The War in Iraq and Paris Hilton

Paris

Reinventing the Taliban?

I saw a wonderful film this week, Reinventing the Taliban?, which showed some of the rich cultural life in Pakistan and helped me jump to my obvious conclusion about one major reason why radical Muslims hate the United States.




See: Reinventing the Taliban?, a a Discovery Channel Production.

When Sharmeen Obaid returned to Karachi after attending college in the U.S., she was alarmed by what she saw: a fundamentalist political party on the rise and strictly interpreted Islamic laws that were gradually eliminating freedom of expression. This program follows Ms. Obaid in her travels throughout Pakistan as she exposes inequity and injustice, particularly in regard to women, while seeking to understand why and how the Taliban's ideology is being given new life in her home country. A diverse sampling of pro- and anti-Taliban voices is heard, and footage of rallies and protests is included.

Sharmeen Obaid:

is a journalist and a documentary filmmaker. She was born and raised in Pakistan and has received her higher education in the United States. Her documentary films have been aired on Discovery Times channel and PBS/Frontline World. Her first documentary, "Terror's Children," addresses the plight of Afghan children living in refugee camps in Pakistan. The film won the American Women in Radio and Television Gracie Award and the Overseas Press Club Award this year. Sharmeen's second documentary, "Re-inventing the Taliban," is about the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan. That documentary just earned her the Banff Rockie Special Jury Award. Her most recent film is "On A Razor's Edge," which aired on PBS Frontline World on March 25th 2004. It is a documentary about the recent peace movement between India and Pakistan.

The Players

Pervez Musharraf

Ms. Obaid describes Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as progressive, and tolerant. Indeed, the clips she showed of him do confirm this. He is of Muhajir descent and considered to be the first Pakistani Muhajir to be able to get to the highest rank both in Pakistani government and military.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

The Taliban

Mostly Pashtuns, The Taliban are:

a Sunni strictly puritanical Islamist movement that ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, and are currently engaged in a protracted guerilla war against NATO forces within Afghanistan.

The word Taliban is the Pashto plural form of the Arabic طالب Tālib, "student". The group gets its name from the fact that its membership is drawn from the students of religious seminaries, or madrasahs, in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian militant Islamist and is widely believed to be one of the founders of the organization called al-Qaeda, responsible for terror, including the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. In conjunction with several other Islamic scholars, bin Laden issued a fatwa (Islamic religious edict), that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.

The MMA

The major fundamentalist Islamic Party in Pakistan is the MMA, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal, an Islamic alliance between religious-political parties in Pakistan.

In the Pakistani parliament, the MMA is a coalition opposition, formed after Pakistan became a part of the "Global War on Terror". The coalition is united against the current government of President Pervez Musharraf because of his support for the United States' fight against what they consider to be global terrorism and allegedly putting the demands of the United States above the demands of his own people.

The MMA's

leaders are strongly opposed to the US-led anti-terrorism campaign in neighboring Afghanistan that ousted the Taliban from power. The group believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had become a tool of US foreign policy. The MMA campaigned on promises to enforce Sharia law and in support of the withdrawal of US forces based in Pakistan in the campaign against international terrorism.

click to hide most of this section

From the Sacred to the Profane

Ms. Obaid's tour of Pakistan took us inside the people sympathizing with the fundamentalist MMA, with the Taliban, and with Osama bin Laden. It also took us, however, inside what she calls 90% of the country, the secular Islamists.

The Taliban Sympathizers

were male-dominated, with women wearing Burkas and staying off the streets.

The Secular Islamists

See Liberal movements within Islam:

Since the 19th century, Muslim progressives have produced a considerable body of liberal thoughts within Islam (in Arabic: "interpretation-based Islam"; or "progressive Islam" - but some consider progressive Islam and liberal Islam as two distinct movements. These have in common a religious outlook that depends mainly on ijtihad or re-interpretations of scriptures. Liberal Muslims interpret the Qur'an and Hadith from their personal perspective rather than the traditional Muslim point of view. Liberals generally claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Muslim community and to the ethical and pluralistic intent of their scripture.

