Inside The Cult That Runs The "Mobilization Against War and Occupation": Part II
Further to this post, there is now another beans-spilling defector from the cult behind the most active and high-profile "anti-war" group on Canada's west coast.Ian Beeching describes some of the "revolutionary discipline" demanded of its activists: Sleep deprivation, pressure to fork over personal savings, emotional bullying, mandatory hikes, mandatory "education classes", getting browbeaten for not producing an Iraqi flag with the words "Alahu Akbar" on it, sleeping in meat freezers, the lot.
In the picture here is Alison Bodine, MAWO's most famous activist, with New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton. I'm not posting it here to make Jack look bad.
I'm not the one who presented Bodine as the featured opening-night guest speaker at last November's British Columbia New Democratic Party convention. The NDP did.
I'm not the one who happily accepted Bodine's transparently bogus claim that she was the victim of a government plot to "target" anti-war activists. I'm not the one who chose not to notice, two weeks before she got a standing ovation at the NDP convention, that her story had been exposed as rubbish.
It's not as though MAWO's blackshirt conduct and deranged ideology was unknown to NDP activists, either. And yes, I mean deranged: "Wherever Islam is fighting against imperialism, ‘The Left’ must join with Muslims in this fight. . . the Muslims of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine who are fighting on the front lines against imperialism."
This has been no secret, especially on the left. Years before NDP convention organizers thought it would be cool to get in on Bodine's radical-chic celebrity, MAWO's lunacy was well-known to New Democrats, especially NDPers involved in "anti-war" activism.
The truth of it is, I feel a bit sorry for Layton.
His big challenge is the work of triangulating a progressive and coherent left-wing position on Afghanistan that still somehow appeals to the NDP's activist base, which has been largely addled by MAWO-type polemics at one end, and the kind of "revolutionary defeatism" that animates the broader-based, Islamist-friendly Canadian Peace Alliance at the other.
And it's certainly not helping that on "the left" in Canada, you're supposed to pretend that this isn't even happening.
posted by Terry Glavin at 12:34 PM
34 Comments:
Priceless.
The article in the Province that you linked to says "An Immigration and Refugee Board hearing ruled that Bodine misrepresented herself when she came to Canada." Is that why you say her story is rubbish?
Yes.
Complete, absolute, brazen, bold-faced rubbish. Nonsense from the get-go. Concocted. Untrue, false, wrong, out of whole cloth invented, not of this world:
http://tinyurl.com/2zeg5k
Along with the Canada-U.S. conspiracy to target "anti-war" activists and engineer her confinement to silence critics of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Zip. Missing. Nada. Absent. Non-real.
Ms. Bodine had not been a student at UBC for months, left UBC under a bit of a cloud (to put it delicately), had no business being here, Yankee go home etc. etc.
I see you're among the Friends of Ram. Had dinner with him not long before he died. A great loss.
Well, Terry, you're not going to be on the Trot party guest list, are you? But then, it doesn't sound like it pays to be friendly or sympathetic to this fractious lot... unless you're into masochism.
No, Kurt, I suppose not.
Although there's always the Internationalist Workers Tendency (see Wikipedia entry). A decent bunch. They're ultra-democrats, for defeating Islamism, always up for a drink, and they like a good laugh. They've never had an unkind word for me, anyway. And they're more fiercely disgusted with the MAWOs and CPAs of the world than even I am.
As in:
http://tinyurl.com/2ku8d2
Sound like decent blokes (blokesses?). I'll buy the first round. And sing Guthrie songs:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Jc2efqj5Js
Beauty.
I don't think that Layton is either willing or able to step up to the challenge of formulating a coherent position on Afghanistan. He doesn't appear at all concerned with dealing with reality, and he'd instead churn out absurd demagogic ramblings that appeal only to the already-held prejudices of the fake anti-imperialists. It's not just that Layton is wrong on Afghanistan--it's that he's absolutely dishonest on it. I can't trust him, and I doubt that I will vote NDP as long as he leads the party.
Graeme: It pains me enormously to say I think I agree wiht every word you wrote. Except maybe this: ". . .he's absolutely dishonest on it."
I'm not completely convinced that it more a case of dishonesty than simple ignorance.
His first words after the Manley panel report came out were that the Conservatives and Liberals have for six years had our soldiers in a counterinsurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.
