LJ Idol Unofficial - Scapegoat

[aggienaut]

   It seemed like a good idea at the time. To most Americans anyway. It was March, 2003, and 64% of Americans supported the idea of invading the state of Iraq. The case made to justify the invasion to the community of nations assembled at the UN was almost entirely Iraqi failed compliance with UN weapons inspections, but as far as the American public was concerned, Iraq "probably" had something to do with September 11th 2001. Anyway, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

   It, of course, had nothing to do with September 11th, and everything.

   Saddam Hussein's part in it actually makes the most sense. He was a psychotic dictator, but he fell victim to the achilles heel of all psychotic dictators: you must stay in power at all costs. No state is a fairy-tale kingdom where no one questions the rule of the leader, and when you're a psychotic dictator, more than ever, you've got to keep people thinking you're totally on top of things. As such, and its come out since that this was his intentional strategy, Saddam purposely kept everyone thinking he had weapons of mass destruction and was in a powerful enough position to give the UN the bird. If he didn't, he may have been ousted by his own generals, and when "reign of terror" is your form of government you'll do anything not to be the ousted guy. All the civilized world's "shock and awe" is preferable to being the ousted guy.

   As for Bush's motivation, things are a little less clear. I never for a second bought that he actually thought Iraq posed a threat to us. I also have never bought the "we're doing it for oil!" explanation -- it's not like we ever stood to get oil for free from the place. The most cynical explanation I'll entertain is that it's a strategic location for us to have a military presense. In particular it means we surround Iran, who DOES scare us.
   A second explanation I actually give some weight to is pure psychological issues. Father issues even. Bush's father didn't finish the job, and in fact Saddam tried to have Bush Sr assassinated. Now Bush Jr had the opportunity and was out for blood.

   But this is a democracy, and really, it comes down to The People. And THE PEOPLE wanted blood. It was becoming alarmingly apparent that we weren't about to find which hole Osama was hiding in, and The People wanted blood. No one even had to say there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq for Joe redneck and 64% of the rest of Americans to be certain of it. Frankly, Bush probably would have lost the election in 2004 if hadn't kept The People satisfied he was kicking the shit out of someone to satisfy their need for blood. It seemed like a good idea at the time.


   Six years later, it doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore. Turns out "WE WERE TRICKED" into believing Saddam's socialist secular regime had teamed up with radical arch-conservatives who wanted to blow us up for being too secular. Turns out the Weapons of Mass Destruction everyone was so eager to believe were "probably" there in fact probably weren't and furthermore with the brilliance of hindsight we're now certain we shouldn't have ever thought they might be there. It now seems like a terrible idea.
   And in fact, never mind that most Americans supported the war, never mind that the Congress authorized it. Never mind that Hillary Clinton was for it before she was against it -- she voted to authorize it when it was popular in 2003, now its clearly all someone else's fault and in 2008 she had better be seen kicking the shit out of someone to satisfy the need for blood. And now, that someone is George W Bush.


   ...at least life as an ousted leader is better in the United States, and he didn't have to resort to playing chicken with the UN to stay in power (instead he played rooster to the UN's hen just for fun).

Comments

[dictator666.livejournal.com]

Interesting perspective. No one outside of the U. believed that 9/11 was in any way linked to Iraq. It was curious watching the propaganda being issued from US news outlets at the time. Then the following redefinition of "freedom fighter" to "terrorist". Then George W. Bush alienating foreign leaders with "You are with us, or against us." A number of countries supplied troops, special forces or engineers which were withdrawn later when this support did not have popular support.

The reasons for the invasion and occupation are only obvious when you look at the profits of exclusive logistics, and other private contractors, supporting operations in Iraq.

I do not understand the irrational fear of Iran. Given that the country has more political stability than India, Pakistan and North Korea which are all countries with or developing short range nuclear weapons and are actively involved in questionable activities.

