Democracy Whiskey Sexy Day

Note: this entry was orignally posted April 9, 2006.

Who writes this stuff?

Tanks roll. Throngs along the street raise fists in rage and celebration. What will America bring? According to the New York Times ( a paper with recent credibility issues) one answer from a local is "Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy!" The phrase catches on with many. It becomes a slogan on t-shirts, bumper stickers and Blogs across America. Songs are written, recorded, and made available via internet download overnight. Hooray! With only a few deaths we've brought Democracywhiskeysexy to Iraq.

The celebration continues into the streets of downtown Baghdad as toppling statues of Saddam provide photo ops for journalists shocked that "the Big Story" is ending so soon. Absolute, total, and stunning victory leaves them starving for some angle they can use to paint a picture of desperation for their readers "back home." The quagmire of their dreams has failed to materialize, and no one wins Pulitzers for happy news. No one covers this story accurately or well. The pre-written news of dismal failures must now remain in the drawer of their minds forever. Pale attempts otherwise (coverage of riots and museum looting) will later be proved overblown and under researched. Public interest wanes.

Now return to the scene of the falling statue. Ignore the flag on the face thing, no one really cares. It's a distraction. Note instead the "crowd" of hundreds in a city of millions. I've never seen a public square so empty in daylight hours. It's likely that the vast majority were afraid as yet to face the Americans. It's certainly possible that many were not convinced that the next day would mark their departure and the return of Saddam. These people had experiences in their own lifetimes with America withdrawing hope at the last tantalizing minute. Pardon them then their lack of faith in the conquerors' good intentions. Still a thought haunts me: That given recent history, if in some way the U.S. could be invaded and conquered in like manner, the crowd of Democrats toppling statues and looting the Smithsonian would far exceed the numbers of Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad that glorious day...

To appreciate my perspective you must remember that just a few days prior we had this:

Peter Arnett: U.S. war plan has 'failed'
Monday, March 31, 2003 Posted: 0902 GMT ( 5:02 PM HKT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. war plan has "failed," veteran war correspondent Peter Arnett told Iraqi TV in an interview that aired Sunday.

"The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan," Arnett said. "Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces."

Robert Fisk: Reports of airport assault premature

04.04.2003 - 8.00am
SADDAM HUSSEIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT - So where are the Americans? I prowled the empty departure lounges, mooched through the abandoned customs department, chatted to the seven armed militia guards, met the airport director and stood beside the runways where two dust-covered Iraqi Airways passenger jets -- an old 727 and an even more elderly Antonov -- stood forlornly on the runway not far from an equally decrepit military helicopter.
<...>
Was it true, the Iraqi minister of information was asked at his daily 2pm press conference (11pm NZT) - a routine institution of usually deadly tedium - that the Americans were at the airport?

"Rubbish!" he shouted. "Lies! Go and look for yourself."

So we did.

And, alas for the Anglo-American spokesmen in Doha and the US officer quoted on the BBC, the Iraqi minister was right and the Americans were wrong. But it's a good idea to take these things, if not with a pinch of salt, then at least with the knowledge that there are always two reasons for every decision taken in this violent, ruthless land.

Sure, the Americans had been caught lying again - as they were about the "securing" of Nasiriyah more than a week ago - but was that the only reason journalists were permitted to visit Baghdad airport? We saw no Republican Guards - just as the Americans have themselves somehow failed to discover the 12,000 Republican Guards supposedly facing them.

Indeed, what I found most extraordinary was that there appeared to be absolutely no attempt to block the road into Baghdad from the airport.

Save for a few soldiers on the streets and a police squad car, you might have thought this a mildly warm holiday afternoon.

None of which came to pass. But if I seemed less enthused than some at the fall of Saddam, I can say only that I'd seen troops in the victory parades at the beginning of the shooting phase of the long war, too - back in 1991. And the endless rotation of troops into Saudi supporting the 12-year air campaign that followed, troops whose mere presence on the sacred sands enraged Osama bin Laden to the point of ultimately attacking New York and Washington (following numerous successful smaller attacks).

And I'd already seen the lack of WMD used to declare failure - even before the statue fell. That was a softball pitched slowly by the invasion's architects (and supporters) to a hostile crowd. It pained me to watch that one drift to the plate, and while various umpires still debate the call I believe the decision to make that particular pitch in the first place was the worst of the war.

And besides,

I think when it comes to nations with children's prisons that's all the reason we need for a war.

Which is not to say we can cure all the world's ills - just that I don't mind trying.

Others felt differently. Scott Ritter:

The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children--toddlers up to pre-adolescents--whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I'm not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I'm waging peace."

Perhaps the war could have been avoided, had the media simply done their part in opposing the war. Perhaps then a "peace movement" could have formed. But here's an interesting confession - from the left wing Alternet, March 2003 - that senior leadership didn't have a plan:

'Bush Wins': The Left's Nightmare Scenario
By Mark LeVine, AlterNet.

As the American-imposed deadline for Iraqi "disarmament" approaches, the antiwar movement seems to be counting on one of two scenarios to frustrate the plans of the Bush Administration.

The first is an optimistic "We Win" scenario, which would result from massive protests and diplomatic pressure forcing President Bush to postpone an invasion indefinitely. (What has yet to be addressed is what exactly we win if Hussein remains indefinitely in power and the sanctions go on killing Iraqis.) With war seemingly imminent, the movement is being forced to fall back on a second scenario, "Everyone Loses," in which the warnings of a protracted and bloody war that destabilizes the Middle East and increases terrorism bear their bitter fruit.

However unpalatable in terms of destroyed lives and infrastructure, this latter scenario would at least quash the Administration's imperial dreams and force the kind of soul searching of United States' policies that is a major goal of the movement. But this outcome is less likely than many assume, and the antiwar movement would be well advised to plan for a third scenario: "Bush Wins."
<...>
In order to prevent such an eventuality, the movement needs to work overtime now to inoculate the American people against what the Carnegie Endowment for Peace has already labeled the "mirage" of democracy that will likely be planted in Iraq after a short war. It is not enough to press the General Assembly to vote for a "Uniting for Peace" procedure to condemn the upcoming invasion, or for people to sign the Iraq Pledge of Resistance; what are we going to say when Bush and Blair parade Hussein or his generals before war crimes tribunals? That we don't have jurisdiction to try them? Or when "elections" are held, are we going to say they're not legitimate?

That author would like to cure the world's ills too - if only it weren't for that damn Bush:

We see how easy it will be for President Bush to seize the high ground by focusing on Hussein's crimes and supposedly protecting Israel, especially once a successful invasion reveals documentation of the extent of his crimes against his own people.

Even more discouraging, when I asked a senior organizer why the movement doesn't expand the focus of protests to include regimes like Sudan's, which is prosecuting a decade-long war of slavery and genocide, she replied that she feared President Bush would agree with protesters, and use their arguments as a pretext to invade Sudan next.

Original post: 2006-04-09 14:25:26