The reconstruction of Iraq is going to take a lot of time, money and effort. This is clear to everyone by now. This reconstruction effort is far more involved than the Bush administration had hoped for before the war. It was thought that a little military pixie dust and the arrival of Halliburton (who, to be honest, were already there before the war) would turn Iraq into an icon democracy in the Middle East. Iraqis were expected to cheer the fall of a vicious despot and gladly work with the US to build a better Iraq.
But things are not proceeding as expected.
The US finds itself sinking quickly into the quagmire of Middle Eastern politics, which resembles nothing so much as a laser show of conflicting agendas. Iraq is not a nation unified by nationalism; it is a political entity held together through iron will. Remember Czechslovakia? It is true that there are factions in Iraq that do want to work with the US to build a western-style democracy, but their voices are lost in the cacophony of those that want the US out of the country posthaste.
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice is now overseeing the political reconstruction of Iraq. At the same time, Bush is asking for a lot more money:
«The move comes as the White House tries to convince a fairly unreceptive Congress to grant an extra $130-billion to its Iraq mission.»
In many ways, Bush's Iraq policy resembles another ill-considered and poorly-executed expedition that is very familiar to computer professionals. The SCO Group has claimed that it owns several critical pieces of technology found in the Linux kernel, which it does not own. Consequently, SCO is asking users of server-class multi-CPU systems running Linux to buy a license from them. The SCO Group has presented questionable evidence to support their claims, but they have issued many provocative press releases full of bluster and self-righteous indignation. While the SCO Group refuses to show all the disputed code, the few fragments that have been presented have been outed as 30-year-old code that is probably in the public domain anyway. It is code that certainly did not originate in the SCO Group.
One tangible result of the SCO Group's efforts has been a marked increase in their stock price. Another result has been two large lawsuits, one from IBM and the other from RedHat. Perhaps the executives at SCO Group had hoped to stir up enough trouble so that they would be acquired by some large hi-tech player, like IBM. Now, the SCO Groups has to pursue this White Elephant, whatever the end. If they abandon the licensing scheme, SCO executives will be very vulnerable to charges of stock price manipulation. SCO seems set on an inexorable path to dissolution and possible criminal indictments anyway. Given a glimpse of the future, would SCO execs have pursued this frivilous adventure at all? Was there no other course of action that would have better achieved their goal?
Similar questions must also be in the minds of those in the White House now.
If Arnold can get elected in Cali, Dubya is going for another four years...
In other words, get the hell out whist ye can as there is no democracy anymore in the US, only an occasionaly benevolent autocracy. Don't wait until next year when europe will likely have to turn back the droves fleeing from the US.
Arnold as governor
jdavidboyd on 2003-10-08T14:17:41
This surprises you?
None of the moronic masses can tell the difference between TV and the real world anymore.
They probably think he will strap on his sword, or pull out his machine gun, and slice/blast those nasty taxes out of existence!
Re:my advice
inkdroid on 2003-10-08T14:31:03
"Get the hell out" is what I did during Desert Storm. Now I have a family, and a house, and I'm not going to just "run away". It is the easiest road to take.Re:my advice
inkdroid on 2003-10-08T14:50:25
Responding to my own comment (which indicates I hit 'submit' without 'preview'). I should not have said fleeing the US is the "easiest road to take". Having to leave friends, family, and favorite places behind to escape the insanity that is going on the US today is not easy at all. But it is an option, an almost desperate option. As Stephen Dedalus said "History is a nightmare from which I am constantly trying to wake up"...now we just need to get others to wake up as well.Re:my advice
hfb on 2003-10-08T16:26:54
Well, considering I don't want to shoot people or join the military or become sainted by being an unwitting victim of terrorism, I left. You leave your career, family, house and native language behind for a foreign land where the native language is so unlike your own that fluency might be possible in 10 years and a job may just come your way in something along the same lines. I am a stranger in an even stranger land. Easy it is not. Desperate, perhaps. I simply couldn't stay in a country that is no longer willing to give up the comforts of the local Wal-Mart in order to take back the country.
Re:my advice
jjohn on 2003-10-08T17:18:43
I simply couldn't stay in a country that is no longer willing to give up the comforts of the local Wal-Mart in order to take back the country.
To be fair, Wal-Mart makes shopping very convenient.
Re:my advice
hfb on 2003-10-08T17:41:23
Well, I suppose you can assuage a lot of disillusionment with a 10 pound bag of licorice, 20 big fat family size TV dinners, and a case of Bud to wash it all down with. In a land of endless supply and consumption it's realistic to think little will change with the rampant corruption in the government. In a way, I envy those who are content to shop at wal-mart and think that the US is better than ever. Ignorance is bliss.
Re:my advice
pudge on 2003-10-09T16:40:30
I have a lot of my 401(k) in a New Europe fund, so I am certainly interested in Europe doing well, and expect it to do well, but the U.S. economy is coming back strong. GDP is up above estimates, unemployment did not increase for the first time in awhile, and the stock market is going to have its first positive year since... 1999, I think. Maybe 2000. Go USA! And just in time for next year's elections. It's hard to claim that Bush has ruined the economy when the economy is, in fact, doing quite well.