[siredurado.livejournal.com]

What made me laugh was when there were reports by the BBC that they had found chemical weapons buried in the desert - but that it was soon discovered that they were sold to Iraq by the USA to use against the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war in the 80s. That story was VERY quickly buried by the Pentagon :)

Oh, and Wolfowitz was all about the oil. Get your hands on a copy of the 2000 Wolfowitz Report which he produced for the "Project for a New American Century" group (but the 2001 edit, which he used the WTC attack as a good excuse) :)

[millysdaughter.livejournal.com]

Much of LJ finds Bush a convenient scapegoat for just about everything that can possibly go wrong.

[heethen-crone.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I've said much the same over the years. Irks me though, that we're only kicking Shrub when he had lots of help screwing up.

[colt-4-5.livejournal.com]

What I dont get, is why nothing was ever done about 9\11. Has one of the worlds worst terrorist attacks became old news allready? Will that case ever be closed? Yeh they got Saddam because a president had a beef with him over trying to kill his daddy, but he for some reason didnt have a beef with the guy who murderd thousands of innocent people, and utterly humiliate him in front of his country because apparently he knew it was coming. I'd still say he will go down in history as one of the worst presidents the country has ever seen..

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Yeah Bush was a pretty big chump. And its hard to imagine how we've been completely unable to catch a guy who's 7 ft tall and attached to a dialysis machine. But the way I see it, finding him a slippery fish to catch, Bush realized the American public was just as willing to get Saddam as a consolation prize so he went with it. They are absolutely unrelated, but in the minds of 64% of the US population, catching Saddam was "doing something about 9/11"

[colt-4-5.livejournal.com]

So bascialy it was, they wanted blood, someones blood, as long as someone payed! Im sure bin lauden is being taken very good care of by the taliban. They've been around for a very long time, and it would be naive to think he didnt have some kind of long term hiding plan for himself before the attacks. I hope they do find him tho, it would at least be some kind of closure for the families affected. One things for sure, its something our generation will never forget.

[emo-snal.livejournal.com]

I think he just shaved off his beard and is now "hiding" wearing a hawaiian shirt in Palm Springs, California.

[furzicle.livejournal.com]

or in a condo on the 14th floor of some fancy building in Europe.

[pubiccheese.livejournal.com]

Personally, I thought it was a case of GWB trying to follow in daddy's footsteps.

[emo-snal.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I definitely think there were "daddy issues" involved.

[y0ur-c0nscience.livejournal.com]

I like seeing mature views about subjects as such, especially when it comes to the war and politics.

On the plus side, we DID find chemical and biological weapons stockpiles there, for I have pics taken. They did manage to dispose of a vast amount of them prior to the invasion.

[thenodrin.livejournal.com]

You are right in that Americans wanted blood. And, Bush had to supply it. I also think that he provided Saddam's because of the assassination attempt.

However, I would add that I think that if we had planted weapons somewhere and let a news crew report their discovery, then Iraq wouldn't be an issue at all today. Just like police planting a gun on a criminal in a Hollywood crime drama.

IMHO, Bush went from providing a scapegoat to becoming a scapegoat. And, I bet he never saw it coming.

Theno

[emo-snal.livejournal.com]

Yeah that was what I was trying to go for with this: that he went from providing a scapegoat to the scapegoat himself.

Are you saying they SHOULD have planted weapons?

I also think its a logical fallacy to say "we never found them therefore we should never have gone in." IF you believe that was justification to go in, its the fact that we thought they MIGHT have been there that going in was related to. Ie it supposes the US's actions were wrong based on knowledge they wouldn't have known was wrong at the time.

[thenodrin.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think that they should have.

Ethically, it would have been wrong. Politically, it would have served the purpose of giving the People a victory of both identifying and getting a "boogeyman" who could be blamed, rather guilty or not. Public opinion and confidence would be higher, but otherwise the outcome would be the same.

Because, in general, the American public care more about image than ethics. The rest of the world might have been upset about it. But, they are upset as things are, and (honestly) the voters have never really cared about America's global image.

Theno

[emo-snal.livejournal.com]

I like how you think. Thats a ballsy stance to take, but its true that doing so wouldn't actually hurt anyone and would have helped the world move on.