"
W: Give three cheers and one cheer more for the gallant Captain of Iraqi war!"
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
So, it is to be war!
Your
W Team got so excited, we had to sit down for fear of urinary mishap.
One of the more wonderful things about war-and there are so many-is it's ability to live up to its own expectations. No matter how thinly-stretched the pretext for aggression, you can be certain that eventually your enemy will start shooting
back at you, and everything after that is self-defense.
Another is that war is seldom encumbered by logic. Take, for example, the premise for the upcoming adventure, which is that Saddam Hussein is
evil, evil, evil! And the proof is that
he is developing weapons of mass destruction that pose a grave threat to his neighbors. This obligates us to invade his country and depose him.
North Korea, on the other hand, is merely developing weapons of mass destruction that only pose a grave threat to its neighbors. Thus we must leave North Korea alone. To many, particularly those whose educational portfolio includes the third grade, the two situations may appear similar, but that is because these observers are not gifted with the subtle turn of mind required to comprehend the modern world. There are three perfectly good reasons why the two situations are entirely different:
- North Korea has a gigantic standing army, a plethora of conventional defenses, and almost certainly now possesses a small cache of nuclear weapons, along with the means to deliver them on the battlefield if nowhere else. These are circumstances that tend to encourage measured inaction. We may be belligerent but we're not crazy.
- North Koreans are Asians. We are not fighting Asians this year, we are fighting Muslims.
- Ariel Sharon couldn't care less what happens in North Korea.
That, in a nutshell-where, once again, it fits very snugly-is why we are not radar-painting Pyongyang this very minute.
Our contemplated course of action (that's "contemplated," as in the night contemplates following the day,) is no mere whim, it is our bounden duty. The world relies on our expertise in the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, inasmuch as we are the only nation that has actually used all three. And this responsibility fuels our determination to keep those weapons out of the hands of vicious and unprincipled lunatics-other than those who already have them, that is.
Our authority in this matter derives from the new and spiffily-named Bush Doctrine, establishing for the first time our right to preemptive attack in response to an anticipated threat. Mind you, this is not one of those bad old preemptive attacks of the sort launched by Germany against Poland, or Japan against the United States, or Iraq against Kuwait, or-gee, ever so many examples. No! This is a good preemptive attack-a bold step in the war to make the world safe for America.
Besides, we have to attack them because we're pretty sure they're thinking of attacking us sooner or later--whichever comes first. And we're bigger than they are. Also they called us names in the lunchroom yesterday.
Contrary to learned pronouncement, the world is not a giant arena, it is a giant schoolyard. And it is always recess.
Another great thing about this war is that it will add some needed luster to the President's semi-military semi-career, about which little is known and even less said, and which constitutes one of the chief lacunae in his personal history. Since neither the Commander in Chief nor the majority of the architects of the Iraqi campaign has ever come under hostile fire-always choosing instead to emphasize valor's discretional aspect-they will be unimpeded by the nightmarish memories that have made Colin Powell such a namby-pamby.
The best thing about our new war is that perhaps it will probably be almost just about maybe risk-free. We kicked their butts last time and we can do it again! Yes! You'd best believe it! True, on that occasion the Iraqis were under some delusion that we would play by the same rules we espoused, which may have left them somewhat unprepared for our tactical aggressiveness, which is rumored to have culminated in the covert burial of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers. And true it is conceivable that this time they may be better prepared. But what are the odds of that? And so what if the going gets a little tough? We have the best-trained troops in the world! And what's more we have lots of them!
The one possible concern is that to this point Saddam has been restrained by the certain knowledge that immediately upon attacking the United States or its interests he would be converted to a thin mustachioed goo on the tiles of the presidential palace. Some fret that a preemptive strike might lead him to the conclusion he had nothing to lose, whereupon he might begin lobbing SCUDs at Israel. Whereupon Ariel Sharon, whose grasp of the principles of humane statecraft is not all that one could wish, might flatten Iraq into something resembling a relief map. Whereupon the one third of the world that is Muslim would most likely embark on a nuclear jihad leading to an exchange that would eradicate all life on earth, knock the planet out of its orbit, and spin the globe into a fiery death on the surface of the sun.
Okay. Admittedly, that would be a bad thing. But who knows, maybe it won't happen. Let's find out!
Next week's allocution will assay the subject of Freedom, and why the Iraqis are going to take it and like it. And by then also we may have an answer to the question: will Minnesota still work if it's on the Fritz?
Until then, tout à l'heure!