Was that dishonest, or did it rather reflect a breathtaking ignorance of current affairs? Is he lying, or merely unaware that we didn't move back south out of Kabul until a bit more than two years ago, we haven't engaged in any direct counterinsurgency operation in months, and it's the Taliban, not the Tories or Liberals, who engage in the "insurgency" that ISAF demands we "counter"?
When he says that Alexander the Great came to grief in Afghanistan, is he lying, or is he simply embarassingly bereft an elementary grip on classic history?
When he compares the Canadian Forces to the Soviet Red Army . . . what is the word for that?
Dishonest just doesn't quite cut it.
Cheers,
t
So true, Terry, ignorance rules, and it's absurd the things people say. The average Canadian knows more about what happened to Britney last week than what happens in the world. It drives me mad.
The typical Canuck has no idea what's going on in, say, Kosovo. It's fallen off the radar - "Oh, we had a bit of bother there but it's OK now, right?" No, we're not out of the woods there, not quite yet.
I had to chuckle when Rafe Mair wrote a while back that everyone who's fought the Afghans has lost, including Alexander and the Soviets. Doofus. Kandahar didn't exist until Alexander built it, and he even gave it its name which stands to this day (Kandahar = Alexander). And the Soviets lost? OK, they lost 200,000 soldiers, thanks to billions of US and Saudi funds for weaponry that the Pakistanis used to create the Taliban, but the Afghans lost ten times as many lives, not to mention 5 million refugees. That's one helluva pyrrhic victory, Rafe and Jack.
The average Canuck doesn't know the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. "They're all fierce fearsome fighters and we should let them sort it out themselves." I think it was Sima who said a couple years ago that the public needs to realize that the stereotypical Afghan fighter is just a myth. Everyone from Darius to Tamerlane to Genghis Khan to the Soviets has been kicking the crap out of these people for millennia and I don't blame them for being rather sick of it, and wishing they could rule themselves again.
We're not fighting Afghans, we're trying to stop a minority of crazies from ripping each other's lungs out, while their government develops the resources to do it on their own. It's a civil war. Amnesty International has documented the Taliban's attempted genocide of the rather gentle and harmless Hazara people in central Afghanistan - it's all there for your bloodcurdling reading, but no one really cares.
Then you have dimwits like Byers (sp?) who say we should get out of a country where most want us there and instead send blue helmets to Darfur. Right. Look at a map and see that Sudan is the size of Europe and Darfur is in the furthest corner of it. And all of it is hostile as hell to western people, including neighbouring Chad, Congo and Uganda. It's a logistical nightmare and a surefire suicide zone for anyone, especially if they're carrying blankets and food instead of artillery.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for justice, peace and security for everyone. Like Obama says, I'm not against all wars, just the dumb ones.
Pardon my rant. But I really mean what I say.
Hi Terry,
Nice to meet you. Ram's death was indeed a great loss to so many of us. (I put that link in for anyone who would like to know about Ram.)
Regarding Alison Bodine, I must admit that this is the first I have heard of her. It seems that her border crossing was irregular, but it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that the political pamphlets she was transporting may have played some part in the extra scrutiny she experienced.
As for Jack Layton, while I'm not a member of the NDP, I do appreciate that he clearly speaks out against the war. He is vilified by supporters of the war, often in rather crude ways.
Yes, some members of the anti-war movement are given to excess, some are ignorant, and some are incoherent. But the same can be said of those with the opposite views.
Kurt:
That was a beauty. You need to fiddle with it a bit and publish it where a lot of people can read it. Excellent.
Nick: ". . .it doesn't seem inconceivable to me that the political pamphlets she was transporting may have played some part in the extra scrutiny she experienced."
That is not what happened, however, and that is not what she or anyone else alleged happened, and even if it did, it would have been perfectly justifiable. You're not supposed to lie your way into the country. If you claim to be a shoe salesman and your car is brimming with encyclopedias, a customs agent might reasonably "scrutinize" that the surfeit of encyclopedias in your car suggests you may well be misrepresenting yourself.
There is nothing glamorous or police-state about this. It's the story of a cheap scam artist whose untrue story made headlines across the country and was lapped up by pseuds from California to Quebec who enjoy glamorous police-state fantasies and whose gullibility produced 10,000 signatures on a Canadian petition and motions at union halls and a standing ovation at an NDP convention.
