I sit here today, reading stories of atrocities committed by the Iraqis such as hanging women who waved to incoming coalition troops, and possibly executing captured POWs. And I am forced to wonder.

There is no doubt in my mind that the United States' unilateral incursion into Iraq is illegal and precipitated by nothing more than a base desire to preserve and extend American global hegemony, not to mention petroleum security-- never mind Bush's pathetically pseudo-glib statements to the contrary.

There is also no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein and his followers are a despotic bunch of murderous thugs who need to be displaced.

Two evils are about to collide. I am reminded of the hoary aphorism that "two wrongs don't make a right." Yes, we will crush Saddam. It's taking longer than expected, but as I've said before, barring a force of nature, the intervention of previously undisclosed technology, or overriding political considerations, the sheer weight and sophistication of our forces will result in the fall of Iraq. And I seriously doubt anyone will lament Saddam's ouster, except perhaps Saddam himself.

The question is, can any good come of this action? See the mess we left of Afghanistan. "President" Karzai sits alone, ensconced in the capital whilst anarchy reigns in the rest of the nation. We had our "feel good" victory there, after blowing up huge chunks of the countryside-- and yes, to an extent, the quality of life has gone up-- right along with the opium production.

People in Afghanistan were promised liberation from the Taliban and democracy... we delivered on one, but neglected to follow through on the other, installing a sham puppet and leaving the rest of the nation to fall all over itself.

Now I do have reason to believe Iraq will be only slightly different. There will be no democracy in Iraq, because democracy tends to be unstable, the will of the people sometimes leading in directions the overseas dominators would not necessarily approve of. (Witness the stink over Turkey's people exercising their democratic right not to be a part of the war-- how DARE they have opinions at variance with the edicts of Washington?)

But at the same time, an impotent strongman can't be allowed to hold power in Iraq.

Whereas Afghanistan's opium trade is better left unchecked (for the benefit of those who would profit by it), and there anarchy serves to make sure it is, with the shell government there just enough to legitimize any projects the foreign powers might deign to undertake, Iraq has a huge portion of valuable petroleum in its list of assets. That can't be trusted to some tinpot dictator-- they might try to use it for leverage-- witness Saddam Hussein, the tinpot dictator we helped keep in power, and are now removing for just such a crime.

No. Something stronger will be needed. An American occupation would be ideal-- the problem is that in that region of the world, Americans could stick out like a sore thumb. The Arab world will not easily tolerate what it sees to be an imperialist presence in the region.

People cite Japan as a successful example of our ability to go in, work change, and leave. But Japan has no oil. They have no lever which they can use against us. It was easier for us to leave them to their own devices after a time, and more profitable from an economic standpoint. Not so with Iraq.

Therefore, some kind of "limited" democracy might be instituted, but more likely than not the Americans will simply install another malleable figurehead, there to rule until they need to invade and kick him out again. It's just easier for them. True self-rule will never come.

The rot at the top may be temporarily excised, but I have no doubt that the "people" we are ostensibly liberating will be left, once again, to fend for themselves, fodder for the global machinations of the world's only superpower.

###

I have no illusions that the American-British "coalition of the willing" will defeat the Iraqi forces. Anyone saying otherwise is a fool-- barring third party intervention, the inequities of force will eventually tilt towards the invading armies.

The question is, then, how much damage will they take before victory? Americans, flush with the easy victory in the first Gulf War, confidently bragged the war would be over in a matter of days. Eating their own propaganda, even the soldiers believed the masses would welcome them with open arms. Apparently their superiors had not bothered to inform them that no one takes well to an invading force suddenly running roughshod through their homeland.

Arabs prefer Arab leaders. The west has never been charitable to the middle east, instead playing the various populations against one another like so many dispensable pawns. Is it any wonder, then, that the people of Iraq take our protestations that we are going in there for their own good with a hefty grain of salt?

They see us as after their oil, and their nation, and will defend themselves accordingly, as the stunned soldiers in the field are now seeing.