Re:Challenge
chromatic on 2003-10-08T20:26:52
Remember the mantra of the news media:
There is no history but today. Today is the end of history.
Unless you have something to counter real research on the issue?
There's also the interesting testimony of Khomeini's grandson that's reproduced on the wsj.com (pay site). He is saying that those who want us out of Iraq are the area despots in Iran and Saudi Arabia who are afraid of nothing more than a real democracy springing up in their midst.
But, I suppose you know the region better than those who live there...
Unlike you, I haven't heard the Bush Administration saying that this would be easy, in fact, just the opposite, I heard Bush say that it would be extremely difficult, but necessary. Nothing like a good strawman to beat up, though, huh?
Re:As much as I hate to interrupt your rant...
jjohn on 2003-10-11T02:06:35
Jordan, I don't write my journals to cause you pain. I don't write them to troll either. That's the reason I started labeling my political entries as such. Like others, I write stuff here so that my head doesn't explode. I sense the passion you have for your positions, but I do sometimes wonder at the ferosity of your comments on my blog. By all means, do point out my factual mistakes. That's precisely why I enable comments on these "essays." But keep in mind that even "liberals" have feelings. Attack my arguments if you must, but do leave me out of it.
We read and hear what reinforces our beliefs. I've been thinking a lot about the rancor with which political discussions are conducted. I'm guilty of exacerbating this acrid tone too. I will try to mute my more flippant responses. I already count to ten before posting these journals. The first versions are little more than a stream of blue language. So I will try count to twenty next time. You might conclude that if this is what write after I've had time to calm down then I must be a near-raving lunatic in real life.
On the issue of one George Walker Bush, you'd be right.
The article cited supports your position that Western media is exaggerating the angst of the Iraqis.
«Gallup poll of Baghdad residents finds that nearly two-thirds believe removal of Pres Saddam Hussein has been worth hardship they have been forced to endure; only 8 percent of respondents say they believe that their lives are worse off as result of military campaign to remove Hussein and his Baath Party leadership;»It is the next clause the feeds my uneasiness with the US occupation:
«respondents still suspect motives of US and Britain and hold Pres Jacques Chrirac of France in higher regard than Pres Bush and Prime Min Tony Blair; are nearly equally divided on whether American-British occupation authority, led by L Paul Bremer III, is doing good job running country, but half say occupation authority is doing better job now than it was two months ago»So things are getting better, but a lot of deep suspicion remains both here and abroad. We all focus on what we want to hear. When I read the statements of the adminstration, I can't shake the feeling I'm being misled. It seem that Iraqis feel the same way.
What's more interesting than these political discussions of attrition is the question of why US politics has seemingly become so polarizing. My profound antipathy for the Bush administration was mirrored several years ago by those that despised the Clinton. What did Clinton do that was so profoundly horrible? What has Bush done to elicit my ire? We bandy slurs like "liberal" and "neocon" with such contempt, and yet the bulk of political debate occurs over a very, very narrow spectrum. The argument is about whether Bush should have sought more international cooperation and gather more evidence of Hussian shenanigans before invading Iraq rather than not toppling the regime ever. We quibble over how big the tax breaks should be for the uber-wealthy and not whether we ought to nationalize the businesses of these twenty-first century robber-barons and institute universal national health care with the proceeds. There are very few truly Leftist (as in hard-core socialists) in the US just as there are few true goose-stepping fascists. Minor differences are fetishized into monsters.
I recognize that I'm not articulating my position cogently or adroitly. Would that I could. I hear the other side of the argument, but can see it's merit. Sadly I realize that it is the same for the people arguing with me.
Re:As much as I hate to interrupt your rant...
jordan on 2003-10-11T13:43:18
- But keep in mind that even "liberals" have feelings. Attack my arguments if you must, but do leave me out of it.
Well, I apologize if you are offended by my strong language. After all, I accused you of being a "liberal type" and stating things that weren't accurate. Now, knowing how sensitive you are, I'll be more careful in the future.
- What's more interesting than these political discussions of attrition is the question of why US politics has seemingly become so polarizing.
Hmmm... Do you think that maybe, just possibly, it just might have something to do with those who refer to Administration officials as fascists?
I am glad to see that you claim to be heeding my call to tone down the polarizing rhetoric when I said:
Why not step away from invidious comparisons and hyperbole? Why not work to decrease the emotion and polarization surrounding the issues? You and I might find common ground if I felt you were reasonable. As it stands, I feel you are a chicken little crying that Kristallnacht is coming when in fact all that's happened is a little criticism.
You go on to say:
- I recognize that I'm not articulating my position cogently or adroitly. Would that I could. I hear the other side of the argument, but can see it's merit. Sadly I realize that it is the same for the people arguing with me.
I admit, it's hard to see the merit of arguments that are full of inaccuracies and hyperbole.
