Coming Out
In the new spirit of openness, liberalism and hope I think the time is right for G. and I to come out. I’ve been dithering about whether I should do this privately or make the big announcement publicly. Our family, of course, have already guessed what our inclinations are and it has been the matter of considerably discussion over late night whiskey sessions in Montaut. In the end, I’ve decided that telling my friends through my blog is by far the easiest route to confirm our inclinations. Its going to be controversial so brace yourselves.
OK, here goes: we supported the aims of the Iraq war.
Oh God! What a relief. I’ve said it. Phew! Its been, like, our little secret for such a long time now that I can hardly believe I’ve had the audacity to spell it out. On the other hand if we’re supposed to have the audacity to hope surely we can then also have the audacity to confess? Mentioning support for the Iraq war is not exactly the kind of thing one wants to talk about in polite company. Polite company normally chokes on its canapé when such views are aired.
The last time I had the guts to discuss this openly was in April 2002 – shortly after the Iraq invasion. It caused so much upset that I felt as though I was doing my hostess a disservice by allowing the conversation to turn into a fist fight. (Not literally of course). A normally placid, easy going and lovely ex-Spanish colleague of mine almost spat at me in anger and resentment when we discussed some of the advantages of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Ever since then G. and I have decided just to keep schtum whenever the Iraq war is mentioned. Its better all round and no one gets upset.
Its not that G and I are neo-cons. I hate the NRA; totally oppose the death penalty; consider Cheney a snake in the grass; believe in the redistribution of wealth and not in the trickle down effect; hate the free market and can live comfortably within a regulated society. My views on Bush are set out in “Where were you” so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say here that I agree with most of the globe that George Bush Jr is a real dumbo. The only good thing coming out of Texas is Tex-Mex and finally I fully support the Kyoto Protocol and believe in climate change.
Having got that political credo off my chest I shall now continue. Why do I bring this up now? Why should G. and I come out in February 2009? Mostly because Father Pat gave such a good sermon a couple of Sunday’s ago on speaking with moral authority. Without wishing to go into detail the general gist of his sermon was this: its not because one is in a position of authority that one speaks with moral authority. Father Pat gave the example of a Head teacher to whom none of the children in the school wanted to speak to at a time of bereavement. Instead the pupils turned to the teachers who, although they held no particular position in the school, were considered more comforting at a time of crisis precisely because they spoke with “moral authority”.
A couple of weeks ago the BBC news had an item, number three on the list I think, about elections in Iraq. It wasn’t head-line news but it was really good news. The Iraqi’s had gone to vote in their masses and there had only been one small incident of violence. From what I could understand, the Sunnis and the Shia’s had all come out to vote as did the residents of Basra that, only a few months ago, had been in the grip of militias. I felt very happy for the Iraqi’s and I really wish them a peaceful and prosperous future.
I’m by no means an expert but I think one of the main aims of the invasion was to secure “regime change” and create democracy in Iraq. We know that the first aim was achieved. Thank goodness. Saddam Hussein was a mean, brutal, cruel and truly evil dictator. What he did to his citizens was horrendous. Why would one not support the removal of Saddam Hussein? In fact I wish someone would do the same with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
The second aim: to create democracy has been much harder. The Bush administration were completely naïve in assuming that democracy would somehow miraculously appear on its own. I guess at the end of the day neo-cons are isolationists who are to idle and to arrogant to do their homework properly. They failed to understand that not everyone is as enamoured with the principles of freedom as the founding fathers were two centuries ago. Still if democracy succeeds in Iraq, and based on elections a couple of weeks ago let us hope that it does, then what it there to argue about? Shouldn’t we all in the West, especially those in polite society, applaud the end of tyranny and oppression? If we don’t then I worry about the future.
On the way back from mass I said to G. “Can’t you just see it now. In a years time, possibly, we’ll have pictures of Barak Obama in Bagdad, signing the official document withdrawing all coalition troops from Iraq once and for all. Hopefully by then there will be long lasting peace and security in Iraq and the Iraqi’s will be able to build themselves a prosperous future. How the neo-Cons will choke on their canapés when they see Obama take all the credit.”
Failing to speak with the correct moral authority was Bush’s, Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s biggest failure. I still believe the aims of the Iraq war were correct. It was the way in which the message was given that was all wrong. Obama, on the other hand, now there’s a guy who can talk with moral authority.
That’s the beauty of democracy though. Leaders can be held accountable and changed if they are seen to fail. How the world rejoiced when Bush Jr was finally forced to leave the White House. They have to win the election and it is constitutionally written that a President can serve no longer than two terms. Even the neo-Cons respected that. Unfortunately for the Iraqis the only way they could even dream of ridding themselves of their unelected President was by relying on something that has gained such disrespect from many: regime change.