And by the way, as for the "anti-war movement" being given to no greater excess than the other side, there is no "anti-war" movement that I am aware of. The principle organizations that claim the "anti-war" mantle consist of a melange of useful idiots, hippies, deranged cultists, and dissemblers of the objectively and subjectively pro-fascist kind.
The only true "anti-war" party I am aware of in this entire matter is the Pakhtunkwa Milli Awami Party, based in the Pashtun belt, on both sides of the Durand line. And by "anti-war" they mean anti-Taliban.
That is not what happened, however, and that is not what she or anyone else alleged happened
It seems that this is in part what is being alleged. The brochure on Bodine's website says "The ordeal began after border officials searched her vehicle, identifying her as a political organizer" and that she transferred "political materials and other items" to her friend's car "to minimize harassment by border guards". Her perception, accurate or inaccurate, is that she was being targeted because of her political views.
It does seem she was misrepresenting herself, and she must deal with the consequences of that. But it's not clear that the authorities are altogether blameless.
there is no "anti-war" movement that I am aware of.
I use the term "anti-war movement" in a broad sense. There is, of course, a spectrum of views out there. Nevertheless, many Canadians would like our troops to withdraw from Afghanistan in the near future. (In the latest Angus Reid poll, 61% of respondents indicated they did not support extending the Canadian military presence beyond February 2009.)
The principle organizations that claim the "anti-war" mantle consist of a melange of useful idiots, hippies, deranged cultists, and dissemblers of the objectively and subjectively pro-fascist kind.
I don't know much about the situation in Vancouver, although reading your posts FTT does sound weird. But I don't think it's accurate to tar everyone with the same brush.
I identify with the anti-war movement out of sincere conviction that a combat role for Canadian troops in Afghanistan is a mistake.
Nick:
I'm more than willing to grant you your sincerity. And also, in reference to the poll numbers that you cite, that you are certainly not alone in holding those sincere views.
I'm happy to see you use the term "anti-war movement" in parenthesis, but you would be wrong to think that the intellectual squalor of the "movement" is confined to MAWO or Vancouver.
Last year, at least 20 Canadians, representing the leadership of The Toronto Stop the War Coalition, the Canadian Peace Alliance (this country's umbrella "anti-war" alliance) and the War Resisters Support Group were in Cairo for a get-together with Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and other such clerical-fascist groups, and there they pledged an oath to continue the fight against "Zionism and anti-imperialism" in Canada, to deliberately conflate Afghanistan and Iraq, and to exploit the alienation of Muslim youths in this country for these ends.
You can look it up.
The more Canadians understand the politics animating the "anti-war" discourse in this country, and the more Canadians learn about what is really happening in Afghanistan - and what the Afghan people want - the more those poll numbers you cite tend to drop.
All the best.
T
Aye, wobblie pops with wobblie mates and singing wobblie songs: truly a beauty:. Then to finesse with Chaucer
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qod7nSGKag0
Terry said..."His first words after the Manley panel report came out were that the Conservatives and Liberals have for six years had our soldiers in a counterinsurgency mission in southern Afghanistan.
Was that dishonest, or did it rather reflect a breathtaking ignorance of current affairs? Is he lying, or merely unaware that we didn't move back south out of Kabul until a bit more than two years ago, we haven't engaged in any direct counterinsurgency operation in months, and it's the Taliban, not the Tories or Liberals, who engage in the "insurgency" that ISAF demands we "counter"?"...
Well Terry you are wrong its not Layton that got his facts mixed up.But hey don't take my word for it
"...We learned just before Christmas 2001 that JTF2 was part of a seven-nation operation called Task Force K-Bar during the campaign in Afghanistan. Task Force K-Bar took part in 42 reconnaissance and surveillance missions, as well as what U.S. military authorities call "direct action" operations. JTF2 soldiers were part of commando operations that killed at least 115 Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters and captured 107 senior Taliban leaders over a six-month period....."
Sounds like counter counterinsurgency to me.And with Canadian troops six years ago
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/jtf2.html
Terry, ignorance certainly figures into it. I'm thinking, however, of Layton's persistent comments about how this is "Bush's war". I don't think that can be ascribed to simple ignorance--in any case, if he's truly that ignorant, he's not fit to lead any political party.
