perfidy

Greetings, 

There is no new information about the war, and I have completed tomorrow's lecture, so I have returned. In reviewing previous posts on the matter of empire, I've had a few additional thoughts. 

Let's start with the war and Iraq. The United States is, if successful, going to dictate an awful lot about policy in a new post-Hussein Iraq. Assuming things roll out according to plan (I reiterate, that doesn't happen often), Hussein will be removed and a representative government installed. Depending on how much influence the United States exercises, it may or may not follow along imperialistic lines. If the U.S. dictates what kind of government Iraq will have, that's skirting the edge, and more than a little arrogant, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's an imperial exercise. Imperialistic at most. The imperialism that follows would probably be more cultural and economic in nature, and that is what informal empire is all about. By cultural, I mean western media, clothing, products, Blue jeans and Beatles tapes, not to mention Mickey D's, essentially. Of course, the Iraqis might not mind that none too much. Hussein himself is not so anti-western as some might believe. He wears suits, except in war time, when he wears western style military clothing. But in the suit, he'd blend right in to a Lebanese American wedding in Toledo. 

Which leads me to another thing, piggybacking on a previous Bucketman point. Hussein is the kind of leader who, in times past, was precisely the type the United States liked. He was secular, ruthless, and more western than the leaders of neighboring states. The Bucketman has reminded us (although I said the same thing during my lecture on Tuesday, prior to seeing the post) that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Even so, I would very much like an explanation from the government as to exactly why Hussein went from ally to enemy in so short a time. I heard today that Rumsfeld himself was adamant about keeping Hussein in power even after the nerve gas attack incident or incidents. Maybe that's not true, but I'd like to hear more about it from a reliable source, and I mean published material or corroborated documentation. I am, after all, in a direct educational line of descent from Von Ranke, so let's see the documents. Beyond that, I want the government now, many of whose members were also affiliated in some way with the Reagan administration that backed Hussein, to explain itself. What changed your mind? Was it just the invasion of Kuwait? Did the U.S. cut him off? Why? Why, Mr. Big hat funny pants Uncle Sam, did you go to war against people carrying weapons with made in the USA stamped on them in 1990? Why are we really going to war with them now? Was it okay for him to nerve gas people before or do God knows what, but it's not okay now? What's really going on here? I think there's a lot we're not being told, and I want to know what it is. We should aspire to a more democratic government, and secrecy is anathema to democracy. So let's have it. 

While I had the war on TV, shots were fired here in the neighborhood. Irony, yeah? All wars foreign and domestic.