Beyond entry into the the war, Israeli interest played a role into the dissolving of the Iraqi army and other government institutions, a feat now strongly blamed for the insurgency and prevailing lawlessness .

The media learned nothing from this, as they now divert their attention from Iraq to Iran. Incidentally, I recall last fall when Olmert let slip a quote that “Iraq war good for Israel”. The media was quick to purge all such mention from its archives. It was erased because its bad PR for you know who. Because it gives the impression that what is good for Israel, Can be terribly bad for America.

The truth, IMHO, is that the overwhelming majority of Americans drank the Administration’s cool aid that this was going to be quick, easy and cheap, and, gosh, might keep their gasoline prices down, too. I had “conservative” friends admit that of course it was all about the oil, but Saddam deserved to go. IMHO, the biggest legitimate threat posed by Saddam was that the sanctions were weakening and likely to be removed, and he was likely to start freely selling his oil, in euros rather than dollars. That could have glutted the oil market, but more importantly to American financial interests, could have substantially devalued the dollar. That was at least an arguable national security threat, but it was not stated or debated as a cause for war. My guess is that the public wasn’t told because big oil, errrr, I mean the Bush Administration, knew that the American people couldn’t be convinced to send their sons and daughters to fight and die for big oil and a strong dollar, and certainly not on a permanent (oops, I mean “enduring”) basis. But, the administration “knew better” than the people, so it was going in anyway. Hence, the administration scared the public with the obviously bogus WMD claims and the ludicrous claim that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda, lured the public with the “war will pay for itself and be over in six months” claims, and topped off the snow job with the laughable “overthrowing a tyrant and spreading democracy” frosting. This gross propaganda to generate the fig leaf of the the authorization to use force, which the warmongers now spin as a bipartisan “vote for the war.” This snow job would not have worked if the administration had actually called up the 300,000-plus troops Shinseki and the Army war plans called for, resulting in the “light footprint” of troops (supplemented by lots of private mercenaries being paid for with government money) that were unable to maintain order after the military victory. The gamble was that the American people could be kept in line behind the war (and even expand the commitment to the size needed for success) because, hey, we are a militant, warlike culture and wouldn’t want to lose ANOTHER war, plus anyone who criticized the war (or its conduct) could be marginalized by calling them naive, liberal, cowardly, traitorous, and anti-Christian. AND, SO FAR IT HAS WORKED PRETTY WELL FOR THE WARMONGERS!

The tragedy is that the loyalty, lives, limbs and minds of our troops are being sacrificed for greed, not to mention our national treasure and international prestige. Sooner or later even the most diehard among the troops will realize they’ve been sold a bill of goods, just as David Hackworth and John Paul Vann did in Vietnam. Will the troops, and the public, answer the call next time, when there might be an actual direct threat to our national security? Or, will they sit the next one out, having been burned so badly again in Iraq, only thirty years after Vietnam ended. Fool us once, fool us twice, but fool us a third time?

And, of course, having lost it, the blame game now starts. There will be a tacit consensus to blame some small group: the neocons, the Republicans, the Israel Lobby, the Jews, Israel, the conservative think tanks, the oil industry, the arms industry etc. On the other side, it will be the Left, the Democrats, university professors, Europe. The one thing nobody will do is balme themselves or any group which includes themselves, such as “the entire society”. Or rather, only those who forsee blame being inevitably attached to themseves, in Mr Dobbins’s case, the Beltway elite, will adopt that variant of “I was just following orders”.

Arguments can be made in favour of anything. We all know what is meant by the expressions “might is right” and “the winner writes history”.

Most people nowadays would consider the deliberate harming of innocent people simply for pleasure as evil. However, the gladiatorial games in ancient Rome had a large element of this about them and people at that time didn’t think it wrong. The torture and murder of innocent people precisely because they didn’t believe in someone else’s god might also be considered evil, but that is precisely what the Catholic Church did for many years and few if any of the adherents objected.

Few would consider lying and cheating for personal gain to be good behaviour, yet this is what successful countries frequently do and are commended for it.

History is full of examples of acts and behaviour that were all right at that time but which, in a changed moral climate, are now thought to be wrong. Huns, Tartars, Goths and many, many others have been vilified in history while others are held as shining examples of all that is good. But who writes the history?

Over time, countries have come together to devise rules for living peacefully. These are the basis of international law. Countries signed up to these treaties and agreements in the expectation that all would behave in accordance to the agreements.

When a country arbitrarily and unilaterally violates these agreements, other signatories might well feel such a country to be irresponsible, at least. If that country then breaks the agreements by deliberate acts of aggression against individuals, groups and recognised sovereign countries, others might view this to be evil.

Such evil actions are the attribute of that country, at that time. Of course this does not mean that every single individual in that country agrees with what is done by those in power. Presumably not all ancient Romans thought the Games were moral, but they had no power, no voice and no significance. History ignores them.

Now, countries that carry out actions or behaviour that others consider to be evil will almost certainly seek to justify their actions.
Dropping of atomic bombs on civilian populations will be justified; carpet-bombing of civil populations will likewise be justified by those doing this, exterminating groups within a population that are thought to be anti-social or undesirable will be justified and approved by those benefiting from such actions. Using the latest technology to terrorise local populations will likewise be justified by those on the dominant side. Does this make such actions or behaviour less evil?

Clearly, the writer (Walter Uhler) feels it unfair to blame his country (and its people) for the evil it has wrought. Who else is to blame? Are there other examples of that country behaving in a similar manner under different leaders? Is there evidence of successful mass protest?
Has there been a ’slaves revolt’?

My experience has taught me that we are all corruptible, but we are not all corrupt. Some brave souls will always be willing to stand out against the tyranny of the prevailing force be it mob, mass, or country. Walter Uhler is such a person, but that doesn’t excuse his country for what it has done and is doing in the world against international law, but most importantly against innocent people who have done nothing against America.