Kurt is absolutely right about Canadians not knowing much about what's going on in our own country. I've heard and overheard a lot of talk lately about the fucking American primaries (I'd rather hear people talking about Britney), but I haven't heard a single person talk about the Manley panel, or indeed anything else related to Canadian politics. It's a serious problem.
"I'm thinking, however, of Layton's persistent comments about how this is "Bush's war". I don't think that can be ascribed to simple ignorance. . ."
Aye, Graeme. It's pseudo-leftist hippie speak. All the rage in certain sections of the bourgeoisie at the moment.
Dirk: You're referring to a CBC backgrounder from 2005, which refers to JTF2 operations everybody knew about in 2001, and which handily confirms the facts I first reported in my Tyee column, in this way:
Layton - "For six years, the Liberals and Conservatives have had Canada involved in a counter-insurgency combat mission in southern Afghanistan."
That is what he said, Dirk, and it is untrue, wrong, false, out of bounds, out of touch, embarrassing, postively shy-making, a mistake, an error, a gaffe, a screw-up.
Nevermind that neither Whigs nor Tories got us into a counterinsurgency in Kandahar. The "insurgency" (a distortion to begin with) did. The facts are these:
It was less than three years ago that Canadian soldiers finally moved out of Kabul to take over in Kandahar. Check any decent map and you will see that Kandahar is in what Layton accurately describes as "southern Afghanistan." He said it. I didn't.
After the initial rout of the the Taliban down south, Canadian soldiers remained largely garrisoned in Kabul, and there they stayed, for years. And we haven't been engaged in any of the fabled "combat mission" or "war fighting mission" or "counterinsurgency" operations in several months, and the overwhelming majority of our soldiers who have died in Kandahar have died from such cowardly "insurgency" outrages as roadside bombs.
Another fact: Over the past seven years, the number of Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan is about half the number of workers - just construction workers - who have died - just from asbestos-related deaths - and just in British Columbia - just in the past year.
I say "fact" but of course I haven't checked it and you never know because it appeared in one of the pro-war neoconservative Zionist-controlled hegemonic mainstream daily newspapers I occasionally read.
Moral of the story: Pseudo-leftism is not "progressive," it is not socialist, it is not liberal. It is the abyss.
Nick,
I was present for both Bodine's hearing and the decision. The border agent's suspicion was aroused not by political literature, but by the fact she was carrying seven backpacks, a bike and a hope chest. The literature was in the chest, but the border agent testified that she didn't know what was in the chest until after she'd pulled Bodine over. (There was also the small matter of not having obvious means to support herself for two or three months, or evidence she'd return to the US after her visit.) She was pulled over and questioned and allowed to withdraw after her story didn't fully check out. Bodine called her Canadian boyfriend, and transferred most of her cargo to his car, re-entered Canada, changed her story and didn't mention she'd previously been turned away. When her boyfriend was caught hauling her stuff across the border, it was impounded and an arrest warrant issued for her. The rest is pretty well-known. Bodine's testimony was inconsistent and she never produced any evidence of targeting other than her own personal belief. What the adjudicator found was that she'd cut off an avenue of investigation that border agents could have used and in the process, misrepresented herself. He found no evidence that her political beliefs or literature played a part in the case.
In other words, a longer version of what Terry said.
I think that there is a whole lot of ignorance in Layton's position. Take his rambling about the helicopters suggested by Manley. Layton freely alluded to the Hinds used by the Soviets; it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know the difference between an assault helicopter and a medium-lift utility one. Nor would he care for the purposes of scoring political points with the base. Of course, it's mixed with dishonesty, foolishness, callousness, shamelessness, naïvete...
One last disappointing note: I ran into Randall Garrison this week. He referred to the panel report as "the cut and paste report", repeating a popular meme. Urgh.
Thanks, Ian. A most excellent account from you, as always.
Fidelity to facts. A matchless method.
T
Terry: re Layton's dishonesty / ignorance:
1. You are (as usual) too kind.
2. Ignorance, supported or not by honest stupidity, could carry a politician only so far.
Best.
Terry said..."Dirk: You're referring to a CBC backgrounder from 2005, which refers to JTF2 operations everybody knew about in 2001, and which handily confirms the facts I first reported in my Tyee column, in this way:
Layton - "For six years, the Liberals and Conservatives have had Canada involved in a counter-insurgency combat mission in southern Afghanistan."....
