A contributor of a discussion group which, loosely, is more
liberal than conservative in makeup, inserted a fairly lengthy diatribe
yesterday, citing his status as an engineer, which apparently gives him
enhanced insight into matters political(?)
The gist of
said rant was that all the increases in the federal deficit, all the increases
in number of food stamp recipients, all the numbers of citizens collecting
Social Security disability. in fact all the giving of "stuff' to
"people too lazy to work" is directly and, in his opinion personally
attributable to the former POTUS. These are patently false, as the President
has nothing to do with them. The extension of unemployment to 99 weeks at
Obama's request during the worst of the Great Recession is the sole increase
which can be plaid at his feet. The writer also lays responsibility for the
rise if ISIS at the feet of Clinton/Obama. We've seen this before, and as in
previous instances, this writer felt the need to make what remains one of the
more telling and outrageous claims floated by this cadre of malcontents. He stated "Obama divided America." I'll deal with that last, because it contains
the most telling clues to the psyche of these malcontents.
But, first
things first. Attributing the rise of ISIS to anyone other than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
is a fool's errand and said allegation is the most easily dispatched. Dick Cheney, then SecDef, warned Bush 41 that going
to Baghdad (after sweeping victory in Desert Storm) would be a tragic mistake
because then we'd "Be responsible for Iraq." At the time many
Americans couldn't grasp why the US withdrew, but Cheney's advice was good
counsel. Jump ahead 10 years, and , Cheney, now VP to Bush 43, has had a change
of heart. We all know the rest of the sickening story. Of course Barack Obama
took office and complied with Bush's commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq by
2011. We know the rest - except that we really don't if what I have just delineated
is the extent of your knowledge of the subject.
In early 2003, Jay
Garner, a retired General, and the person initially appointed to oversee the
post war rebuilding of Iraq, began by reaching out to former military and
police senior and mid level officers as two things were apparent. First, there
was no deep abiding love or loyalty to the now deposed Saddam or to his Ba'ath
Party. Secondarily, these were capable
administrators and leaders who could be invaluable in rebuilding a stable civilian
structure of government in Iraq. Garner's efforts to be inclusive in the
forming of a new core of capable administrators were received by Cheney and
even more especially, Donald Rumsfeld, with scorn. Garner's removal in May 2003
and his replacement by Rumsfeld yes man, Paul Bremer, is the trigger for the
ascent if ISIS if any single event can be said to have been so. There are
generally considered, at least by rational unbiased observers, to have been three
significant factors involved.
First: Not
providing enough troops to maintain order, which led to the absence of martial
law after the country was conquered. The Office for Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) was established on 20 January 2003 by the United
States government two months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. It
was intended to act as a caretaker administration in Iraq until the creation of
a democratically-elected civilian government. ORHA had identified at least
twenty crucial government buildings and cultural sites in Bagdad, but none of
the locations were protected; only the oil ministry was guarded. With no police
force or national army to maintain order, ministries and buildings were looted.
Among those
pillaged were Iraqi museums, containing priceless artifacts from some of the
earliest human civilizations, which sent not so subtle signals to the average
Iraqi that American forces did not
intend to maintain law and order. Eventually, this became an organized destruction of Baghdad. The
destruction of libraries and records, in combination with the
"De-Ba'athification", (removing from authority any former Ba'ath
party members) had virtually eliminated the
bureaucracy that existed prior to the U.S. invasion. ORHA staff reported that
they had to start from scratch to rebuild the government infrastructure.
Rumsfeld initially dismissed the widespread looting as no worse than rioting in
a major American city and archival footage of General Eric Shinseki stating his
belief of the required troop numbers reveals his awareness of the lack of
troops (and Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush lack of concern.)
Second: Bremer's
first official executive order implementing "De-Ba'athification" in
the early stages of the occupation, as he considered members disloyal. Saddam
Hussein's ruling Ba'ath Party had counted as members a huge majority of Iraq's governmental
employees, including educational officials and some teachers, as it was not
possible to attain such positions unless one had membership. By order of the
CPA, these skilled and often apolitical individuals were
banned from holding any positions in Iraq's new government.
Bremer's second
official executive order disbanded all
of Iraq's military entities, which went against Garner's proposal and the
advice of the U.S. military and made 500,000 young men unemployed.