Hank
"
W: Give three cheers and one cheer more for the gallant Captain of Iraqi war!"
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
So, it is to be war!
Your
W Team got so excited, we had to sit down for fear of urinary mishap.
One of the more wonderful things about war-and there are so many-is it's ability to live up to its own expectations. No matter how thinly-stretched the pretext for aggression, you can be certain that eventually your enemy will start shooting
back at you, and everything after that is self-defense.
Another is that war is seldom encumbered by logic. Take, for example, the premise for the upcoming adventure, which is that Saddam Hussein is
evil, evil, evil! And the proof is that
he is developing weapons of mass destruction that pose a grave threat to his neighbors. This obligates us to invade his country and depose him.
North Korea, on the other hand, is merely developing weapons of mass destruction that only pose a grave threat to its neighbors. Thus we must leave North Korea alone. To many, particularly those whose educational portfolio includes the third grade, the two situations may appear similar, but that is because these observers are not gifted with the subtle turn of mind required to comprehend the modern world. There are three perfectly good reasons why the two situations are entirely different:
- North Korea has a gigantic standing army, a plethora of conventional defenses, and almost certainly now possesses a small cache of nuclear weapons, along with the means to deliver them on the battlefield if nowhere else. These are circumstances that tend to encourage measured inaction. We may be belligerent but we're not crazy.
- North Koreans are Asians. We are not fighting Asians this year, we are fighting Muslims.
- Ariel Sharon couldn't care less what happens in North Korea.
That, in a nutshell-where, once again, it fits very snugly-is why we are not radar-painting Pyongyang this very minute.
Our contemplated course of action (that's "contemplated," as in the night contemplates following the day,) is no mere whim, it is our bounden duty. The world relies on our expertise in the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, inasmuch as we are the only nation that has actually used all three. And this responsibility fuels our determination to keep those weapons out of the hands of vicious and unprincipled lunatics-other than those who already have them, that is.
Our authority in this matter derives from the new and spiffily-named Bush Doctrine, establishing for the first time our right to preemptive attack in response to an anticipated threat. Mind you, this is not one of those bad old preemptive attacks of the sort launched by Germany against Poland, or Japan against the United States, or Iraq against Kuwait, or-gee, ever so many examples. No! This is a good preemptive attack-a bold step in the war to make the world safe for America.
Besides, we have to attack them because we're pretty sure they're thinking of attacking us sooner or later--whichever comes first. And we're bigger than they are. Also they called us names in the lunchroom yesterday.
Contrary to learned pronouncement, the world is not a giant arena, it is a giant schoolyard. And it is always recess.
Another great thing about this war is that it will add some needed luster to the President's semi-military semi-career, about which little is known and even less said, and which constitutes one of the chief lacunae in his personal history. Since neither the Commander in Chief nor the majority of the architects of the Iraqi campaign has ever come under hostile fire-always choosing instead to emphasize valor's discretional aspect-they will be unimpeded by the nightmarish memories that have made Colin Powell such a namby-pamby.
The best thing about our new war is that perhaps it will probably be almost just about maybe risk-free. We kicked their butts last time and we can do it again! Yes! You'd best believe it! True, on that occasion the Iraqis were under some delusion that we would play by the same rules we espoused, which may have left them somewhat unprepared for our tactical aggressiveness, which is rumored to have culminated in the covert burial of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers. And true it is conceivable that this time they may be better prepared. But what are the odds of that? And so what if the going gets a little tough? We have the best-trained troops in the world! And what's more we have lots of them!
The one possible concern is that to this point Saddam has been restrained by the certain knowledge that immediately upon attacking the United States or its interests he would be converted to a thin mustachioed goo on the tiles of the presidential palace. Some fret that a preemptive strike might lead him to the conclusion he had nothing to lose, whereupon he might begin lobbing SCUDs at Israel. Whereupon Ariel Sharon, whose grasp of the principles of humane statecraft is not all that one could wish, might flatten Iraq into something resembling a relief map. Whereupon the one third of the world that is Muslim would most likely embark on a nuclear jihad leading to an exchange that would eradicate all life on earth, knock the planet out of its orbit, and spin the globe into a fiery death on the surface of the sun.
Okay. Admittedly, that would be a bad thing. But who knows, maybe it won't happen. Let's find out!
Next week's allocution will assay the subject of Freedom, and why the Iraqis are going to take it and like it. And by then also we may have an answer to the question: will Minnesota still work if it's on the Fritz?
Until then, tout à l'heure!
Hank
