Hearing that Saddam Hussein will be executed makes me think of David Brent of The Office. When he gets fired, he tells his staff, "The good die young... I told them you lot would go mental." But they just stare at him.

Much like Brent, Hussein thinks he's a martyr. But he's fallen into the same trap as the Americans. They assumed that since people hate him, they'd love the Occupation. Hussein assumes the opposite.

When it comes to brutal dictatorship, it doesn't really matter who holds the gun. Hussein will be executed by people who have killed more Iraqis than he has, which is another tragedy to add to the long list - that a tyrant ends up looking good by comparison with the occupiers.

Rather convenient, the Americans 'getting their man' two days before the mid-term elections, too. I forget the source, but a pundit I read predicted this months ago. Funny how such a difficult trial, fraught with disruption, in an occupied land, just happens to end while the Republican Party is fighting a rearguard battle. You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to believe in good timing.

What are we fighting for?

As the American election approaches, the media is full of stories about whether Americans are interested in 'staying the course'. For example, check out Gary Younge from The Guardian's fascinating travelogue (Flash animated) across America.

The pro-war Americans justify their support for Bush by saying "We're accomplishing so much over there." No one ever goes on to say what, exactly, the Americans are accomplishing. Oh sure, there're all the military blogs, where soldiers give candy to kids and build clinics. But they're scarce on details. The pro-war types also recognize this, and their response is stupefying. They blame the media. The reason we don't hear about all the good things the army does is because the media is anti-war. It fixates on car bombings instead of reconstruction.


Awww, looks like the war's OK after all

You have to look at where this is coming from. For example, Newsbusters.org researches the liberal media bias. It's a project of the Media Research Group, which in turn sponsors The Business and Media Institute, "dedicated to 'Advancing the Culture of Free Enterprise in America.'" These are capitalists complaining when things don't go their way, which shows the link between capitalism and war: the business class wants more dead Iraqis.

But I suppose it explains the traumatized families of U.S. soldiers, who cling desperately to whatever excuse the government gives them. Between sending my kids to die for capitalism, or dying for democracy, I know which I'd choose.

There's a liberal response to this: when bad things happen, it's the media's job to report them. If Iraqis are getting blown up by the dozens every day, if nearly 3,000 U.S. troops have died, then the public has a right to know about it. Think of the attention paid to the 2,800 victims of 9-11. The logic of a bodycount demands at least equal time for the latest casualties.


Deconstructionists, this one's for you

But if the media was truly in favour of 'equal time' for everyone, they'd have to devote as much time to the 655,000 dead Iraqis, as they have to the dead U.S. troops. You don't need a 'slant' to be anti-war, you just have to talk about what's actually happening, and the media ignores the big stories. The official links to the Abu Ghraib tortures were never explored; we never hear what troops are, in fact, doing when they occupy whole cities; there was never any in depth explanation for the use of phosphorus gas. Why did the U.S. bomb al-Jazeera? The questions are legion, and if even 10% of what the Iraqi Resistance Reports say is true, there's a lot of explaining to do.

The most powerful weapon is empathy

This yawning gap has nothing to do with squeamishness: there are dozens of references, including pictures, of the Kurdish victims of Saddam Hussein's gas attacks in the mainstream media (e.g. from CNN's education division!) Discounting the horrific, yet single scandal of Abu Ghraib, I've seen no accounts of U.S. atrocities in the same media. Yet there are lots of websites showing the real impact of the war. Why aren't pictures of dead Iraqi children on the front pages of western newspapers?

Apparently it's radical to think that Iraqi lives matter as much as American ones. To avoid this dangerous sense of humanity, the American people have to be inured to Iraqi suffering.


War as a beach party - American soldiers in the Green Zone, Bagdhad

Obliterate the messenger

But this raises a further question: apparently there are millions of people who think that war can solve problems. It's starting to dawn on the Right that it doesn't work; in a classic case of psychological transference, they shoot the messenger. Unfortunately, this is only after shooting 655,000 Iraqis. I find it very interesting that even hinting at the carnage is too much for the Right to handle. It's utterly pathetic how the Right's response to the mess they've created, is to blame those who point it out. At least have the courage, like the U.S. State Department did, to admit you were wrong. It's further proof that if the real story were told, the Right would lose its best argument: we're 'doing good' over there.

Maybe this generation of U.S. hawks will become disillusioned, after the insurgency forces them out; but the military establishment, not to mention the inexorable search for capitalist profit, will guarantee another war, soon.


Yeah, right

Shadenfreude

In the meantime, I delight in the prevarications, second-thoughts and u-turns of the pro-war types. I hope they're wrestling with their consciences. I hope they're suffering. And not just because they've brought so much suffering down on the Iraqi people, but because it was completely avoidable.

This is what I wrote on April 18, 2003:

Myth c) Iraq is free.

Iraq has an occupying power in it. It has a power vacuum beneath. Fundamentalists are already starting to call for an Islamic State (weren´t those the people we were fighting?) The people have to wait for free elections, for an unknown time. Without a war, without sanctions, with adequate humanitarian support, the people could have accomplished the same thing with far less bloodshed, and far more democracy. But that wouldn´t let the U.S. be involved: the whole reason for the intervention in the first place. (And, it appears, to give a whole bunch of juicy contracts to American multinationals. There´s a good job creation strategy: destroy a country and rebuild it!)

Saddam Hussein was created by the U.S. He has been removed, so the U.S. can take more direct control. Many thousands of innocent people have died. Iraq has been reduced to rubble. That´s all.

It's not really yours, but point taken

Turns out I was smarter than the Bush Administration and the entire military. They could've saved themselves a heck of a lot consulting fees by just reading my blog.

But heck, I can't take all the credit. 15 million people, on February 15, 2003, figured it out beforehand too. We all knew it was a lie. So now, when the generals and pundits blame the media, or admit it hasn't gone to plan, we can honestly say that's not good enough. The leaders are war criminals; if they're going to execute Hussein, they should do the proper, moral thing and slip their necks in the noose next. And the people who think war brings peace should take a long, hard look at the Iraqis their arrogance and ignorance condemned to death.