Now that our government is apparently abandoning any pretense that Iraq was in possession of WMDs before the U.S.-led war to remove this dangerous WMD-possessing regime from power, the mealy-mouthed qualifying remarks have begun:
"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat to America and the world," [President] Bush said. "And I say that based upon intelligence that I saw prior to the decision to go into Iraq and I say that based upon what I know today. And the world is better off without him."
The obvious risk of this brand of foreign policy, and one that has been pointed out before, is the ressurection of the "world policeman" bugaboo (see also Clinton Administration). It's tough to be discriminating when deciding on the many regimes we'd be "better off" without.
You can probably figure out the easy ones:
Kim Jong Il (North Korea)
Bashar Al-Asad (Syria)
Hu Jintao (China)
There's your Big Three right there. Oppressive regimes responsible for thousands, if not millions, of deaths. Drawbacks? Unlike Iraq, these countries possess something approaching modern military capabilities. Also unlike Iraq, these countries probably are in possession of WMDs.
That's no good then. Who's next?
Omar Al-Bashir (Sudan)
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
Than Shwe (Burma)
That's a little more like it. The Sudanese army can't number more than 85,000 - maybe fattened up to 100,000 with conscripts - not exactly a formidable opponent. Plus, they're Islamic fundamentalists, which is always a bonus. We wouldn't have any problem getting the British on board if we wanted to go after Mugabe (or Bashir, for that matter), and all three countries offer Bush choice opportunities to look good on human rights: the Sudanese civil war has claimed over 2 million lives to date; Mugabe and his Zanu-PF supporters have only become more brutal in recent months; and as for Burma, imprisoned dissident Aung San Suu Kyi is pretty hot for an older chick.
Of course, we're still talking about war and putting American lives in danger. Surely there are other, less formidable, individuals and/or organizations whose eradication would make us all "better off."
Humbly submitted for President Bush's consideration:
Starbuck's
Pros: Coffee is overpriced and, honestly, not as good as everybody tells you it is; has no military...that we know of.
Cons: Have infiltrated virtually every urban area in the country - if you thought the WTO protests were bad, wait until the Yuppie Riots of '05.
The KISS Army
Pros: Numbers have dwindled in the past decade; those remaining in service are fast approaching mandatory military retirement age.
Cons: Ability to "rock and roll all nite and party every day" puts them at a distinct advantage over American troops, who still occasionally need sleep.
Martha Stewart
Pros: Popular subject for mass hatred and negative press coverage, despite the fact that her ImClone stock shenanigans pale in comparison to those of CEO Sam Waksal, Adelphia's John Rigas, WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers, or the Enron Gang.
Cons: Come on, she drank a 40 on Late Night with Conan O'Brien, how can you hate someone like that?
The Church of Scientology
Pros: Any movement composed almost entirely of obnoxious celebrities should probably be destroyed on general principle. Besides, wasn't Clinton popular with celebrities?
Cons: Possibility exists that financial strength is sufficient to simply buy the loyalty of every United States citizen. Where's your $400 tax break now?
The Fab 5
Pros: Unlikely to put up much of a fight; eradication will free up network time for valuable Friends series finale promos.
Cons: Might actually incite vast legions of closeted homosexuals in our armed forces to revolt. At the very least, military personnel will go on strike until allowed to sport something more fetching than olive drab.
Obviously, none of the above listed present a significant danger to the lives and limbs of Americans (except maybe Martha Stewart), but since our sole rationale for military intervention has become "making the world a better place," that shouldn't matter too much. What's more significant is that the scenarios I've proposed allow, for the first time, our forces to engage in three combat theaters simultaneously (Seattle, NYC, and Detroit - Rock City).
Les Aspin should've given me a call.
Gotta admit that Myanmar is way up on my personal "next place to make the world a better place", if only because George Will, writing on this topic a year ago asked where the theory of prophylactic war stopped ("on to Rangoon!") and because it's about time for another war in SE Asia.
Personally, I think we should invade Iceland, so that Tom Baker's line about "the final assault on Reykjavik in "The Talons of Weng-Chiang" should be validated.
I'd like to make the case for invading Mordor.
Look, this administration has shown a predilection for justifying invasion based upon evidence that is wholely imaginary. Why not take it a step further and invade a nation that is imaginary as well?
There is a strong upside to this stance. First, nobody can argue that removing Sauron from power is a bad thing. Even if nobody finds these Rings of Power, the whole world can agree that having him out of the way is a worthwhile goal. Second, since Mordor is imaginary, our casualties can be imaginary as well. We can invent body counts, with friendly deaths pleasingly low and largely Italian.
Meanwhile, since we've alienated much of Europe with our hamfisted diplomacy, we need to consider alternative strategic partnerships. By aiding Gondor and Rohan in their time of need, we can build an important bridge of friendship and trust between the worlds of reality and imagination. And if Middle Earth joins with us, can Narnia and Teribithea be far behind? United by the common bonds of brotherhood, we cannot fail to bring hope to humanity and defeat the Heat Miser.
I think we should dispatch Colin Powell to Minas Tirith pronto. I know I'd send my tourist dollars to Club Med Rivendell, and it sure would be swell not to pay taxes for an illegal immigrant hobbit gardener! Th'heck with globalization; that's SO Earth-One!
Oh yeah, one more thing: if we take down Mordor, I think we can expect some quid pro quo. Wouldn't it be a surprise for Kim Frickin Jung Il if some giant eagles came out of nowhere and dropped his pasty dictatorial ass into the middle of Mount Erebus? I'll do your tyrant, you do ours -- Criss-cross!
Pete suggests a few targets for the Bush Administration whose eradication would make us all better off. I for one......
| --Posted to Off the Kuff on Jan 28, 2004 10:09 PM:. |
I don't think we can invade Mordor, because I don't think Shrub can pronunciate it. Close your eyes. Can you hear him saying "Mordor" like Viggo? I'm not even sure he'd manage a good Patrick Stewart impression of Viggo.
In any case, as Saurman is clearly a CIA puppet trained at the School of the Americas, I'm not sure which side we'd go to war in favor of. I mean, those ghostly scrubbing bubbles that went through Gondor (or Gonder, as GWB might say), those seemed like they were involved in a certain amount of Ectoplasm of Mass Destruction. And Treebeard? Evil Biology, I'm sure of it. We'll ask Ashcroft...
I think it's clear this administration would be deeply involved in a war on Evil, but on which side?
You want us to pre-emptively target Juwan Howard?