I Dare Because I Care

by pessimist

One of our friendly neighborhood trolls recently took me to task for daring to use an Arab source to bash Bush. Why this should matter to it so much boggles my mind, but source credibility has to be something I take into account when I use a source. So, to this person specifically and to all of you generally, I don't use just any old source very often, and the Arab sources I use are as valid as any other I use.

So why am I bashing Bush at all? Because he took my country to war needlessly, through lies, and is getting my countrymen (and women) killed because of his mendacity.

Pundits far more respected than I have repeatedly made the case that Bush went to war without cause and without proper preparation. Because of his blind and arrogant incompetence, my country is at greater risk of attack by foreigners than it has ever been in its entire history - and with less defense against the likeliest form of attack than ever.

Despite all the hype and spin to the contrary, George Warmonger Bush is losing his war in Iraq. Who's my source? None other than the ancient Master of War himself, Sun-Tsu:

24. Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. [Chang Yu tells us that in ancient times it was customary for a temple to be set apart for the use of a general who was about to take the field, in order that he might there elaborate his plan of campaign.] The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

I suppose now that I'll be taken to task for not citing CNN or FAUX News!

Despite what our friendly neighborhood trolls might think, I am as American as any other citizen. I grew up reading the history of the victors and believed that America never lost a war. It wasn't until I grew up and expanded my research away from the battles themselves and into the causes and consequences of war that I realized that wars are won and lost long after the battles have ended.

Example of a war won after the battles ended - The Occupation of the Axis Powers after WWII.

Despite the recent disagreements over Bush policies toward Iraq, Germany and Japan are strong friends and allies. both have invested deeply into America, and their investments in Treasury Bonds, particulary by Japan. (Only the Democratic Republic of China comes close to matching Japan's investment in America: U.S. Relies on Foreign Investors to Buy Treasuries Amid Deficit. Japanese and Chinese investors are the two biggest holders internationally of Treasuries, with $525.5 billion and $143.8 billion of investment respectively, according to Treasury Department figures.)

[For more on this, see: India gives reverse aid to US]

Example of a war lost after the battles ended - The American Civil War.

After the North finished winning the battles (eventually), they lost the war through Reconstruction. The consequences of that loss ripple throughout America even today.

So even if George Warmonger Bush and the (mis)Administration That Couldn't Shoot Fish In A Barrel were serious about this 'War on Terra', they would themselves be listening to their intelligence agencies who are keeping an ear to the Arab ground, in part through some of the very sources I regularly use, instead of listening to the megalomaniacal ravings of a cabal of insanely radical neocons whose mental connection to reality is tenuous at best.

The United States is a multinational nation. We are everywhere there is a buck to be made. Therefore, would it not make sense to have some kind of understanding about 1/6 of the world's population with whom we do A LOT of business?

Doubt me? How much did it cost you to drive your Hummer last week?

So if one wants to know what the Muslim Man in the Street thinks, one must go there. And this is what he's thinking:

Weakening The Moderates

It is difficult for the Arab individual to understand George W. Bush's policy and position. The Arab official faces the same difficulty.

Whoever takes a look at Iraq, will notice the inaccuracy of American calculations. One would conclude that the only American victory there was eradicating Saddam Hussein's regime. The other victories seem costly, very expensive, and almost impossible.

Whoever takes a look at Iraq feels that the occupation troops are now fighting some of the people they originally claimed they came to liberate. One feels that the establishment of a western democracy - western values, characteristics, and desires - is unattainable.

The theater is not geared up for an operation of restructuring that overlooks facts, realities, and feelings.

The American sticking to the date of transfer of authority to the Iraqis on June 30 is not the end of the American quagmire. The Arab individual concludes that the coming months will be though [tough] on both Iraqis and Americans.

In light of the Iraqi difficulties, the Arab individual expected the Bush administration to take a step to calm the blaze of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to encourage Arabs to help it in Iraq.

The calculations of the Arab individual, as well as the Arab official, were not accurate.

The promise that Bush made in Ariel Sharon's presence was in the opposite direction. Bush ignored United Nations decisions, the sanctity of international borders, the rules and principles to reach a complete and just peace, and previous promises of American administrations. Simply, and dangerously, Bush seemed to be asking Palestinians to accept some of the on-the-ground changes, and accept the obvious lessons in any realistic reading of the initially crooked balance of power.

What is most dangerous in this is to concede to the "might makes right" edict in imposing its logic and conditions, and collecting the fruits of decades of aggression and occupation. It is a reward presented by the president of the sole superpower to the state that addresses its Middle Eastern neighbors as well as the people which land it occupies, with the logic of force and threats.

Talk of elections calculations that forced Bush to donate gifts to Ariel Sharon does not curtail the danger of these gifts. His following explanations of the necessity to settle the final status through negotiations do not dispel worry.

The American president considers the plan of disengagement to be a magnificent and historic opportunity for an international cooperation to establish a Palestinian State based on institutions rather than individuals. It is the same logic that invites Palestinians to change their leadership with one that would accept some of the changes, and choose to completely engage in negotiations in light of the crooked balance of power.

The Arab individual had no illusions about the reality of the American-Israeli alliance.

[Now I am not highlighting this comment to attack Israel, so let's not go there. Anyone who ignores the fact that this IS how many Arabs in the region, as well as around the world, think does so at the peril of their own plans. This includes Israel and George Warmonger Bush and the Neocon Nazis]

Nevertheless, he finds difficulty in understanding the American administration's insistence on weakening the moderates' position. The latter are aware that whomever the United States accuses of terrorism relies on the injustice that Palestinians are subject to, to gain "legitimacy" or popularity.

The "Bush Declaration" makes it more difficult to get Arab cooperation in extinguishing the Iraqi fire, and offers a chance to the roaming fighters in search for a chance to fight America and Americans to do so.

It is the post- 9/11 America; dangerous and violent. Its enmity is costly. So is its friendship.

There are some of the reasons the Iraqis are fighting the US Occupation and not meekly accepting the 'freedom and liberty' that they are 'enjoying' under the proconsulship of L. Paul Bremer. This article doesn't clearly go into why they feel this way, but there are a lot of good Muslim sources of information out there. To ignore them would be folly of the highest magnitude.

To commit such folly would qualify me for a post in the Bush (mis)Administration - and I have no desire to attain such an 'honor'.