Dark Mesopotamian daze: the blowback of hubris in Iraq

For his part 'Dubya' probably knew well that to utter any criticism of his successor's policies would attract accusations of epic hypocrisy on his part. Clearly the former Oval One's erstwhile Grand Vizier and his 'Bolshie' daughter have no such qualms. With respect to Deadeye's 'Apocalypse Now or Later' moment in the sun, there's no "oh the horror, the horror" here; more like "oh the chutzpah, the chutzpah".

As for president 'BOB', we may or may not think that he is handling things well in Iraq or Afghanistan, but who could/would/might have done it better/differently? Mitt Romney? John McCain? John Kerry, Hilary Clinton or Al Gore? Even Cheney himself! I'm inclined to think not. To a great degree, anything Obama and his policy advisors might have done, could have done, should have done etc., was always going to be tantamount to closing the gate after the nag has bolted into the, ahem, bush. The damage had already been done well before Obama signed the lease on the White House, and in Iraq there was no unscrambling of the omelette.

And as for that other quagmire and the original Graveyard of Empires Afghanistan, had the Americans just stuck to the knitting there and not effectively abandoned it to pursue the Iraq misadventure, then we might not be arguing the toss now. As evidenced by the two documentaries above, this was a view shared by most senior people in the defence, intelligence and security community both in the US and the ROW as well as more than a few in Congress. But they effectively gave way to the neo-cons.

Unfortunately the political and moral capital the US amassed after 9/11 began burning a hole in its pocket from Day Zero. "Shoot first and ask questions later" was the order of the day unfortunately, and I'm ashamed to say that Australia bought into the morass. Like we always seem to do. Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf War anyone? There was however one question asked at the time, which was "why do they hate us?"If only the Americans had spent more time contemplating this existential dilemma a bit deeper.

Harking back to the Cheneys' WSJ piece, it was interesting listening to a White House press conference shortly after it was published. Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked to comment on Cheney's views with particular reference to the "Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many" bit. Before Carney could respond, some journo wag interjected with the following: "Arrgh, which president was he referring to again?" Touché hombre I say!

Now needless to say this riposte brought the (White) house down as it were. Carney seemed delighted but regrettably declined to make a meal of it for posterity, one suspects much to the disappointment to the assembled media throng. Yet there'd have been smirks all round on the dials of folks watching the conference news feed from the Oval Office.

Bottom line here is this: If the Deadeye's harangue is anything to go by, one suspects he is as guilty of crimes against humility as he is of crimes against humanity and competent marksmanship! Hubris? You want Hubris? You've come to the right place buddy! One is mischievously tempted to turn the above extract on its head and say: "Rarely has a former US vice president been so guilty of (neo) conning the masses and enriching himself at the bloody terminal expense of so many of his fellow Americans into the bargain".

As for the admittedly execrable Saddam Hussein and the assumption the Iraqis would greet the Americans as liberators as if it were France in 1944 and the reviled Vichy occupation regime was still in power, there were bigger, badder despots than him, and much bigger threats to America before 9/11. Always have been. Always will be. Many of them were created and lovingly nurtured by the US itself, something that wasn't widely discussed then.

We'd do well to recall America didn't invade Iraq because of concerns about human rights abuses under Saddam. The Horsemen and the loftily christened Project for a New American Century (PNAC) cabal did their best however to shill that swill. This, along with all the other hokum we were force-fed by the neo-con nincompoops throughout this period, including the bringing of freedom, liberty and democracy and the rule of law, and the rest of the fruit.

Which brings to mind one of many books relevant to the subject at hand, this one by author, blogger and U.S. foreign policy critic William Blum. Called America's Deadliest Export: Democracy – The Truth about US Foreign Policy, the title is a fashion statement in itself, and Blum's book is highly recommended for those having difficulty coming to terms with America's less than altruistic geopolitical motives, aims and objectives in its 'War on Terror'. You're on a hiding to nothing if you're still swilling the Kool-Aid after this.

At all events, one of the big questions is: Who created the Saddam monster in the first instance? A: The very same people who created the Taliban, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda 'monsters'! For his part Saddam was only one more in a long conga line of dictatorial "monsters" that America has birthed, encouraged, nurtured, fawned over and armed over several decades - Suharto, Mobutu, Batista, Pinochet, Marcos, Somoza (Senior and Junior), the Shah of Iran anyone? - only to have said "monsters" in some shape or form and at varying intervals, come back and bite the hand that bred 'em, fed 'em and led 'em on. It's called blowback, aka the immutable law of unintended consequences of Empire. More often it was not just blowback for America, it was even much more so for the hapless citizens of the respective countries involved. The phrase "And you will know us by the trail of dead" takes on a whole new meaning in the context of US foreign policy to be sure.

But in Iraq as elsewhere, Kissingeresque realpolitik - a more or less equal mix of arch cynicism, imperial opportunism, economic colonialism, amorally fuelled arrogance, full spectrum dominance, and unbridled, unprincipled ambition - ruled the US foreign policy 'airwaves'. T'was ever thus. In this respect we'd all do well to remember what President Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) said when one of his aides got in his ear about the execrable Nicaraguan 'kleptobrutocrat' Anastasia Somoza (Senior that is; don't even get me on Junior) and how much of a son of a bitch he was? As was his wont, FDR didn't miss a beat - his reply went something like this: "[H]e may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch".