Most costly Oedipal drama in history draws to a close

The Iraq War is over, at least officially. It was, as then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama said in 2002, a “dumb war:”

I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

The “cost in lives and hardships borne” Mr. Obama accurately predicted is impossible to fully reckon, as is the monetary cost. Well over 100,000 people are needlessly dead, tens of thousands more physically and psychologically scarred for life and around a trillion sorely needed-dollars poured down a rat hole.

How did this happen? There are many reasons, but the short answer is that it was a perfect storm of assholes. It was an event that brought together a small but influential group of arrogant neo-con dick-swingers eager to impose their vision on the world, profit-seeking conglomerates yearning to cash in, a supine media and a nation insane with fear in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

But none of it would have been possible without the insecure, not-too-bright scion of a prominent political family who was then in the Oval Office and burning to prove to his patrician daddy that he is too smart and capable, not dumb, not like people say. So now we know what happens when Fredo Corleone leapfrogs his smarter brother to become the Godfather—only of a nuclear-armed superpower instead of an organized crime family. Not pretty, is it?

Posted by Betty Cracker on 12/18/11 at 10:13 AM • Permalink

Arguable:

Britain and the US were planning to take action against Saddam Hussein without a second UN resolution five months before the invasion of Iraq, a newly released letter from Tony Blair’s office shows.

A letter from Blair’s private secretary reveals that “we and the US would take action” without a new resolution by the UN security council if UN weapons inspectors showed Saddam had clearly breached an earlier resolution. In that case, he “would not have a second chance”.

That was the only way Britain could persuade the Bush administration to agree to a role for the UN and continuing work by UN weapons inspectors, the letter says.

And the joint propaganda effort was extensive.

Of course, when public opposition grew in the UK in the run-up to war and the UN inspectors didn’t report a clear breach of the first resolution, Bush told Blair that he was welcome to sit it out and the US would go it alone if necessary. But I believe Blair’s support did have a degree of influence on US public opinion in favor of intervention, since his purty talk and non-Bushness were persuasive to some of those who hadn’t followed his career and fondness for interventionism that closely.

Well, Xecky, there was all that talk of Millennialism and the rapture, which Bush was said to buy into. And never mind Bush, the ratbags around him knew exactly which of the apocalyptic old lush’s buttons to press to get what they wanted ($).

Blair was a little tightlipped about all that:

JEREMY PAXMAN: ... I want to explore a little further about your personal feelings about this war. Does the fact that George Bush and you are both Christians make it easier for you to view these conflicts in terms of good and evil?

TONY BLAIR: I don’t think so, no, I think that whether you’re a Christian or you’re not a Christian you can try perceive what is good and what is, is evil.

JEREMY PAXMAN: You don’t pray together for example?

TONY BLAIR: No, we don’t pray together Jeremy, no.

JEREMY PAXMAN: Why do you smile?

TONY BLAIR: Because - why do you ask me the question?

JEREMY PAXMAN: Because I’m trying to find out how you feel about it.

TONY BLAIR: Possibly.

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.