You have at one end of the cultural spectrum the fundamentalist MMA, and at the other end, the secular Muslims who allow sexy Pakistani models at the Lahore fashion show, slightly more demure than in the U.S., but still with the same half-naked, sexualized performances. In fact, one group of actresses covered in the film was putting on The Vagina Monologues.

click to show/hide the rest of this section

The Vagina Monologues is an Obie Award-winning episodic play written by Eve Ensler, which premiered at the off-Broadway Westside Theatre in 1996. Ensler originally starred in the production, playing all the various women who share their views about their vaginas with the audience; when she left the play it was recast with three celebrity monologists. The production has been staged internationally, and a television version featuring Ensler was produced by cable TV channel HBO.

The play, risqué in any culture, is an invitation only event in Pakistan. Beautiful Pakistani actress Ayesha Alam, who is a member of the troupe that is staging the production in India, told BBC News Online about the problems of showing it in her own country.

It was very difficult to perform the Monologues in Pakistan. It even got discussed in the national assembly. Many thought that the play was promoting promiscuity, was against our culture and our religion.

Ms. Alam has received death threats, and six playhouses in Lahore have been shut down due to the performances. Ayesha is brave in the face of other threats too, like someone throwing acid on her face. She says the majority of Pakistanis want nothing to do with extremist Islam, and their "narrow view," although their "popularity is gaining." Ayesha says that though the MMA is a minority, they are more powerful than their numbers because of death threats.

click to hide most of this section

Fundamentalism versus Secularism in Pakistan

My overall impression of Pakistan is that it is a wonderful country with an exquisite cultural background. One of the most beautiful arts is the magnificent male dancing. This is emblematic of the problems, though. Only males show up for anything important, including the dancing. This occurs even with the secular Muslims. With the fundamentalist Muslims it's even worse—with their women unseen anywhere, and when they do peek out, you catch them covered head to toe, some even without eye slits. According to Ms. Obaid and Ms. Alum, the MMA represents a highly motivated minority of millions and millions who are gaining momentum.

Why are They Angry? Why Do They Hate Us?

What then, is all the fuss? Why are these people so enraged? What motivates them to support Osama bin Laden, al-Queda, and the Taliban; cheer when U.S. towers fall; travel to the United States with evil in mind, and to Iraq; and strap bombs to their children's chests?

Control over Women; Order in the Family

It's obvious. The fundamentalists want control over their women. They view females as their property, and as sexual creatures that must be imprisoned. Their women must be covered head to toe, and not allowed out. They must be watched, and guarded. They will be punished if they stray. The man can divorce her easily. They want her to have no property rights, no voting rights, no sexual rights, no rights at all.












Paris burning

The Abomination of the West

The West, to the fundamentalists, is a nightmare. Western values bring sexy models, women dressing provocatively, strippers, whores, and the Vagina Monologues. Their biggest fear is Paris Hilton, an unchained, unleashed, unclothed sexual machine, without any purpose except to enjoy the flesh and wallow in decadence. This is their nightmare daughter, or wife.

Their women emulating the sexy models or Paris Hilton would mean, to them, the emasculation of the men, the breakup of family and tradition, and the end of order in society.

Family Values

The fundamentalist Muslims are fighting for family values! Not our family values, to be sure, but theirs.

An average American guy might understand this for a moment if he considers his view of strippers and prostitutes. This average American Joe might think exotic dancers and "whores" are just fine, but he doesn't want his girlfriend or his wife doing it. A lot of American men are not even happy about their partners going to Chippendales, or to a bachelorette party that has male strippers. American men can feel quite possessive of their ladies.

Fundamentalist Muslims feel they've got a good thing going. They have a patriarchy with the backing of law, Sharia. They are in total control. If they catch their wife cheating, they are allowed to kill her.

The advance of the West means an end to this control for them. Secularization is their enemy. They are fighting against the idea of Paris Hilton. They hate the West because of what she represents.

Disclaimer

click to show/hide the rest of this section

I'm not blaming Paris Hilton for the War in Iraq. I blame the fundamentalists. I'm fine with Hilton, ditz and all. Yet I do understand where the fundamentalist urge comes from. Men have always had a hard time not thinking of their women as property, even in the West. After all, though I love looking at Paris Hilton, and enjoy her antics from afar, I wouldn't want her as my wife, would you? (Except in California, where there is community property!)

