Here we go again.  “’My problem is that one day I'm ordered to kill them, the next day I have to be their friend,' said Specialist Bryan Spears, manning a checkpoint on Thursday outside one of Saddam's palaces.”  This is the link to the source:



That is not an Iraqi in any capacity.  It is an American specialist backed by its military might trying to police Iraqis for their democracy!  Read it again.  One day he is ordered to kill them, the next day to be their friend!  Maybe Bush was right all along.  He never planned for invading, occupying, and running Iraq!  It was UN who forced him to relieve UN inspectors from their duty in such a hasty way!  Otherwise who could conceive, in his wildest dreams, the only superpower would not have worked out a “road map” for democracy in Iraq!  Then again, maybe the “atmosphere” for democracy changes on a daily basis.  It is just bad luck to be blamed for Iraqis getting killed in rainy days!  It is a sad story even for sarcasm.


History teaches us the fact that you may force cooperation on the conquered, but never ever expect friendship for a mood change in occupation.  It will take a generation or two before they could come in terms with the horror of taking thousands of bombs in their cities.  Take Japan as an example, using WMD against Japanese brought about fast results.  Was it worth it?  Try to justify it.  On the surface, the whole world is envious about Japanese technological advances, but it is a sad reality that Japanese never forgot Hiroshima, and never will.  It is like being terminally ill.  You will have good days, but your bad days outnumber them by far. 


Nothing on earth is worth killing innocent civilians.  Warmongers like us to believe the loss of innocent lives is an inevitable collateral damage to a greater cause.  Let’s pause to ponder if terrorists have a different logic.  They don’t.  While they randomly kill civilians, it is their “greater cause” that matters to them.  Take Timothy McWeigh’s last words.  He did not regret what he did in Oklahoma City.  He was sorry that innocent civilians had to die for it.  What Timothy McWeigh used qualifies as WMD.  It is easier here than anywhere else to mass murder people by some sort of WMD.  Any lunatic can come up with some kind of “greater cause” logic to kill ordinary people.  It does not have to be WMD nor does it have to qualify as a terrorist act.  Jim Jones killing some 900 people in Guyana and Applewhite brain washing his followers to commit suicide are good examples.


September 11 tragedy, in principle, was no different than Oklahoma City Tragedy except it was carried out by non Americans.  American people like any other people, have different rules for dealing with crimes against humanity.  If it is committed by an insider, they will not go to bomb his city and state.  But the whole world would become responsible if it is committed by an outsider.  Then, of course, the economic interests and settling old scores would target a particular nation to pay for it.  It reminds me of the guy who was looking for his key.  Someone came to help and asked him where he lost it.  He said in the parking lot.  She asked why he was looking for it in the street.  He said because it was dark in the parking lot!


As I mentioned the fact in “Power vs Truth” neither US, as a democratic nation, nor USSR, as a communist dictatorship, ever used WMD against each other.  It is the power that mattered to both of them.  The threat was there, and still is, but while neither one is willing to take the devious challenge, it would hesitate using WMD if it was attacked by same. The same principle applies to India, Iran, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, or any other government seeking WMD.  As US uses it’s economic and military might to bully or buy other governments, others seek WMD to empower themselves.  Governments, whether allied or not, always share common interests to cooperate with, and conflict of interests to watch each other for. 

The politics of war is turning conflict of interests into irreparable enmity expanded beyond governments to people.  In the best case scenario, the American soldier who believes in his mission finds Iraqis ungrateful.  The ordinary Iraqi who is proud of his heritage finds the American soldier nothing but the imperialism.  The resentment, to say the least for both sides, circulates in an ever expanding cycle of audience to create a monstrous mountain of mistrust.  Is America really that naïve not to have foreseen it? “The outgoing head of the U.S. civilian administration, Jay Garner, conceded this week that his office had done 'an extremely poor job' communicating with the Iraqi people despite successes repairing power grids, distributing food and restoring water supplies.”  Hellooo... they had power, food, and drinking water before the war.  They also had their other infrastructure in place.  Now they don’t.

Is this misperception or the reality?  In a world where reality is edited, capsulated, and canned for the so called “internal consumption” misperception is the by product of reality or is it?


Mohamad Purqurian

May 8th, 2003