[richlevy]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

In the grand world-view of right-and-wrong, there is a tiny little shred of white and a miniscule little scrap of black bookending a huge gray expanse. Almost nothing cleanly fits into "right" or "wrong" as far as the world in whole is concerned. So obviously it is next to impossible that everybody, or even a majority, will condone any particular action. But when we find the majority of the world, including some long-time allies, condemning our actions as wrong, we might want to step back a minute and make sure our country's moral compass is calibrated.

I agree completely. Political actions, including 'moral' actions, are driven by what I like to call "The Great Middle". For example, for almost 100 years, segregation in the American south was justified by its practitioners and largely ignored by the majority of Americans. Even moral leaders in local houses of worship ignored or actively supported it. Suddenly, the civil rights movement comes on the scene, and two major public events occur. IMO, Rosa Parks being forced to give up her seat on a bus to a white man and the 1963 church bombing were the keys that personalized the issue for northerners and southerners alike.

1963 Church bombing

Essay of Bus Boycott

Rosa Parks was not the first person to be affected by the policy that all non-whites must give up their seats to white passengers in the middle rows and never sit in the front rows. However, she was the 'perfect victim' in that she was a 'decent' woman. The fact that she had to give up her seat to a man placed the bus policy of segregation squarely in conflict with the southerner's view of southern courtesy. People in the middle were faced with a conflict of two 'truths', that a gentleman gives up his seat to a lady', and that a 'colored' person should give up a seat to a white person. The fact that this became national news certainly made things worse, for what was initially an issue of race became an issue of rednecks assaulting decent women on buses.

As you can see from the linked source, the incident itself was unplanned by anyone except Ms. Parks. But the decision to use her specific case was a deliberate choice. If the gender roles had been reversed and a man was forced to give up a seat to a woman, people might have shrugged it off as the enforcement of 'good manners'.

The second issue involved the bombing of a church and the deaths of four 11 and 14 year old girls. This was the more shocking incident which galvanized opposition to segregation. It had the same impact in its time as 9-11 does today, it personalized the issue, drove home the fact that it was happening on our soil, and demonized the perpetrators.

As a result of all of this, it is a 'truth' in this country that segregation, and any vestiges of it, are wrong. Only those on the fringe would even call for its return, and even then only for shock value. Any laws that still remain on the books, such as law against interacial marriage, have only to be challenged once before being struck down, assuming they have not already been repealed. This a a huge change which occured in a relatively short time, less than a decade. It occured because one side won the argument, and 'The Great Middle' shifted. As a result, what was once illegal is now legal, and what was once legal, calling for the practice of segregation, might now be considered a hate crime.


What does this have to do with Bush and Iraq?

Bush was given a large amount of leeway by the US and the world after 9-11. In effect he was given an account of goodwill and sympathy on which to draw. The action in Afghanistan was clearly permissible because:

1) We were certain Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were there.
2) The Taliban never strenously denied he was there and refused to hand him over.
3) There was no legitimate government in Afganistan. The Taliban were little more than religious warlords.
4) The Taliban were already considered assholes by most of the world for running a brutal theocracy, as well as recently purposely destroying 2000-year-old statues Bariyan Statues Destroyed. Everybody hated these guys.

Iraq was a member of the United Nations. Hussein appeared to be complying with every mandate against him, although he walked a fine line. The Iraqi government, while a brutal dictatorship, was functioning as well as could be expected with trade cut off, and no clear evidence was found to the contrary.

The fact the Bush Jr.'s father left unfinished business there worked against him because people were not clear how much personal sentiment was pushing what was supposed to be a strategic decisision. Also, Bush had made an insanely stupid comment about a 'crusade' in the Middle East. From a publicly avowed Christian, this would be similar to a leader in Turkey speaking of a 'jihad' in Cyprus to respond to Greece. It brings a religious connotation to the issue.

There was also the issue of a direct connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, which involved the concept of a Sunni dictator of a largely secular Arab nation getting significantly involved with a well-funded and organized group of religious exteremists bent on installing Islamic goverments. He had history to draw on, specifically that of the Jordan-PLO debacle in 1970. Jordan-PLO Conflict Most of the world hated Hussein, but noone considered him stupid. In fact, the mere fact that he survived Desert Storm probably impressed most of the Middle East, even his enemies.

So the US begins an ever more strident call for the invasion of Iraq, gets a few hard-core allies to sign on, and tries piece together enough circumstantial evidence to build a consensus in the UN, or at least among the security council. At some point the US decides it does not need a consensus, and goes in with what many in its own military consider inadequate forces for long-term occupation.

At this point Bush has squandered any goodwill left as a result of 9-11. In the US, opposition to Iraq is still shouted down with 9-11, even though that case has never been made. In fact, I believe that by removing a government and uniliaterally attacking in the Middle East, we are alienating "The Great Middle" among the populations of most countries. Our own citizens, with some goading by representatives of the adminstration, are beginning to build the same kind of case against Saudi Arabia that we built against Iraq. The fact that both of these countries are sitting on a large amount of oil reserves and that our current president was an oil executive with a lot of influential friends in the oil business is also weighing against us.

Bush has basically lost the hearts and minds of most of the world here. Most of what he has done militarily and economically, appear to be providing short-term gains for significant long-term losses. Considering multiple tours in Iraq, some after only short stateside returns, coupled with cutbacks in schools for children of military personnel and VA hospitals, can only serve to drive down recruitment of married reservists, as well as others. We might end up with a draft.

Bush now has to go to the UN to get the support he might have gotten if he had waited. While the adminstration has been making a lot of noise about control of troops, a bigger possiblity is that we do not want to give up political control, especially in the area of rebuilding and oil contracts, which will run into the tens of billions, possibly more in the long term. If you could match up the list of parties on the US side set to benefit with the list of participants in the President's Energy Task Force, which we will never know since the White House stonewalled the release the list, you might find some significant similarities.

Bush has lost most the the middle ground abroad, and is about to do so in the US. He is not a great communicator like Reagan. I thought Reagan was a mediocre president but a great salesman. Bush does not even have that going for him.

As a result, we have a significant number of troops pinned overseas, a poor economy, and a lousy environment. At this point Bush's sole remaining test of leadership is the war on terror, and in this area more and more people now consider him a 'bloody shirt' empire-builder.