An Iraqi re-evaluates the situation.

Excerpt:

For 9 months I've thought that things were OK, that America did the right thing, we got rid of S.H. and his killing machine, that I'm happy, free and dreaming of a better future.

Thanks to all the true friends of the Iraqi people, I began to have some doubts and began asking myself real questions and day by day my doubts grew bigger and bigger then I tried to do what I was afraid of during these 9 months. I decided to re-evaluate everything I see and compare it with what it was before the war.

So, one morning I walked down the streets as usual heading to the hospital were I work, but this time my eyes were open and I was very attentive to all that surrounds me.

There is a call for protests of having troops in Iraq. These protests are scheduled for this Saturday. The idea is a simple, and not altogether unappealing one: "Foreign troops out now."

The troops would like that, certainly. Their families would as well. And make no mistake about it, staying one day longer than needed will do more harm than good. BUT, leaving early is to invite a disaster that would make the past few weeks seem like the good old days.

It was done before. We (the U.S.) did it. We screwed up bigtime when we did that. The place: Afghanistan. Had we stuck around a little while, and helped, things would probably be much different there, and years would not have been wasted. That mistake is not one to be made twice.

I do not consider the war in Iraq to be over. Many battles are, but even after the last shot is fired, the war is not over. Take a look at the U.S.A. The rebellion of the 1860s is still echoing long after the last shot. Not from the battles themselves, at least not entirely. The resentment of a reconstruction that was not done properly - or even not done at all - echoes down still from that time.

The war will be over when the coalition can leave and leave behind a free and stable country. Note I did not say "won." Military victory is a comparatively simple thing. What comes after is the truly tricky thing. Get that wrong, and history can repeat itself in unpleasant ways. Yes, Baghdad is in coalition control, or largely so, but this is not the beginning of the end, but as Churchill once said during a different conflict, it might be the end of the beginning.

What must be done? In the short term, continue the military effort where needed and finish that part of the job. Meanwhile, the places that have been secured, must be truly made safe. Civil order must be restored. Power stations must be made operational. Water works must work again, and also the sewers and sewage treatment plants. Hospitals must be supplied with all they need. Then the beginning might be able to begin.

Rebuilding must start. And it ought to be done as much as possible with Iraqi labor and Iraqi goods. This would mean jobs, not idleness, and a deserved pride in the results of the effort. The more goods used that are made in Iraqi factories, the better. Iraqi farmers must also be able to continue their work. The closer Iraq is to self-sufficiency, the better. Importing needlessly will only cause problems.

One area of touchy symbolism must also be treated carefully. The mosques and religious sites scarred by battle must be restored. These, above all else, must be restored by Iraqi hands. Payment may come from elsewhere, and indeed it would be grand gesture of goodwill if payment for this work came from the U.S. And ideally it would come by donation. What would it say if mosques were repaired with money collected by churches and other religious organizations, and not just Muslim religious organizations?

And a rebuilding of government must take place. And I will likely surprise a few folks by what I suggest: this should perhaps be largely guided by one of the coalition members that did not, and indeed could not, engage in the military action: Japan.

Why the Japanese? A few reasons. One, they made a change themselves not all that long ago. Two, they didn't engage in the military action and might therefore have an easier time of things. Three, they might not be seen as overly 'western' at least not as much as those from the U.S. and U.K. Fourth, there might be a better sensitivity to culture and avoiding unneeded impositions, which are the things out of which disasters are built.

And as this going on, the military presence reduces. Not fast, and not immediately, but over time. As the Marine Corps leaves, the Peace Corps can enter - if that is desired. And then, when all is fairly stable (nothing is perfectly stable, look at your legislature), then we leave. It will likely cost us billions. It will likely cost us years. It is also, in the long run, the least expensive of all the alternatives.

Current Mood: pensive

Weather
Friday, the 14th, we had a sample of Winter. A few inches of snow, and wind to blow and drift it. Fairmont was not entirely missed by the storm this time, but still got off rather lightly. The few inches was pretty much dealt with Saturday morning and it's been nice since. Meanwhile other parts of the country got hit and hit hard. This, with Jay's traveling has resulted in a curious reversal. He's experiencing more Winter type stuff than I am.

How to Get an LJ Entry Ignored
Take an okkay entry, ideally a longish one, and have it center justified. Centering works for some poems, and short items, but otherwise... BLARGH, say I.

