I watch Bill Maher every Friday night that he's on, and on a whole host of issues, he has insightful commentary. Yes, he's views on religion in general are quite bothersome, but I can look past that. It's no secret that he has no love for the Bush Administration, and I've certainly got no beef with that. One thing that has bothered me about him in recent weeks though, is his quasi-humorous/not-so-humorous flirtation with the idea of putting Saddam back in charge of Iraq.
He pointed out that he was joking the first few times he's said this, but now he's kind of serious. Whether he was serious or not, it appeared to me that Robert Baer (the former CIA-agent on which Syriana was based) basically agreed.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't think Maher is really thoughtfully considering this. I think it is a quasi-comedic, short-sighted call for stability in Iraq. Stability at any cost. There is a lot of chaos in Iraq, and many feel the only way this war can end is if we pull out our troops, or put in place a strong man like Saddam. This is really a rebirth of the containment approach to dealing with Saddam. Like I said, I don't think Maher wants to throw the Iraqis back under the boot, but of course we all know that would happen. The very idea of putting that monster back on the throne is an affront. We shouldn't punish the Iraqis because of our mistakes. Besides, I've always felt, that even among the most ardent war critics, the one thing we all could agree on was the Saddam being gone was a good thing.
This approach is so absurd I needn't dwell on it further. The idea that all our brave troops will have died in vain, the Iraqi soldiers fighting beside us will have died in vain, that after all that blood and treasure, that we'd just give up, throw up our hands and tell Saddam "never mind, you can have it back," it's too absurd to even consider.
Especially considering the progress we've made, and we have made real progress.
In truth, I suspect that Maher, if he's not joking, hasn't even begun to really think any of this through. Maybe he's just being controversial for its own sake. Either way, for every inch this idea moves closer to legitimacy is an inch towards defeat and the triumph of really f-ed up ideas.
But you know what, I'm worrying for nothing. No one in their right mind can really be considering this.
2 comments:
To begin: I find the Iraq War to be absurd.
We invaded a sovereign nation with bombs and guns and bayonettes under false pretenses (remember those Weapons of Mass Destruction that we didn't want to make their way to the US?). We ran a legitimate government from their post, arrested their dictator, destroyed the nation, and are now conducting a trial of said dictator for crimes against his own people. The real absurdity is that we are going to force the Iraqi people to form a democratic government, whether they want one or not. Why?
Our President now says that we are spreading democracy into the Middle East. It appears that we are spreading hatred of the US and instability throughout the Middle East. It appears that we are trying to put an end to the unfinished business from the First Gulf War (which was incidently started by President Bush's daddy).
If we were any other nation doing the exact same thing, the United Nations would've enacted sanctions against us. We haven't invaded Cuba to rid them of communism and bring democracy to them. We haven't invaded Columbia to stem the flow of cocaine flying from their borders into the US. We haven't invaded Haiti to stabilize their government. We haven't invaded Mexico to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the US. And we haven't done this because... it would be absurd!
I read your entry over at Booker Rising and thought that I'd also post my comments on your blog (I've also added you to my BlogRoll).
Interesting points plez, but that still doesn't justify the idea of even considering putting Saddam back in charge. The fact is, no one is seriously considering this, which was my point.
Also, I've also added you to my blogroll.
Post a Comment