-Caveat Lector-
From
http://www.thetexasmercury.com/articles/copold/DC20010923.html
}}}>Begin
We
Americans,
We Unhappy Americans:
Bush's War Whoop Dissected Derek Copold
Tongue
freshly darkened by presidential bootblack, David Gergen burbled
on about
George W. Bushs Thursday night speech. Waxing Shakespearean, the
invertebrated Gergen told his interviewer that our Prince Hal of
Andover
fame had grown up to become a Henry V. As Henry Vs successful
career eventually
spawned St. Joan of Arcs far more successful martyrdom which led
to
Englands bloody eviction from the European continent, I didnt
find
this analogy as heartening as Mr. Gergen apparently did. But then
again, I
would expect no less from him. Hes the sort of man more fascinated with
politicians than he is with parties or even the nation. That nation,
unfortunately, is more in agreement
with Gergen than myself. With the grief and anger caused by September 11ths
events, this comes as no surprise. However, despite my sharing in the nations
outrage, I was not encouraged by the presidents address; indeed, I was rather
frightened by it and the uncritical reaction it has met. Un
surprisingly, Bush declared war on the Taliban,
but he did so in his own unique way. Employing his uniquely ingratiating
compassion,
our dear leader distinguished between Afghanistans ruling faction and its
people, "The United States respects the people of Afghanistan
" Sure we do. And we
no of now better way to
express this deep respect for other peoples than to give them a bit
carpet-bombing and impose economic sanctions, which manage to kill almost
everyone except terrorists. Once he had finished crooning his soothing song
of respect, informing the American populace that he respected Islam, whose
"teachings are good and peaceful", the president then listed a set
of demands. The Taliban, unsurprisingly, rejected them. In fact, they were
designed for that very purpose, and now we are committed to fighting a war
in Central Asia. I need not detail the difficulties involved with
a war in Afghanistan. It is a remote and barren land. Its mountains, the
Hindu Kush (Killer of Hindus), defeated both the British Empire and the
Soviet Union when both were at their pinnacle of power. We also have the
added disadvantage of being forced to access Afghanistan through unreliable
allies, such as Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Indeed, the peoples of
these countries probably hate us as much, if not more, than they do the
Taliban. Afghanistan will be a very tough nut to crack. Yet I think we may be able
to break it. To our
advantage, there is a native force in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban, the
Northern Alliance. Made up of Uzbeks, Tajiks and other ethnicities, they
have no love for the Pashtuns running Kabul. After years of neglect, much of
the Talibans more advanced weaponry, like the Stinger missiles we gave
them in the 80s, have deteriorated. Given a well thought out plan and
intelligent use of the Northern Alliance, we might just be able to displace
our new enemies, and maybe even capture Osama bin Laden. But then what? This is
where the Presidents
speech takes a dangerous turn into a vague fog of abstraction. Bush isnt
satisfied with just Afghanistan, and he says so: "Our enemy is a
radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them." And hes
serious. You know this because he uses
the n word. No, not that one, the other one. The terrorists, Bush
tells us, "
follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and
totalitarianism." Im glad he mentioned "fascism" and
"totalitarianism"; we wouldnt want to confuse them with Nazism. In pursuit of
this glorious (dare I say it)
crusade, our dear leader declares, "Every nation in every region now
has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or
support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile
regime." Thus begins the great "War on
Terrorism." We are now engaged in a death struggle with a noun. But before we
attack the offending verbiage, lets
ask ourselves a few questions. What does our dear leader mean by terrorism?
Is it just the Middle Eastern flavor, or are we going to include the IRA? If
so, Massachusetts could be considered a hostile regime. Personally, I wouldnt
mind seeing Hyannis Port bombed, especially when Prince Ted is in town, but
others might object. Are we going to include "narco-terrorists"?
If so, wed better send the armored divisions south to the border, muy
pronto. Mexico is infested with narcos, and the government there
protects them, which is why it keeps failing its official Drug War
certification. Should we lift the executive order forbiddin
