The good bad war: Making sense of utter chaos

I overheard an extended conversation about the Iraq war today. One person felt the invasion was good because we removed Saddam, who is evil, and the Iraqi people will eventually be better off. The other side felt the war was bad because the Iraqi people are suffering under the cooalition in exactly the same ways they suffered under Saddam - with no end in sight. After a lengthy debate in which the side favoring the invasion itemized Saddam's attrocities and the side opposing featured coalition attrocities - neither side walked away holding a different opinion.

As I muddled through my day, I continued to think about the debate. It occurred to me that neither side was entirely right. Each clung to a partial truth, without recognizing the partial truth on the other side. Yes life uder Saddam was bad and, yes, so is life under the coalition. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. Americans must consider this carefully. It is always difficult to hold several apparently opposing ideas in one's head at the same time. But that's what is required of us as we analyze the President's decision to remove Saddam. Consider:

Saddam was/is evil and deserved to have his ass kicked to Hell with all the other fascist cannibals that reside there.

AND

The Iraq war was an irresponsible incursion into a sovereign nation that was not a threat to our country. It is wrong as a strategic component in the war on terror because it created more enemies than friends. It is wrong logistically because it stretched our military to the breaking point in an endeavor that does not advance our own security. It is wrong financially because we are pouring money down a rat hole for the ironic purpose of increasing our insecurity. It is wrong morally because we are sending our young people to die in the pursuit of the neocon pipedream of creating a corporate themepark that hasn't and won't materialize [09.04 Harper's Magazine, Baghdad Year Zero. Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia. Naomi Klein. pp 43-53].

AND

It is possible that the Iraqi people will be better off as a result of our action, but they aren't now. It is impossible to say when they will be better off.

AND

It doesn't matter if you are killed by an evil-doer or a freedom lover you are still just as dead.

AND

The US has killed a boatload of civilians, which might make it difficult for the average Iraqi to agree that they have been liberated.

How are we to reconcile these realities?

The GOP asks us to believe in the power of freedom. I do. However, saying we have liberated nations does not neccessarily make it so. I argue that the only judges of freedom are those individuals to whom it belongs. Once the people of Iraq and Afghanistan agree that they are free - then perhaps they will be. Once they agree that we are the ones that facilitated their freedom, then perhaps I will agree that we have facilitated it. Thus far we have only created deadly power vacuums in which people suffer greatly while major players vie for control.

Unfortunately, Bush has lost the ability to negotiate effectively on our behalf with the rest of the world. If we want to truly wage war on terrorists, we will need to make more friends than enemies. Bush's way has made us more enemies than friends. That is the reality he ignores with his words and perpetuates with his actions.

Terrorism is dark and complicated. It will take someone with a strategic mind to address it. George Bush has thus far shown no cleverness, no ability to win friends to our side. He has shown an incredible, clownish willingness and ability to offend the very hearts and minds we are supposedly liberating.

Give me John Kerry any day.