Hope

I was pleased to hear that in Pakistan 90% of the people are secular Muslims, and that they don't support extremism. This is a great relief, if this is true. On the other hand, even the secularists there have a ways to go, it seems, when it comes to true freedom.

click to hide most of this section

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post:
Paris Hilton, The Vagina Monologues, Burka, fundamentalist Islam, the Taliban, MMA, Pakistan, al-Queda, Osama bin Laden, Reinventing the Taliban?, secular Islam, Pervez Musharraf, Pashtun, Sunni, Fatwa, War on Terror, ijtihad, Qur'an, Hadith, Sharia

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

American Democracy at War

War



Srategies

Iraq War Strategies under Hitler, Roosevelt or Truman, versus Bush

I want to compare how a dictator would wage the War in Iraq, versus how our democracy must wage it.





Furthermore, I want to compare how Roosevelt or Truman would wage the war versus how Bush is waging it. There are advantages for a dictator in waging war, but also disadvantages. The same is true for a democracy, and especially for our democracy post Vietnam and post Watergate.

Moreover, there is a difference in leadership style between our leaders in WWII and our leaders now.

Hitler

How would Hitler wage the War in Iraq? He would use his own judgment and wield absolute control to effect it. Knowing Hitler, he would use overwhelming force quickly. He would also be aware that Iran and Syria are funding, training, and even sending troops into Iraq, so he would open up fronts against both these countries simultaneously, aiming to crush them and perhaps even take them over. In Iraq, he would confiscate the oil fields and use the revenue to pay for the war effort. He would annihilate neighborhoods that harbored terrorists or insurgents. He would not hesitate to ethnically cleanse either Sunnis or Shias if they continued to be troublemakers.

Results

What would the results be? Hitler sults be? Hitler would probably win the War in Iraq. He would have conquered Iraq by now, and maybe Syria too, and at least reduced Iran's influence in the region, including stopping them from developing nuclear weapons and decimating their army and warlike capabilities.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The disadvantages?

The rest of the world would be building armies and weaponry to oppose him and defeat him eventually. A quiet insurgency would begin building within Iraq, Syria and Iran to one day take their lands back. Knowing Hitler, he would eventually open up too many fronts, and eventually be defeated.

Roosevelt or Truman

How would Roosevelt or Truman wage the War in Iraq? Actually, they would fight much the same way as Hitler, except without the ethnic cleansing, and without the permanent takeover of Iraq, Iran and Syria. Plus, after the war, they would return the oil fields to the Iraqis, and develop a Marshall Plan for that country.

Results

The results? There would be peace in Iraq, and Roosevelt or Truman would then use this as a springboard to forge a peace between Palestine and Israel.

The disadvantages?

You need strong leaders like Roosevelt or Truman to sustain a war effort that could effect such results. Such leaders are rare.

George Bush

How is our democracy waging the War in Iraq under George Bush?

America's Perpetual War Against the Peace Advocates

America always seems to have a large peace contingent. We had anti-war folks before all of our wars. So to enter any war, millions of peaceniks or neutral folks must convert to favoring war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wanted to go to war against Hitler's Germany long before Pearl Harbor, but it took that disaster to mobilize enough Americans to favor the war. Roosevelt used Pearl Harbor to get us into the war, and then used Allied victories, carefully orchestrated propaganda, and the power of the bully pulpit to sustain American fervor for the war, all the way to victory.

Bush Handicaps

George Bush is operating under a number of handicaps compared with Roosevelt and Truman:

First, we are post Vietnam and post Watergate. Many Americans are instinctually anti-war because of the mess of Vietnam. Those same Americans, plus others, are distrustful of their government and leaders because of Watergate.

Second, the perpetual war between congress and the president over who has more power is in a stage where congress is emboldened to tip the scale in their favor. Democrats sense a weakened president, and so are pressing their case for more congressional power and less presidential power.

Third, George Bush has been less than effective in explaining the war to the people. He has not been able, as of late, to overcome the Democratic and some Republican opposition to the war by virtue of the bully pulpit. Part of the reason is that he has had a slow learning curve in giving effective speeches and communications; and part of it is that, until recently, he has not leveled with the American people about the truths of the war.

Fourth, Bush and Cheney et al made crucial strategic and tactical mistakes in Iraq, such as too few troops, not guarding weapons caches, and leaving the Iraqi army unemployed, which set up the inevitability of the insurgency and the failures in the Iraq War.

