[CLUE-Talk] Iraq Stuph

[Matt Gushee]

Okay, one last response, and *then* I'll shut up.

On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 09:40:56PM -0600, Sean LeBlanc wrote:

> > In any case, I see no reason why our military success should affect
> > anyone's concern, or lack thereof, over the more important issues.
> 
> That qualifies as short? ;) 

Well, compared to my longer posts, yeah. Hey, what can I say? I was a
History major, and that's the readingest, writingest major there is. So
I guess I just can't help it sometimes.

> > > So, I suppose the rest of the article artfully dodges the evidence of
> > > terrorist training that was found? Or the al-Qaeda that came and fought the
> > > coalition forces, despite what we were told about Saddam being despised by
> > > al-Qaeda? Or the fact that Saddam *didn't* have the support that we were
> > > told he had?
> > 
> > Well, you're a reasonably informed person. Don't you remember Osama Bin
> > Laden's speech in which he expressed support for the Iraqi people while
> > denouncing Saddam Hussein as an infidel? And haven't you heard the
> > latest Iraqi protest slogan: "No to America, No to Saddam?" Is it
> > possible that he meant, and they mean, exactly what they are saying?
> 
> I do remember that speech. But the fact is that al-Qaeda members came to
> fight against Americans on the side of Saddam, correct? Maybe I got that
> garbled. And what are the protestors protesting against, their own freedom?

I don't know. I'm not sure you're wrong, and some of what you say is new
to me, like the evidence you mention of terrorist training. What I'm
questioning is your implication that one must be either on the side of
America or Saddam Hussein.

There is, after all, a sovereign nation called Iraq, which has a rich
and ancient culture, which existed long before Saddam Hussein, and (we
may hope) will continue to exist long after he has gone.

What if you were in their place? Suppose America were ruled by a
barbarous thug (but an American thug nonetheless) and some very powerful
nation, with a culture very different from ours, decided it was time for
regime change, and commenced to invade this country. May I imagine you
would join in the defense of the United States?

So, would you be fighting for our tyrant, or for our country?

How about the Russians in World War II? Does their brave fight against
the German invasion mean that they loved Stalin?

So, many Iraqis--at least a significant and vocal minority--are out
protesting now, and they say, "No Bush, No Saddam. Yes, yes, Islam."

Well, I don't see anything strange about that. The real motives of US
foreign policy are one thing (as I think we've all discussed ad
nauseam), and what Iraqis think of us, and why, are another. Even if we
know we are good, why should we expect them to trust us?

And then there's al Qaida, which might have played some role in the
Iraqi resistance. I don't think any of us understand very well what they
are after. We know they're against us (though whether they want to
destroy America, or just want us out of the Middle East, or something in
between, is an open question), but what, if anything, are they *for?* I
don't know, but maybe they think that the fight against America is a
fight for Islam.

I certainly don't claim to have a complete understanding of what's going
on in Iraq. But I do understand enough to know that it's an extremely
complex situation, and I distrust simplistic formulas that try to reduce
the whole mess to exactly two sides, either America's or Saddam
Hussein's.

-- 
Matt Gushee                 When a nation follows the Way,
Englewood, Colorado, USA    Horses bear manure through
mgushee at havenrock.com           its fields;
http://www.havenrock.com/   When a nation ignores the Way,
                            Horses bear soldiers through
                                its streets.
                                
                            --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)