Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right
By Arianna Huffington
The Bible tells us that pride goeth before the fall. In Iraq, it cameth
right after it.
From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around
the
Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless
smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive
that
those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.
What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the
anti-war movement was dead right.
The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the
American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war
machine. The threat was so clear and present that we couldn't even give
inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction -- hey, remember
those? -- another 30 days, as France had wanted.
Well, it turns out that, far from being on the verge of destroying
Western
civilization, Saddam and his 21st century Gestapo couldn't even muster
a
half-hearted defense of their own capital. The hawks' cakewalk
disproves
their own dire warnings. They can't have it both ways. The invasion has
proved wildly successful in one other regard: It has unified most of
the
world -- especially the Arab world -- against us.
Back in 1991, more than half-a-dozen Arab nations were part of our
Desert
Storm coalition. Operation Iraqi Freedom's "coalition of the willing"
had
zero. Not even the polygamous potentates of Kuwait -- whose butts we
saved
last time out and who were most threatened by whatever threat Iraq
still
presented -- would join us. And, I'm sorry, but substituting Bulgaria
and
the island of Tonga for Egypt and Oman is just not going to cut it when
it
comes to winning hearts and minds on the Arab street.
In fact, almost everything about the invasion -- from the go-it-alone
build-up to the mayhem the fall of Saddam has unleashed -- has played
right into the hands of those intent on demonizing our country. Islamic
extremists must be having a field day signing up recruits for the holy
war
they're preparing to wage against us. Instead of Uncle Sam wants you,
their recruiting posters feature a different kind of patriotic image:
an
American soldier ill-advisedly draping the American flag over Saddam's
face.
The anti-war movement did not oppose the war out of fear that America
was
going to lose. It was the Bush administration's pathological and
frantic
obsession with an immediate, damn-the-consequences invasion that fueled
the protests.
And please don't point to jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets to
validate the case for "pre-emptive liberation." You'd be doing the
Baghdad
Bugaloo too if the murderous tyrant who'd been eating off golden plates
while your family starved finally got what was coming to him. It in no
way
proves that running roughshod over international law and pouring Iraqi
oil
-- now brought to you by the good folks at Halliburton -- onto the
flames
of anti-American hatred was a good idea. It wasn't before the war, and
it
still isn't now. The unintended consequences have barely begun to
unfold.
And the idea that our slamdunk of Saddam actually proves the White
House
was right is particularly dangerous because it encourages the
Wolfowitzes
and the Perles and the Cheneys to argue that we should be invading
Syria
or Iran or North Korea or Cuba as soon as we catch our breath. They've
tasted blood.
It's important to remember that the Arab world has seen a very
different
war than we have. They are seeing babies with limbs blown off, children
wailing beside their dead mothers, Arab journalists killed by American
tanks and bombers, holy men hacked to death and dragged through the
streets. They are seeing American forces leaving behind a wake of
destruction, looting, hunger, humiliation, and chaos.
Who's been handling our war PR, Osama bin Laden? The language and
imagery
are all wrong. Having Tom DeLay gush about our "army of virtue" at the
same time we're blowing up mosques is definitely not sending the right
message to a Muslim world already suspicious that we're waging a war on
Islam.
Neither is Ari Fleischer's claim that the administration can't do
anything
to keep Christian missionaries -- including those who have described
the
Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile" and a
"terrorist" -- from going on a holy crusade to Baghdad. You think the
Arab
world might take that the wrong way? If there is one thing that could
bring Sunnis and Shiites together, it's the common hatred of
evangelical
zealots who denigrate their prophet.
And it doesn't help to have the American media referring to Jay Garner,
the retired general Don Rumsfeld picked to oversee the rebuilding of
Iraq,
as "viceroy." It reeks of colonial imperialism. Why not just call him
"Head Bwana?" Or "Garner of Arabia?" I didn't realize the Supreme Court
had handed Bush a scepter to go along with the Florida recount.
The powerful role that shame and humiliation have played in shaping
world
history is considerable, but something the Bush team seems utterly
clueless about. Which is why the anti-war movement must be stalwart in
its
refusal to be silenced or browbeaten by the gloating "I told you so"
chorus on the right. On the contrary, it needs to make sure that the
doctrine of preemptive invasion is forever buried in the sands of Iraq.
Especially as the administration, high on the heady fumes of Saddam's
ouster, turns its covetous eyes on Syria. I give it less than a week
before someone starts making the case that President Assad is the next,
next Hitler.
------
Arianna Huffington is the author of "Pigs at the Trough: How
Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining
America." For information on the book, visit
www.PigsAtTheTrough.com
If you have questions or comments, contact Arianna at
arianna@ariannaonline.com |