Your nit picking Terry.... Layton is correct to say the Libs and Cons have Canada involved in a counter insurgency combat mission for 6+ years.
To accuse him of lying or fudging is just ridiculous.2001 to 2008 equals 6+ in a counter insurgency combat mission.Your argument that because since then Cnd were garrisoned in Kabul somehow changes any thing is also ridiculous.
And so who got us into Afghanistan the Libs who is continuing the mission the Cons so in my book the Libs and cons are the guilty parties.
Again you are nit picking,we all know how you feel about Layton and the NDP.And nothing is going to change that,indeed your "argument" here makes that quite clear.
I also forgot to mention that Canada had troops involved in Operation Anaconda(took place in southern Afganistan),in 2002.
So again Canada has been involved in a counter insurgency war for 6+ years,in Afghanistan.Indeed all the fighting is in Southern Afghanistan.
So Layton is not lying or making up anything.One does not have to like Layton or agree with Layton but to accuse him of misleading or lying is a stretch if not total fallacy.
In the end 2001 thru 2008 indeed from 2002 thru 2008(take your pick) equals 6+ years of Canada participating in a counter insurgency war.
Dirk.
I've warned you about coming here and carrying on without checking your facts. This is the second time, on this particular issue, that you have got things back asswards and wrong.
If we are to go only by your recent discovery of Operation Anaconda, then you are now even more wrong than you were the last time you showed up here.
Unless some idiot is spoonfeeding you this crap as apologetics for Layton, then your errors appear to come down to a matter of basic literacy, So this time, please pay very close attention.
Layton: "For six years, the Liberals and Conservatives have had Canada involved in a counter-insurgency combat mission in southern Afghanistan."
Roughly 850 Canadian troops were deployed to Kandahar between February and August of 2002, as I have pointed out. One thing our soldiers were involved in during that time was Operation Anaconda, a three-week multinational operation, and a Taliban rout, that lasted three weeks. It was over on March 18, 2002.
In August, 2002, Canadian Forces were shipped back to Kabul (which is not in southern Afghanistan), where a fairly inconsequential deployment of soldiers engaged in patrols and a variety of non-combat functions - not a "counterinsurgency combat mission" - out of Camp Julien.
It wasn't until more than three years later, in November, 2005, that Camp Julien was shut down, with the remaining soldiers reassigned to Kandahar.
It is not until February of 2006 that "Operation Archer" put Canada in the lead for security within the Kandahar PRT's jurisdiction. It is not until September 2006 that Canadian Forces engage in the first act of major combat, Operation Medusa, which kicks off the mythical "counterinsurgency warfighting combat mission" Jack Layton's overcaffeinated advisers keep telling him to bloviate about. Our soldiers have not been engaged in any "counterinsurgency combat" of any consequence for the past few months.
If you still think that all this really adds up to "six + years of a counterinsurgency war", in southern Afghanistan (or on Mars for that matter), and if you still insist that Whigs and Tories have had Canadian solders engaged in counterinsurgency combat missions in southern Afghanistan straight through from 2002 - after I've gone to the trouble of laying out all this basic research for you, which you should have done yourself - then you are either a liar or a fool.
If either or both shoes fit, you are welcome to wear them, Dirk. If they don't, then you owe me an apology.
Your call.
Here's some more of your homework I've done for you, Dirk:
"Number of Canadian troops killed in combat in Afghanistan last year: 0.
"This would be the combat component of the mission that Liberal leader Stéphane Dion wants ended by next February and upon which he seems prepared to trigger a national election that Canadians don't want.
"Number of Canadian troops killed by improvised explosive devises in Afghanistan in 2007: 12.
"Number of Canadian troops killed by roadside bombs and land mines in 2007: 11.
"The last Canadian casualty in conventional combat – died fighting – came during the latter stages of Operation Medusa, four servicemen perishing during a ground offensive on Sept. 3, 2006.
"Since that time, there have been deaths in rollovers, helicopter crashes, suicide bombings and accidents but none from aggressively engaging the enemy."
- Rosie DiManno in today's Toronto Star.
It's nice to see you and Ian doing the two step together. Perhaps you can send a copy to your friends Michelle and audra.
I still think you're on pretty thin ground using an agency decision as proof that a person's story is rubbish. Some of these agency decisions are pretty hard to rationalize.
