A New Hole


Politicians dig a hole only to fill it back up with the same dirt, but since there is always some leftover, they will have to dig a bigger one to take care of it.  Otherwise, the extra dirt will be dangerously hazardous to our wellbeing!  Yes, it is an old English joke, but some jests are too real for laughter, and politicians are paid to keep repeating the same old trick.  So I broke my own rule not to follow our political leaders.


However, I did not expect it to backfire.  Here is what happened:  I dug a hole in my busy time to watch our president’s speech, but since I could not digest the extra dirt, I had to dig a new hole to read the text of his speech too!  And this is the third hole.  I mean writing this article that will lead to the vicious cycle of taking the kind words of my loyal readers for granted, trying to understand criticism, and responding to angry bashers!


Let me quote the president for his ending paragraph: “We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours.” but I am not calling it cynical because the Author of Liberty guides different people differently and unfortunately that is where the problem is. 


It is not just “these trying hours” that are repeated “throughout our history”, but also “these dangerous times” all of which echoed in the president’s speech as wrong as ever.  So is PEACE that is the only declared cause of all wars of recent history to become the first casualty of arrogance for the sake of security and stability!  It is not ironic that peace demonstrators came up with the perfect analogy that bombing for peace is f-word for virginity.


So the president hints of a new hole to the effect that while Syria is mentioned, Iran is honored to be next, and, for sure, the domino effect of democracy will empower big guys with frozen assets, lootings, and windfall contracts for rebuilding what was destroyed for PEACE!  And following the “bigger hole” model, taxpayers’ money will go to the same special interests for both digging and filling these chains of holes.


While many analysts believe George W. Bush will be remembered for his preemptive doctrine, I have yet to see anything proactive in his policies to honor him with any doctrine whatsoever!  In my humble opinion, the misleading preemptive strike is nothing but a coward, primitive and reactionary impulse to fear!  It is the instinct that guides fear, like in animals, not the intellect of human being.  Unfortunately, it is also the fear he keeps promoting.  And it is his reactionary approach to the events that tarnished American values in the eyes of ordinary people all over the world.  It is not just his reaction to the 9/11 tragedy that he capitalized on fear.  It is also a trend of aggrandizing terrorists!


In the second and third paragraphs of his speech he actually presented his administration as a group of college students who lack any experience in the empirical world “We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together” What?  How naïve you were not to take into account the furious reaction of an elite minority who lost to an oppressed majority or how stupid it was not to hear the loud voice of concerned critiques of war, even Egyptian head of state who predicted Iraq to become the safe heaven for terrorists. Then again it is nothing but simple minded reactionary nature of his arrogance to actually admit how effective “Al-Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents” were to recognize “the mortal danger” and avert it!  Unless the new congress stands up to its campaign promises to stop this vicious cycle of belligerence, we will hear him again admitting the same reality with the only difference of replacing Sunni insurgents with Shiite mullahs of Iran as a result of yet a much bigger turmoil in the region! 


No, please don’t even think of the subject of moral standards as a reason for this fiasco.  The whole issues of “shock and awe” and “collateral damage” are just synonyms to act of terrorism.  It does not make any difference to innocent victims and ordinary people whether the bomb was triggered by a professional soldier of the coalition forces, a Sunni insurgent, an Al-Qaeda terrorist or even a desperate individual who lost hope for life.  In fact, how do you read president when he conveniently said: “there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have” bounding it with the other mistake of not having enough troops?  No matter how speech writers put the words together for him, the president is obsessed with a barbaric and unrestricted military solution to all problems.


Sanitizing an act of terrorism will only show the ugly face of hypocrisy.  Furthermore, the arrogant mucho attitude of this administration has left behind a clear record of violating not only Geneva Convention, but also its own rules of engagement.  Let me repeat what I’ve said before; the taller the wall of force, the more terrorism is justified.  If military might was able to bring about peace, security and stability, there would have been no rise and fall of empires in human history.


Bush keeps making the stupid threat he cannot deliver “I have made it clear to the prime minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.”  Well, it has already happened.  Neither American people nor Iraqis support the failed policy of force against diplomacy.  It is only his administration that is yet to give up the military solution. 


Furthermore, let’s assume the best and give him another chance.  What happens if he fails one more time?  I mean in his own words “The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions.”  I can hear oppressed people who postulate the same; something like: the consequences of success are clear: Neo-cons would grow in strength and gain new grounds for more military adventures, invasions, and oppression. They would be in a better position to topple unfriendly governments, create chaos in the region, and use taxpayers’ revenue in addition to usurped oil revenue to fund their ambitions. 


The only difference is, of course, America’s a century long experience of supporting its puppets against the will of the people and meddling with the internal affairs of less developed countries.  The so called terrorists have yet to match the experience!


War of ideologies and clash of civilizations are not ANSWERS to problems, stupid.  PEOPLE are.  It is the people who despise unleashed superpowers as much as they hate terrorism.  It is you Mr. George W. Bush who forces them to harbor terrorism out of desperation.



Mohamad Purqurian

January 11, 2007