Trout Goes to Sundance
I just found out I have a cameo role in a documentary called The Trials of Daryl Hunt, which is getting lots of critical acclaim and won awards at Sundance Film Fest. It's a fairly long story (which I am working on and which will soon show up at clearheadwaters.blogspot.com ) but suffice to say my wife and I were present in the courtroom the day Daryl was officially pardoned and apologized to by a system which had kept him locked up for nineteen years for a crime he did not commit. I had the priveledge of knowing several great radicals,mostly black men, who had devoted much of their lives during that time to proving Daryls innocence. As an aside, Daryl is a Muslim and the most peaceful, forgiving, and spiritual man I have ever met.
So, we find out some juicy tidbits from Woodwards new book,including the influence of the Doctor of Death himself, old Henry Kissinger. That helps explain a lot. General John Abizaid is saying Iraq could become (or is?) worse "breeding ground" for terrorists than Afghanistan was after decade long Soviet occupation. The words breeding ground obfuscate the fact that the US actually trained and supplied the terrorists, though at the time we called them "freedom fighters". Breeding ground implies some wierd, organic process which it of course was not. And these terrorists are now killing our soldiers and want to kill me and you. OOPS.
Let me ask this. Had the occupation gone well, civil society developed, a representative government been peacefully formed, would any of us now be apologizing for being pessimistic nay sayers? Would the lack of WMDs provide grounds to defend our opposition? Would the invasion have been the right thing to do? In other words, sure they lied, sure they had designs on the oil and permanent bases, but the Iraqis got out from under a dictator and had a functioning society, would the ends have justified the means?
posted by troutsky @ 8:40 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
It might have about two thousand soldiers and god knows how many Iraqi lives ago. It might have before the cost rose as high as it is today.
I realize its just a meaningless intellectual exercise Patricia,what I suppose is called a moot point, but it goes to future justification for intervention, in Darfur ,for example.In this sense, we can consider those on the left(Hitchens, Geras, others) as well as some on the right, as simply ill-informed or overly idealistic optimists fighting against oppression. Those who saw a win-win, that is, oil opportunities and democracy building are guilty of a less excusable offense and those who had no illusions about a peaceful transition but were intent on oil and permanent bases at any cost are obviously criminals,although intent would be ,for all praticle purposes , impossiblre to prove.
Of course,as you say, when the WMDs were not found and the situation began to spiral out of control, another offense would be staying even when the miscalculation became readily apparent.
It might have been worth it, if the Iraqi war you described in the last paragraph, with a dictator down and cicil society flourishing, was the same agenda, as those who conducted it.
Post a Comment
<< Home