Det danske Fredsakademi
Kronologi over fredssagen og international politik 25. september 2007 / Timeline September 25, 2007
Version 3.524. September 2007, 26. September 2007
09/25/2007
The Flag, Apple Pie and Motherhood Rule at the County
Fair
By Don Monkerud
American county fairs are not to be missed. They come complete with
livestock, concessions, school displays, arts, carnival rides and
fattening food, combining agricultural pasts with a nascent future
to provide a snapshot of a county area.
September 11, the opening day of the local fair, saw a burst of
patriotism. The first 1,000 fair visitors received commemorative
"Remember 9/11" pins and American flags flew everywhere, from
concessions to stages, baby strollers to T-shirts, booths to
bunting. Apple pie judging was underway and, as the sun descended,
parents with children poured in through the gates.
Patriotism filled the air and people wore buttons supporting "our
troops" and urging a vote for various Republican presidential
candidates. Others thanked the military recruiters for "their
sacrifice." I questioned a number of these people.
Responses indicated that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the
destruction of the WTC and that the U.S. has to fight the
terrorists in Iraq or "we will have to fight them here." The U.S.
can't leave Iraq because "Muslims will follow us home." Even the
military recruiters who served in Iraq claimed that the U.S.
occupation of Iraq is necessary because of the 9/11 attacks.
Where do these people get their information? A news article in the
local paper on the same day found that six years after 9/11
one-third of the American public-40 percent of Republicans and 27
percent of Democrats-believe Saddam Hussein was "personally
involved" in the 9/11 attacks and was sheltering al Qaida. Unable
to find a logical basis for such a belief, the article speculated
that this "is a reflection of what people want to believe" and that
President Bush promotes this belief to justify the military
occupation of Iraq.
That this assertion has been thoroughly investigated and repudiated
in the news innumerable times-as has the assertion of Iraq's
"weapons of mass destruction"-does little to sway those who support
the U.S. occupation of Iraq. When I attempted to relate facts from
government investigations to fairgoers, I was met with disbelief
and defiance. They fervently believe that the U.S. must protect
itself from terrorists by staying in Iraq.
The notion that "they will follow us home" and "attack us here" is
simply bizarre.
They did not come here. The U.S. went around the world to attack a
country that had no "weapons of mass destruction" and nothing to do
with 9/11 (Saddam Hussein and al Qaida were sworn enemies at the
time). Iraqis are attacking us because we are occupying their
country and they don't want us there. If we weren't there, they
wouldn't be attacking us. Duh! Nevertheless, military recruiters,
Republican volunteers and random GOPers believe we must continue
down a disastrous path chosen by an increasingly unpopular
president.
On 9/11/07, another story in the local paper-directly below the one
mentioned above-found that 47 percent of Iraqis want the U.S. out
of their country; 57 percent of Iraqis consider attacks against the
U.S. justified, and 60 percent of Iraqis don't want their country
split up, which appears to be the direction of U.S. policy. Only a
minority of Iraqis supports the U.S. puppet, al-Maliki, and has
confidence in the U.S. and British occupying forces.
Iraqis don't want us and the occupation doesn't make us any safer.
Even Bush's mouthpiece in Iraq, General Petraeus, when asked by
Congress if the U.S. occupation of Iraq makes the U.S. any safer,
replied, "Sir, I don't know, actually."
That a president who has flip-flopped and changed strategies more
often than he's changed commanders can retain any loyalty
whatsoever is astonishing. Why do these defenders of the Iraqi
occupation fiercely reject facts and ignore the damage Bush is
doing to the U.S. military and the reputation of the U.S. around
the world?
On the positive side, many of these people are taking
responsibility for invading Iraq and piling up deficits never
before seen in American history. Americans wanted to "kick some
ass" and take revenge for 9/11. We couldn't attack Britain, which
accounted for 90 percent of the highjackers' phone calls, or Saudi
Arabia, home of almost all of the highjackers, so Afghanistan and
Iraq had to do.
Many chest-thumping patriots are discovering that conquering a
country isn't as easy as they thought. They feel remorse and want
to withdraw after committing terrible atrocities, unleashing the
militias, creating a civil war, displacing millions, and destroying
the infrastructure and the economy of Iraq. By every measure, Iraq
is worse off now than before the U.S. invaded.
Why does anyone follow a self-deluded president who lives in a
fantasy world and uses the war to push unfettered "presidential
power?" Or believe a carefully planned publicity campaign to
convince Americans, yet again, that victory is just around the
corner?
On the other hand, why can't we enjoy a county fair, let the kids
enjoy the pig races and rides rather than push the agenda of
America as an imperial power? For myself, I'd rather eat the apple
pie.
copyright 2007
 |
 |