The U.S. Army had wanted the Iraqi troops retained, as they knew the locals and
could maintain order, but Bremer ( and more correctly, Rumsfeld, 6,000 miles
away) refused as he felt that they could be disloyal. Former Iraqi soldiers, now
unemployed and essentially unemployable, many with extended families to
support, then decided that their best chance for a future was to join a militia
force. Arms depots were available for pillaging by anyone who wanted weapons
and explosives, so the former Iraqi soldiers converged on the military
stockpiles. The U.S. knew about the location of weapon caches, but said that it
lacked the troops to secure them; ironically, these arms would later be used
against the Americans and new Iraqi government forces.
These three
mistakes are, inarguably, the primary causes of the rapid deterioration of
occupied Iraq into chaos, as the collapse of the government bureaucracy and
army resulted in a lack of authority and order. It was the Islamic
fundamentalists that moved to fill this void, so their ranks swelled with many
disillusioned Iraqi people. All happened on Bush 43's watch and at the behest
of his underlings.
And finally,
"Obama divided America." No,
he didn't. One can comb every speech, candid remark, and action of President Barack Obama and find no example of
"divisive" language other than
perhaps the general sense that we as a society should be cohesive, unified, and
care for one another, which is actually the precise opposite. So where does
this sentiment come from? It's hardly original with "the engineer" as
we've heard it on Faux News and elsewhere in the "alternative facts" dimension.
The sad truth
is that America was already divided. Blaming Barack Obama is rather like a kleptomaniac blaming a merchant for stocking attractive merchandise. Those of us who lived through the Civil Rights
movement and had hopes for a more
racially cohesive America were rudely disappointed by an incredible array of attempts to vilify
Barack Obama well before he ever took office. Unlike the current POTUS, this
was not for overt actions or public displays of bad behavior, because there
were none. He was attacked for an association with a pastor, not a Russian
Oligarch. His birthplace was challenged, and a slew of other groundless and
invented fallacies thrown at him. The real reason, however has zero to do with
anything other than his racial background. America was, and is still divided
over the issue of race. Barack Obama was elected as Chief Executive of an
already divided America. His election simply spurred the character flaws of the
haters to a more visible level.
Instructions from both House and Senate Republican
leaders to their rank and file support this, as both stated that any and all
Obama proposals would be met with unified resistance. A realistic review of
such proposals, by the way, will reveal that
essentially none of them involve "free stuff for persons too lazy to work." Didn't happen. It's a lie. It's telling that within the past week, the
media whore in the nutcracker jacket answered a question re: size of inaugural crowds with a diatribe against
the previous administration including
words to the effect that "20 million Americans lost their health care." More irrelevant and incorrect than this
statement would be impossible. Factually, after implementation of the ACA, about
16 million MORE Americans were insured. Conway's statements are, sadly, typical.
As I have
previously opined, race hatred based on bias and preconception is a learned
trait, and sadly, among many Americans, still fostered at home. It is, in my
opinion, a national emotional disability which renders the objective evaluation
of social actions and activities almost impossible. It also is a two way
street. Proportionally to the population, there are probably as many of the White,
Black and Brown populations in America
who are distrustful of the other. I
avoid using "race" there, because race is "human,"
everything else is cosmetic. It's when we treat each other as if it's not so,
that we come to difficulties It's difficult not to angered be when one sees vastly
divergent sentences handed down for
identical crimes, with the only differentiating factor being race, or social
status.
In 1963, John
Kennedy said, "Difficulties over
segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every state of the union....
Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis, men of good will
and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is
not even a legal or legislative issue alone. .... law alone cannot make men see
right. We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures
and is as clear as the American Constitution.”
As eloquently, JFK
said something in a foreign policy speech which is equally applicable to the
racial split in America today: "Our
most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the
same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." He
was addressing issues with Russia, but the implications are universal.
Barack Obama understands this. This sums up what has to have
been an exasperating 8 years: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter,
they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or
anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their
frustrations." Mix all these individual issues with a liberal dose of the
emotional disability of bigotry and bias and you get...the author of the rant I
referred to in the first sentence.
No comments:
Post a Comment