Fifth, Bush has chosen to fight a politically correct war. For example, he let Muqtada al-Sadr go when he had him cornered, so as not to anger the Shias; he would not attack the enemy in mosques; he was "careful" when going into insurgent strongholds not to harm the neighborhoods nor the "innocent" people harboring the terrorists; and he allowed Maliki to prevent the U.S. from going after Shia insurgents. Literally, George Bush has had the United States walking on eggshells, fighting a "careful," politically correct war.

Sixth, as a result, the War in Iraq has not gone well. Though the U.S. wins every outright battle decisively, we get slaughtered in the covert war, and public opinion continues to increase against the war.

Seventh, the U.S., along with Bush's ineffective championing of the war, is not engaging in any active propaganda war. Admittedly, in the age of the Internet, YouTube, and MySpace, this would be hard to do anyway, but there seems to be no massive educational campaign about why we are fighting and how high the stakes are. We just have one, lone Texas Ranger, who can't communicate well, telling us to trust him on this one.

Results?

We are winning the War in Iraq, in reality. There is no way the insurgents can defeat us. We win every battle, inflict more casualties than they do, and control the territory and the financial assets. We do suffer causalities, unfortunately. 3,000 dead is significant. Yet, compared to all our other wars, this casualty rate is low. What we are losing, as happened in Vietnam, is the PR war. The propaganda war. The war for hearts and minds.

click to hide most of this post

Conclusions

Hitler

Hitler would have won the War in Iraq by now, hands down. On the other hand, he would have continued his expansionism until he angered so much of the world that they would eventually mass and defeat him, as happened in WWII.

Roosevelt and Truman

Roosevelt and Truman would have won the War in Iraq by now, but they didn't have the handicaps that Bush has. We'd be well on our way to world peace, including in Palestine and Israel, under Roosevelt or Truman.

Bush

In my opinion, Bush was wise to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. This was a good thing for world peace and the War on Terror. It's too bad the American people don't see this and aren't patient enough to witness the resulting good things that will come from its successful conclusion.

Bush is winning the actual war in Iraq, undoubtedly, but has not won the PR nor the propaganda war, and so has lost the hearts and minds of Americans, Iraqis, and the world. Though Bush is winning the battlefield war for control of the territory and assets of Iraq, he is not winning the peace, the battle for law and order in Iraq. Due to military blunders, strategic and tactical, and through fighting a politically correct war, Bush has not been able to quash the nascent civil war and bring peace and security to Iraq. So, as in Vietnam, America is in danger of being driven from Iraq, not by the force of a standing enemy army, but by a deadly insurgency that instills fear, and by the force of public opinion.

The Solution

Bush has one more chance, the troop surge.

He needs to take the gloves off and stop fighting a politically correct war. He must fight to win, now. Plus, he must develop immediately into an effective communicator on the war, and authorize some kind of massive education campaign to teach the American people what the stakes are in this war.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: WAR, WAR STRATEGIES, HITLER, ROOSEVELT, TRUMAN, GEORGE BUSH, IRAQ WAR, VIETNAM, PEARL HARBOR, POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR, WATERGATE, MALIKI, SUNNI, SHIA, MARSHALL PLAN, YOUTUBE, MYSPACE, TROOP SURGE

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

The Iraq Conundrum

Fight or
light

Showdown

US military may join Iraq against militia leaders: The Boston Globe. Bush authorization could spark deadly confrontations, By Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff, January 14, 2007.

WASHINGTON -- US military officials say the Bush administration has given them new authority to target leaders of political and religious militias in Iraq who are implicated in sectarian violence,





including the powerful Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.

Such a showdown, key to Bush's plan to increase the number of US troops in Baghdad, could spark a deadly confrontation with Shi'ite militias, which enjoy widespread popularity in Shi'ite neighborhoods. It could also erode support for the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has agreed to the plan.

Senior US and Iraqi officials said last week that Maliki has pledged to confront the militias with the help of additional US troops. But many analysts doubt that Maliki has the will or the firepower to take on Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the tit-for-tat violence in the capital.

In recent months, Maliki and other top Iraqi officials routinely vetoed US raids on Sadr's operations, fearing the reaction of his legion of followers. Maliki's government kept a list of militia leaders who were off-limits to US troops, a senior Pentagon official told reporters in a background briefing in Washington, but now Maliki has agreed that the list would no longer be used.