( political commentary )

Scaring Coworkers
Sunday I stopped in at Family Dollar and picked up a few odd things. Okkay, I went nuts. See, they had Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Every store has those, you say. Ah, but these were not the regular 2-packs. These were 10-packs. And they were on sale. Very much on sale. Fifty cents per 10-pack on sale. A case holds 36 of those 10-packs. A case for $18 and tax. Like I said, I went nuts. I bought a case, somewhat to the astonishment of the checkout clerk. He started to apologize for not having a bag that'd hold it. No need, they come in a box already. And today I brought them, the Peanut Butter Cups, to work. A third is by the Engineering secretary's desk now. Another third is on the filing cabinets near sales. And the remaining third is on filing cabinets in the Ag. & Force Measurement area. I hit the three main places for goodies on my side of the building. The fellow next to me wonders what I'm up to. I'm being far too nice, he claims. And that scares him. Even more than I usually scare him.

Importance of Birthdays... No, the Unimportance of Age.
A Diplomat is a man who always remembers a lady's birthday but not her age. That's how one saying goes, as I recall it. Birthdays, or the anniversaries thereof, tend to have some importance to a person. It's nice to be remembered and all. (Sharing a birthday with my sister, I don't forget hers, nor she mine, but also we're both used to having one or the other moved celebration-wise... siblings rivalry and such - and two cakes not at once.) But age is different. Age is important only at times. When a little kid "I'm three and a half!" The next time it's of any notice, really tends to be around 16, when one can get a driver's license. Then 18, for voting (if you care enough to) and for men, registration. It used to also be a time when one could purchase alcohol. Now 21 is significant for that. The age of 25 is a marker when auto insurance rates drop. And then, with a few exceptions (like running for some political offices), age doesn't matter until retirement. And after that, it matters not at all except as way to impress the younger that you've survived that many trips around the sun. This is why I have to compute my age if asked. It is not a number that is important to me. "You don't know your age?!" Well, why should I? It's not important. I know the current date, and I know my date of birth. I can compute my age on the vanishingly rare times I need it.

Current Mood: good

The Iraqi government claims they have no banned weapons or programs to make them.

The Iraqi government also claims they never did.

Evidence clearly existed to prove the second statement false.

Inspectors now are trying to determine if the first statement is true or false.

Many seem to want to believe that it is true. The lack of the inspectors finding anything other than some omissions and less than incredible cooperation, like Iraq pointing out anything it might rather hide, makes this easier.

I, however, am a skeptic. That the Iraqi nuclear program was not uncovered until a defector pointed it out indicates there is within Iraq an incredible capability to hide things. When someone blows up your first attempt, you learn to hide the second. And the third. And do so very well. My doubt, however, does not automatically mean that Iraq is lying.

The US government claims they have proof of current Iraqi weapons and programs. But so far this proof has not been made public. And just a couple weeks ago the UN inspectors had stated if such proof exist, why not at least guide them so they know where to look? This hardly helps the US government's case, to put it mildly. This reluctance to reveal the evidence behind the claims, even indirectly, helps makes the Iraqi case.

Now I said I was a skeptic regarding Iraqi claims of having no banned weapons or programs. Logically there must be a way to convince me, or this skepticism is mere superstitious belief. Proving my suspicion is right is theoretically, if not realistically, easier than proving it wrong. A single instance is all it would take. One solid piece of evidence. A use of something nasty. (Let us hope that is not how any such discovery is made for it won't do anyone any good.) But to convince me that maybe, somehow, the Iraqi claim is valid would take more effort.

That effort is going on, some say. Almost. While the US isn't revealing anything that supports the claim that Iraq is outright lying, the inspection is likewise committing an omission. The inspectors are not using what may be the most powerfully convincing tool they have: the out-of-country with-family interview.

The ability to take Iraqi scientists, along with their families, out of Iraq for interviewing is provided by the most recent UN resolution. So far it has not been exercised. What has happened has been interviews in country, and not alone. Those interviewed have insisted that government representatives be present. This indicates fear. This indicates also that there is something to hide. Now, if you could take a few (not one at a time, a few at once) people out of country, with family, where they knew they were safe from possible Iraqi retribution, the result would be more useful and more believable.

But what if they still said, to a person, that there wasn't anything to find. That would be convincing. They have no reason, or very little, not be truthful. I won't say I'd be endorsing the Iraqi government's statement from the rooftops if this happened, but it would place the problem back with those who would like to convince me, and others, that Iraq was lying. Consider it international chess. It'd get folks to look to the other side of the board for the next move.

What makes me wonder is, why hasn't this tool be used? Are the inspectors fearing the result and preventing it? Do they not want to find anything? Is this their way of preventing, or trying to prevent, any military actions? Perhaps not, but it sure seems suspicious. If you went to a doctor because of chest pain, and the hospital and insurance company said "An EKG is fine with us" and there was a ready EKG machine in the examination room and the doctor refused to take an EKG of you, wouldn't you find that to be rather odd behavior? The permission is there. The tool is there. Using the tool could give a quick result and show the real situation. Why not use it?

Current Mood: uncomfortable