So what if the kid had seven backpacks? How does that arouse suspicion? We've got people in this country who have been committing actual crimes for years and border services can't seem to get them out. Yet a kid with a mouth, ... they're onto it!
Anyway, you two do a good job of trashing Layton, but how are you going to market Dion's position? Why not give us all the election preview now?
Terry: Just to really dirk Dirk--Canadian troops (doing combat, Operation Apollo) left southern Afstan in July 2002 after a six-month tour. The CF did not return to the country--over a year later--until they were deployed to Kabul (not in the "south" as you note). That was in August 2003, at the same time that NATO took overall charge of the UN Security Council-authorized International Security Assistance Force which at that time was essentially confined to Kabul and environs. That Canadian mission, which lasted until late 2005, was neither a combat nor a counterinsurgency one, rather more "traditional" peacekeeping.
If Mr Layton does not know that basic history he is truly ignorant. Otherwise he is truly mendacious. Others I think are just plain ignorant--and unwilling or unable to Google seriously to heal with their defects of knowledge.
Dirk: Any contradiction on the facts?
Mark
Ottawa
Delete the "with" in the penultimate sentence.
Mark
Ottawa
Wow you are really nit picking now So the year count does not begin until 2005.
But the fact remains Afghan troops have been in Afghan since 2001 and have never left.They participated in military operation in 2001 and 2002 that we know of,both south of Kabul.Therefore Cnd troops have been involved in a counter insurgency war since 2001.If you want to quibble about Layton's use of the word southern Afgan so be it(also where does southern Afgan begin ,which side of Kabul) But again to accuse Layton of lying or being egregiously misinformed is nonsense.Its nothing but partisan politicking on your side.You dislike Layton therefore...your playing word games.
Canada has been in Afghanistan since 2001 Canada has been involved in combat at various periods in that time sometimes in the south sometimes in the south east etc,Therefore Canada has been involved in a counter insurgency war since 2001.2001 thru 2008 equals 6+years
Hi Dirk
I couldn't vouch for it but I think southern Afghanistan begins somewhere on the south side of Kabul. Glad to be of service.
Budd Campbell, also known as Master Debator, MT View, also known as Rodney Smelser.
That last is his real name; unless he's retired now he also works for a certain "agency"; calls himself a "proud NDP member since 1968, and has been a millstone around the neck of the NDP ever since.
He is an identity-theft vandal who has also been stalking me obsessively and lying about me for several years, in everything from goofball internet discussion boards to letters to the editors of newspapers I've worked for.
This is for you, "Budd Campbell":
For years, I've let this go on. Showing up here with that comment of yours was the last straw. You just blew it.
This is the first and last warning you will ever hear from me:
You will not so much as type my name, ever again, anywhere.
You want to ignore that warning?
Go ahead. Please do.
Now, to more amusing matters.
Mark: See? There is no reasoning with these people.
My patience is gone.
Send them to the moon with a camera and they would still come back telling you the earth is flat.
Present them with clear, cold, hard facts and evidence, and it will not make a lick of difference. They will repeat the lie, over and over, with the occasional nuance of a new inaccuracy tossed in, and round it goes until they're right back where they started.
With a lie.
Dirk: "..the fact remains Afghan troops have been in Afghan since 2001 and have never left." :)
I'll bet you Afghan troops (of whatever persuasion) were there considerably before 2001 and will be there until the end of time or at least until the peace that passeth understanding takes hold.
Just more factual points for your consideration. Want to put $100 on the second para?
Mark
Ottawa
These Islamic eruptions have been happening about every 100 years or so for the last 1400 years.
Anti-war is nice. Please explain how you intend to make the Islamics make peace? Who ya gonna negotiate the surrender with? Would that be the Shia or Sunni faction. What happens when we are all Moslems and the Sunni-Shia wars start? Or how about tribe x vs tribe y. How is the Grand Caliph chosen? Murder? Intrigue? War? It will not be those oh so decadent elections we are so fond of. The will of God not the people reigns supreme.
The whole anti-war "movement" is living in fantasy land.
So yeah. I'd love to end all wars. Especially this one. Could some one tell me how? And then what happens next?
Our best hope is to institute self government every where despots rule. It is a long project. There will be a lot of grief. I don't see any other way forward.
Iraq is the first major trial of that policy. It seems to be progressing, very slowly and at great cost - but progressing.
We will do better next time. We have learned a few things.
Post a Comment
<< Home