But apparently top generals just don't "get it". They've been whining on the last few days about how the irregulars are using non-standard tactics to harass and slow them down.

Please. In the revolutionary war, when our founding fathers were hopelessly outmatched against an army with superior numbers and equipment, they did the same thing.

We have tanks, guns and bombs. The best ones on the planet. They have outmoded, worn-down equipment and are under siege. We flaunt our military superiority at every opportunity, reminding them that any time they try to even so much as get a radar lock on us, we'll send down a missile to kill them. Is is ANY WONDER they would choose not to play by our "rules"? Generals should have factored this in...

Of course we would like nothing more than for them to play like us, sticking with their machines and hardware so that we can handily crush them and call it a day.

But they won't do that. Some Iraqis, of course, will side with the inevitable winners. Others will go down for the principle of national integrity, reasoning that the evil we know is better than the evil we don't (or know all too well), and others, of course, are part of the established regime.

Meantime, our casualties will mount (the true extent of which will not be known until many years after the war, if the last war was any indication). And those causalties will be directly on the hands of the generals and the President, who chose to abandon sound military strategy and realistic assessment of the situation in favor of "believing their own press".

###

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

###

I do believe I shall enjoy my fresh shipment of French Fries, French toast, and French raisin cakes. If I drank, I would probably also savour my French wine.

Delicious. Croissant?

###

"The matter of why Doctor Xadium's Time Capsule is fixed in the curious shape of a 'beverage vending machine' from late 20th-century Earth [Humanian Era 607934] is a subject never broached in polite conversation. Ever. Whilst some have scurrilously posited that Xadium cannot properly effect the repair of a simple Type 60 Chamelionic circuit, it is generally accepted that these disgraceful innuendo are slanderous and utterly unfounded."

- Lord Sendrilmetavanskastaron, "The Gallifreyan Renegades", thirty-eleventh ed.

D O C T O R
X A D I U M

"Doctor Xadium was an errant Time Lord whose overactive sense of humour at High Council meetings earned him a more or less permanent holiday from Gallifrey.

Stuck on Earth trying to cobble together a new TARDIS-- but equipped with nothing more than the technological equivalent of bear-skins and stone knives (as well as some metal tape)-- he decided to use his time to follow the myriad trends in Terran society, studying their crude, primitive laws and laughable attempts to improve themselves scientifically.

Aproximately 26 Earth-years into his exile, in order to offset his growing frustration with the 'self-involved, short-sighted, bombastic ape-monkeys with delusions of grandeur"', he took to irregularly recording his more sardonic-- or dare we say even cynical-- views on the ever-progressing devolution of 21st century human civilization (not to mention his own petty irritations) in his 900-year diary, excerpts of which we have extracted from the data core of his notoriously insecure Terran 'computing device' (which in terms of function is slightly less advanced then a Gallifreyan child's first number line).

It is almost refreshing to note the ceaseless amazement he displays at the Terran propensity to supress any information, be it political, archaeological or scientific, that gets in the way of their pedestrian, self-absorbed world-view. It is for this reason that historians have labeled Doctor Xadium 'The Discoverer of Obvious Truth'
- Lord Sendrilmetavanskastaron, "The Gallifreyan Renegades", thirty-eleventh ed., WHO IS GOING TO GET SUED ONCE I GET BACK TO GALLIFREY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T REALIZE MY SUB-ETHER NET CONNECTION STILL WORKS AND I CAN SEE THE ABSOLUTE RUBBISH HE'S SPEWING FORTH OVER THERE AT THE OPPOSITE END OF THE GALAXY

T H E
A R C H I V E

2007 March

2006 February

2006 January

2005 November

2005 September

2005 February

2004 November

2004 September

2004 June

2004 May

2004 April

2004 March

2004 February

2004 January

2003 December

2003 November

2003 October

2003 September

2003 August

2003 June

2003 May

2003 April

2003 March

2003 February