Bush said on his recent 60 Minutes interview:

click to show/hide the rest of the post

"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better."

Questioned about the instability in Iraq, Bush said: "Well, no question decisions have made things unstable."

And in his most recent radio address:

Bush said choices made after invasion eroded Iraq's security:

Bush also said his new plan could succeed, because, "American forces will have a green light to enter neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence." Until now, US forces have been restricted by the Iraqi prime minister from operating freely in the Sadr City area that is home to a powerful Shi'ite militia. But Bush said those restrictions had been lifted and that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has promised that he would not tolerate interference with security operations."

Does This Mean We are Finally Going to Start Fighting in Iraq?

This whole development is astonishing to me. It illustrates that my charge that we have been fighting a politically correct war has been correct. This is shameful. This is only one part of the war, and in it, we have been prohibited from going after the real troublemakers in Iraq by the Maliki government.

click to hide most of this post

What Bush Should Have Done

Bush should have said, "Look Mr. Maliki, do you want us to stay here in Iraq? If you do, then this is what we must do to win this war. If you don't want to let us do these things, then we have no choice but to leave."

Instead, Bush allowed our troops to stay in the danger zone with their hands tied behind their backs. Another example of Bush trying to be a diplomat, a good guy.

Yes, I know that I am not privy to details on the ground, and that things are not as simple as I am making them. I also realize that going after renegade Shias might ultimately topple Maliki. My answer is that Maliki will fall anyway if things continue as they are.

Also, things are not as complicated as they are making them either. The proof of this is that Maliki, out of desperation, has finally agreed to let the U.S. troops fight like they need to. This could have happened years ago, if Bush had been demanding and tough as nails, which is what we need there.

We ought to be fighting to win, without regard to politics. Until and when we do this, we cannot progress in such a morass of a war. Can you believe that Bush and the military leaders cannot see this?

Remember MacArthur? The guy went too far, but he knew how to win wars. Patton? Eishenhower?

Now, instead, we have Bush, ordering our troops not to make anyone unhappy, while they are sitting ducks for I.E.D.'s and snipers.

Give me our unleashed WWII commanders, or our unfettered Sherman or Grant.

If not, then let's get out.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post:
Iraq, Iraq War, Shia, Sunni, Moqtada al-Sadr, Nour Kamel al-Maliki, Mahdi Army, MacArthur, Patton, Eisnehower, Sherman, Grant

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth

Truth to Power

Sunni's demonstrate against the disrespect shown their leader.

Taunting Saddam

Iraq to Review Abusive Acts at Hussein's Execution: New York Times, By JOHN F. BURNS and JAMES GLANZ: January 3, 2007, BAGHDAD.

Iraq's Shiite-led government said Tuesday that it had ordered an investigation into the abusive behavior at the execution of Saddam Hussein, who was subjected to a battery of taunts by official Shiite witnesses and guards as he awaited his hanging.

Officials said a three-man Interior Ministry committee would look into the scenes that have caused outrage and public demonstrations among Mr. Hussein's Sunni Arab loyalists in Iraq, and widespread dismay elsewhere, especially in the Middle East. In an unofficial cell phone video recording that was broadcast around the world and posted on countless Web sites, Mr. Hussein is shown standing on the gallows platform with the noose around his neck at dawn on Saturday, facing a barrage of mockery and derision from unseen tormentors below the gallows.

As the shock of those scenes reached a new crescendo in Iraq, American officials said that they had worked until the last hours of Mr. Hussein's life to persuade Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to delay the execution. The officials, who spoke on condition that they not be identified, said they appealed to Mr. Maliki not to execute Mr. Hussein at dawn on Saturday because of the onset of a major Islamic festival, and because of constitutional and legal questions that the Americans believed threw the legitimacy of the execution into doubt.

A Politically Correct War

This is another indication to me that the United States, and in particular, George Bush and his advisors, are waging and will always wage a politically correct war in Iraq.




This, to me, is a major reason why we are losing.

We are afraid to offend the people that continue to support Saddam Hussein.

American Concerns

For Bush and his advisors, there are two points of concern about the Saddam execution. First, that legal matters were not followed completely in the haste to execute Saddam. Second, that Saddam was subjected to disrespect as he went to his death.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

On the first point, I am not an expert on the law, so I'll demure to legal experts on this matter. Yes, I do want law to rule in Iraq. Yes, it was important to get the execution of Saddam right legally. I believe, though, there were other considerations, which I'll get to.