OK, here goes: we supported the aims of the Iraq war.
Oh God! What a relief. I’ve said it. Phew! Its been, like, our little secret for such a long time now that I can hardly believe I’ve had the audacity to spell it out. On the other hand if we’re supposed to have the audacity to hope surely we can then also have the audacity to confess? Mentioning support for the Iraq war is not exactly the kind of thing one wants to talk about in polite company. Polite company normally chokes on its canapé when such views are aired.
The last time I had the guts to discuss this openly was in April 2002 – shortly after the Iraq invasion. It caused so much upset that I felt as though I was doing my hostess a disservice by allowing the conversation to turn into a fist fight. (Not literally of course). A normally placid, easy going and lovely ex-Spanish colleague of mine almost spat at me in anger and resentment when we discussed some of the advantages of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Ever since then G. and I have decided just to keep schtum whenever the Iraq war is mentioned. Its better all round and no one gets upset.
Its not that G and I are neo-cons. I hate the NRA; totally oppose the death penalty; consider Cheney a snake in the grass; believe in the redistribution of wealth and not in the trickle down effect; hate the free market and can live comfortably within a regulated society. My views on Bush are set out in “Where were you” so I won’t repeat them here. Suffice it to say here that I agree with most of the globe that George Bush Jr is a real dumbo. The only good thing coming out of Texas is Tex-Mex and finally I fully support the Kyoto Protocol and believe in climate change.
Having got that political credo off my chest I shall now continue. Why do I bring this up now? Why should G. and I come out in February 2009? Mostly because Father Pat gave such a good sermon a couple of Sunday’s ago on speaking with moral authority. Without wishing to go into detail the general gist of his sermon was this: its not because one is in a position of authority that one speaks with moral authority. Father Pat gave the example of a Head teacher to whom none of the children in the school wanted to speak to at a time of bereavement. Instead the pupils turned to the teachers who, although they held no particular position in the school, were considered more comforting at a time of crisis precisely because they spoke with “moral authority”.
A couple of weeks ago the BBC news had an item, number three on the list I think, about elections in Iraq. It wasn’t head-line news but it was really good news. The Iraqi’s had gone to vote in their masses and there had only been one small incident of violence. From what I could understand, the Sunnis and the Shia’s had all come out to vote as did the residents of Basra that, only a few months ago, had been in the grip of militias. I felt very happy for the Iraqi’s and I really wish them a peaceful and prosperous future.
I’m by no means an expert but I think one of the main aims of the invasion was to secure “regime change” and create democracy in Iraq. We know that the first aim was achieved. Thank goodness. Saddam Hussein was a mean, brutal, cruel and truly evil dictator. What he did to his citizens was horrendous. Why would one not support the removal of Saddam Hussein? In fact I wish someone would do the same with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
The second aim: to create democracy has been much harder. The Bush administration were completely naïve in assuming that democracy would somehow miraculously appear on its own. I guess at the end of the day neo-cons are isolationists who are to idle and to arrogant to do their homework properly. They failed to understand that not everyone is as enamoured with the principles of freedom as the founding fathers were two centuries ago. Still if democracy succeeds in Iraq, and based on elections a couple of weeks ago let us hope that it does, then what it there to argue about? Shouldn’t we all in the West, especially those in polite society, applaud the end of tyranny and oppression? If we don’t then I worry about the future.
On the way back from mass I said to G. “Can’t you just see it now. In a years time, possibly, we’ll have pictures of Barak Obama in Bagdad, signing the official document withdrawing all coalition troops from Iraq once and for all. Hopefully by then there will be long lasting peace and security in Iraq and the Iraqi’s will be able to build themselves a prosperous future. How the neo-Cons will choke on their canapés when they see Obama take all the credit.”
Failing to speak with the correct moral authority was Bush’s, Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s biggest failure. I still believe the aims of the Iraq war were correct. It was the way in which the message was given that was all wrong. Obama, on the other hand, now there’s a guy who can talk with moral authority.
That’s the beauty of democracy though. Leaders can be held accountable and changed if they are seen to fail. How the world rejoiced when Bush Jr was finally forced to leave the White House. They have to win the election and it is constitutionally written that a President can serve no longer than two terms. Even the neo-Cons respected that. Unfortunately for the Iraqis the only way they could even dream of ridding themselves of their unelected President was by relying on something that has gained such disrespect from many: regime change.
posted by Kathleen at 1:29 AM
3 comments
