat would at least be held at bay until we could finish the mop up of Osama bin Laden. With the inspectors looking over Saddam's shoulder, no way could Iraq deploy or continue development of their weapons, even if they had them. And if Saddam Hussein did not cooperate, if he did anythng that even smacked of a material breech of the resolution, he would be in violation and Iraq would be subject to "strong measures."
I could see it clearly. We had the best of all possible worlds.
Believing that was my third mistake.
I came to my senses in what was an instant of immediate insight, an epiphany if you will to call it that. Less than a week after the newer, stronger UN resolution had been passed, a State Department spokesman (name of Jones) and an "unnamed official" in the Pentagon both, on the same day, uttered a grievous lie. For eight years the U.S. and Great Britain had been patrolling two so-called no-fly zones in Iraq. These zones were set up after the first Gulf War to offer protection to the Kurdish and Shiite populations of Iraq, after we had abandoned them to Saddam's "tender mercies." It was not even newsworthy that the patrols were regularly painted by Iraq's radars, and only slightly moreso when they were fired upon.
So, imagine my surprise when the two administration spokes-persons declared that the most recent "painting" of our patrol planes constituted a "material breech" of the newest UN resolution. I immediately went to the internet, convinced, but wanting confirmation, that nothing in any UN resolution had ever referred to the no-fly zones, and that, consequently, nothing that happened in relation to our overflights and Iraq's protective measures could possibly have been considered a material breech of any UN resolution, much less the newest.
Of course, the confirmation was there. I knew in that moment that I had been looking at the administration through glasses fogged over by wishes and dreams. Those damn fools were hell-bent on going to war.
Don't ask me how I was so certain. I just know that I was. I immediately started working to do what I could to inform the local papers and people of what I knew to be a foolish adventure. Not only was Bush apparently demoting the search for Osama bin Laden to a lower priority, he was doing it in the face of international opposition that was almost certain to weaken any attempt to bring the perpetrators of the 9/11 attrocity to justice. The so-called war on terror could never be won without the unequivocal support of all -- or nearly all -- of the nations of the earth, and here was our great leader, sacrificing the goodwill and cooperation of many of the major players.
I took to the streets, me and milady and a dozen-and-a-half others, marching back and forth in front of the Madison County Court House, bearing our little insignificant signs, knowing we were right, but suspecting that our efforts would be of no effect.
Three years and four months later, thousands and thousands of lives later, Osama still on the loose, I take no pride in having been belatedly right. I only wish our legislators had been as enlightened as I was when I read those seemingly negligble words spoken by two insignificant operatives in an administration that, all along, had intended to do exactly what it appeared to be saying it would do. Perhaps the boys in Congress were as incredulous as I was in believing that no sane government would go to war in Iraq before putting the criminals of 9/11 in the ground.
The earliest hints of outrage began in September of that year, and unless I've got it all wrong, grew out of what was essentially a grave mistake on my part. Milady and I were only mildly political before that time, so when we heard rumors of war falling from the lips of our great leader, I 'lowed as how it was all just saber rattling, an attempt to stir up the masses prior to the midterm elections which were to be held two months later. Because a war with Iraq made no sense to either of us, we were quite content to believe that after the elections, the war talk would gradually fade away.
We heard Bush's now famous speech in Cincinnati where he made an attempt to summarize all the reasons we should go to war, but were unimpressed, probably because we had already pidgeon-holed the "evidence" as mere politicking. At about this same time, the United Nations -- apparently at the USA's insistence -- had begun debating a stronger resolution which, if enacted, would send inspectors back into Iraq, armed with the authority go and do as they pleased to locate any weapons of mass distruction that the Iraqi government might be hiding. At about that same time, Mr. Bush's administration had asked the Congress for authority to go to war with Iraq. Connecting this request to the activities then ongoing in the UN, I interpreted this request for authority as an attempt to demonstrate to any recalcitrant UN members that the USA was serious. It was a strategem designed to get the UN to take action and pass the strong resolution.
That was my second major mistake.
As we know, the authority was granted with bipartisan support, and a week or so later -- after the elections had gone Mr. Bush's way -- the UN passed its resolution, and two strong groups of inspectors were sent to Iraq.
So, it seemed to me that Bush had scored at least two major victories, one on the home front -- winning inceased majorities in both houses of Congress -- and another internationally. If Saddam Hussein was actually a threat to us and his neighbors, the UN had taken steps to assure that the threat would at least be held at bay until we could finish the mop up of Osama bin Laden. With the inspectors looking over Saddam's shoulder, no way could Iraq deploy or continue development of their weapons, even if they had them. And if Saddam Hussein did not cooperate, if he did anythng that even smacked of a material breech of the resolution, he would be in violation and Iraq would be subject to "strong measures."
I could see it clearly. We had the best of all possible worlds.
Believing that was my third mistake.
I came to my senses in what was an instant of immediate insight, an epiphany if you will to call it that. Less than a week after the newer, stronger UN resolution had been passed, a State Department spokesman (name of Jones) and an "unnamed official" in the Pentagon both, on the same day, uttered a grievous lie. For eight years the U.S. and Great Britain had been patrolling two so-called no-fly zones in Iraq. These zones were set up after the first Gulf War to offer protection to the Kurdish and Shiite populations of Iraq, after we had abandoned them to Saddam's "tender mercies." It was not even newsworthy that the patrols were regularly painted by Iraq's radars, and only slightly moreso when they were fired upon.
So, imagine my surprise when the two administration spokes-persons declared that the most recent "painting" of our patrol planes constituted a "material breech" of the newest UN resolution. I immediately went to the internet, convinced, but wanting confirmation, that nothing in any UN resolution had ever referred to the no-fly zones, and that, consequently, nothing that happened in relation to our overflights and Iraq's protective measures could possibly have been considered a material breech of any UN resolution, much less the newest.
Of course, the confirmation was there. I knew in that moment that I had been looking at the administration through glasses fogged over by wishes and dreams. Those damn fools were hell-bent on going to war.
Don't ask me how I was so certain. I just know that I was. I immediately started working to do what I could to inform the local papers and people of what I knew to be a foolish adventure. Not only was Bush apparently demoting the search for Osama bin Laden to a lower priority, he was doing it in the face of international opposition that was almost certain to weaken any attempt to bring the perpetrators of the 9/11 attrocity to justice. The so-called war on terror could never be won without the unequivocal support of all -- or nearly all -- of the nations of the earth, and here was our great leader, sacrificing the goodwill and cooperation of many of the major players.
I took to the streets, me and milady and a dozen-and-a-half others, marching back and forth in front of the Madison County Court House, bearing our little insignificant signs, knowing we were right, but suspecting that our efforts would be of no effect.
Three years and four months later, thousands and thousands of lives later, Osama still on the loose, I take no pride in having been belatedly right. I only wish our legislators had been as enlightened as I was when I read those seemingly negligble words spoken by two insignificant operatives in an administration that, all along, had intended to do exactly what it appeared to be saying it would do. Perhaps the boys in Congress were as incredulous as I was in believing that no sane government would go to war in Iraq before putting the criminals of 9/11 in the ground.
posted by Benedict S. at 3:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home