On the second point, I believe it's possible to show theoretical respect for the office of the presidency of Iraq, and for the Sunni followers of Saddam, while at the same time making it clear that Saddam Hussein himself was a deservedly disgraced man.

Obviously, we don't want blatant disrespect being shown to our leaders, soldiers, prisoners and dead. So, following the Golden Rule, we want to treat even the condemned with dignity.

All this I agree with.

Speaking Truth to Power

On the other hand, we have moral obligations in addition to legal and humanitarian obligations. We have a moral obligation to say loud and clear, to Sunnis and Shias alike, and to the world, that Saddam Hussein was a scumbag, and that he deserved to die a thousand deaths.

This is what members of the "righteous" left call "speaking truth to power." I love the concept. The liberals of course think this applies only when an employee is a whistleblower at an oil company, or when a leftist speaks up about Republican corruption, or when a citizen "bravely" calls President Bush a warmonger. The concept of speaking truth to power, though, should be a universal one—a goal worth trying for in many situations.

In this case, the United States needs to speak truth to power by saying to the Sunnis that Saddam was an evil man and deserved to die. This is the truth, and it ought to be said, loud and clear, regardless of consequences. The Sunnis may riot. They may kill innocent human beings because of it. Then, their rioting and killing behavior is their responsibility, and not ours, and needs to be correctly labeled too, as murder and acts of cowardice.

Our Upside Down World

We live in a crazy world sometimes these days. Terrorists are allowed to disrespect us, torture us, murder us, and follow none of the Geneva Conventions, without getting criticized at all by the world—while we must respect the terrorists, avoid torture, not murder them, follow all the Geneva Conventions, yet still get called war criminals by the world and the left.

Our Moral Superiority

If we had been in charge of Saddam's trial, we would have conducted it over a period of about five years. Then, the appeals process would start. Saddam would still be in jail and would be sitting there for 20 years before and if he were ever executed. He would not have been hanged. He might not even have been executed by lethal injection since that, according to the newest leftist thinking, is cruel and unusual punishment.

Plus, if he ever were put to death under us, he would have not been taunted.

Fine, call us morally superior. I don't see it this way. I say we have lost our common sense. We have become so politically correct that we have lost our minds.

Why It's Good Saddam is Dead

One major reason for executing Saddam so quickly was to eliminate the very real threat of a coup attempt on Maliki, or a kidnapping and freeing of Saddam, where Saddam could again lead the Sunnis on a murderous path. The Maliki government needed Saddam dead, and it did the right thing by killing him quickly. Killing Saddam swiftly did mean that the death came right before a major Muslim festival—but notice it was done before the holy days, not during them.

They Should Have Been Nice to Saddam

As far as the taunting goes, yes, if we were in charge it would not have happened. Maybe it shouldn't have happened. After all, it might have interfered with Saddam's self-delusion of the 72 virgins awaiting him. Seriously, though, maybe it shouldn't have happened, but aren't you glad it did? Didn't he deserve it? Can't we understand the executioners' transgressions? The man had butchered their relatives. Maybe they were wrong for being impolite to Saddam, but wasn't it understandable?

click to hide most of this post

Moral Cowardice and a Polite War

It's okay for us to object to the legality of Saddam's execution and to the taunting, but not for the reasons we did it. We did it because we are afraid of a Sunni backlash. This is the same reason why we don't attack terrorists who hide in mosques, or insurgents who blend in with civilian populations. This is the same reason why we don't attack the enemy on Muslim holy days.

We are such good guys. We are the touchy feely warriors, sensitive to the feelings of the people we are trying to kill. Good for us.

Compare that with Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We won that war, remember? We weren't very nice. We called Japanese Japs and Germans krauts and did what we had to do to prevail. The results? We conquered our enemies. We saved the world, and we were lauded, universally. Even those we vanquished became our allies. Compare that to now. We are such "nice guys," following all the rules, being so polite. The results? We are losing. We are called warmongers.

America, speak truth to power always; and if you're going to fight a war, win.

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)


Click here to get a button link to this blog:

<br /><br /><a href="http://truthrock.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/668/cooltext38806293hm4.gif" alt="Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone"></a><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!


Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Saddam execution, Sunni, Shia, Saddam taunting

Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth