On C-Span radio the other morning, I heard a Vietnam combat veteran

worrying that our troops in Iraq might be "hand-cuffed." He had heard

about rubber bullets that upset him. Another caller made the point

"For every American who gets killed, they should take 20 Iraquians

and hang them from lamp posts." This, he explained, is how the

Star Trek would handle it.

The Babylonians have been handling invaders and looters like Bush and Co.
for over four thousand years. Fray them then hang their heads over the
portals.

"Mike T" <mkiketrt@hotmails.com> wrote in message
news:c7e1eabf749be50ddf6da57800caeaed@free.teranews.com...

True United Snakes color is showing now (remember "liberation" joke??)

"We need a tough-minded Patton or MacArthur in full dress

the

Roman rule: haul those people off in slavery and burn down the

country...For

every ten Americans slaughtered, burn down whole villages."


------------------------------------
http://www.williamgreider.com/rants/article.php?article=little_caesar

Leave aside the growing doubts and dissent about Iraq, the explosive

problem

facing Bush is how to manage the emotional distress of his bellicose

supporters.

The White House propaganda performed brilliantly during the run-up to

producing varying rationales for invasion that floated past us like soap

bubbles

(as each bubble popped, another came along to replace it). But, now that
Americans are getting randomly shot and maimed, domestic opinion about

nature of this "triumph" is taking on a darker flavor, including a

for

vengeance.

On C-Span radio the other morning, I heard a Vietnam combat veteran

earnestly

worrying that our troops in Iraq might be "hand-cuffed." He had heard a

rumor

about rubber bullets that upset him. Another caller made the point more

angrily

"For every American who gets killed, they should take 20 Iraquians (his

term)

and hang them from lamp posts." This, he explained, is how the Klingons

from

Star Trek would handle it.

Then I got an email from a right-wing friend, a learned man with a Ph.D.

in

history: "We need a tough-minded Patton or MacArthur in full dress
uniform...Follow the Roman rule: haul those people off in slavery and

down

the country...For every ten Americans slaughtered, burn down whole

villages."

These savage responses -- barbaric self-indulgence given that the U.S.

invaded

this foreign country without provocation -- should not be dismissed as

entirely

irrational. Many people feel personally injured -- and betrayed -- by

what's

happening in Iraq because they were led to support the war by a series

melodramatic lies. They became emotionally invested in what they were

to

believe. The Iraqi dictator was to blame for 9/11. Saddam could wipe out

London

in 45 minutes (as the first poodle put it). Saddam has amassed killer

toxins and

nuclear weapons to supply the terrorists threatening our country. Saddam

is a

tyrannical killer and this will be a high-minded war of liberation,

opening a

democratic future for Iraq, nay, for all Arabs in the Middle East.

If one believed in those claims three or four months ago, it is not

unreasonable

to feel cheated by events (only Saddam the beast has been confirmed).

for

many Americans, it is easier emotionally to blame the liberated and

ungrateful

Iraqis than to confront the deceitful propagandists in official

Washington. This

unstable emotional brew is what Bush and his political lieutenants now

have to

manage and very carefully if they wish to avoid getting pulled deeper

the

mire. The president's taunting bravado -- "bring 'em on" -- may or may

frighten the jihad irregulars in Iraq but it definitely pumps up

for

retribution back home.

Whatever unfolds in Iraq, Bush's political imperative is to get this

off

the evening news, out of the main headlines, well before his reelection

contest

starts next year. He cannot do that by agitating popular taste for blood

or by

staging Israeli-style raids on Arab villages, satisfying though the

assaults

might be to some. The presidential dilemma is how to retreat artfully

what

he started without diminishing the macho-man reputation. It is the

dilemma colonialist powers often faced in hostile colonies. The empire

can't

stay, but it can't get out, not with it mighty honor intact.

Imperialist conquest is not a philanthropic enterprise -- my historian

friend is

quite right about that -- and this is the central contradiction in

brave,

new foreign policy. Many in America's governing elites seem to have

forgotten

the ugly truth and millions of citizens bought into the supposed

of

waging an aggressive war (reassured by the essays in leading newspapers

Brit

expatriates extolling the glories of their empire). Angry confusion is

what

happens when a country goes to war on false premises, when the political
opposition is too faint-hearted to ask tough questions, when the mass

audience

is deluged by well-crafted propaganda. If things go badly, the patriotic

fervor

can turn ugly.

Big Caesar, the original Julius, conquered for honest reasons. He wanted

the

real estate and resources for Rome and for keeps, not to improve the

conquered.

He routinely slaughtered thousands of captured troops or enslaved them

(accepted

practice in his day that also enhanced Rome's security). The Romans were

great

builders and modernizers, their armies spread culture and language. But

Caesar

did not blather on about freedom and self-government. With or without

elections,

no Iraqis will be allowed to govern that country unless Washington

approves.

America rules Iraq until its troops are out.

Let me be the first to resurrect the fabled Aiken "peace plan"

by

Senator George Aiken, Vermont Republican, during the terrible years of

Vietnam:

"Declare victory and get out." Hundreds of thousands of lives would have

been

spared in Indochina if LBJ or Nixon had had the courage to follow

advice. My hunch has always been that Bush intended a prompt exit from

Iraq

along those lines -- say anything, do anything, whatever it takes to

extract the

bulk of American forces before the next presidential campaign is

Change the subject so American voters can think about something else. If

that

sounds excessively cynical, it seems to have worked with Afghanistan.

I do hope Bush finds the wisdom to embrace the Aiken plan (and that he

executes

the withdrawal deftly enough to sedate the angry couch warriors). Yes,

Iraqis

would be left with a broken country and vulnerable to fratricidal civil
conflicts, maybe an elected government of Islamic theocracy. But it is

their

country, not ours. And many lives would be spared, theirs and ours.

Democracy

means people get to make their own mistakes. Spread the word.