Michael Butler's Blog: October 2005

Monday, October 03, 2005
All In The Name You Give It

A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country [+] or empire [+]. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political [+] struggle for national control of state power [+]. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion [+], ethnicity [+], or distribution of wealth [+]. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolution [+]s when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.

An insurgency [+], whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by history if and only if organised armies fight conventional battle [+]s.

Ultimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War [+]. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organised armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution [+].
Courtesy of Web Menu

Well, if it is going to be a question of semantics. No matter what the administration wants to call it, it is a hell of a mess. For me, it is a Civil War. . It has gone way beyond an insurection. It is not a revolution. The killings are basically between the competing religious or ethnic groups. Of course the invaders are a prime target. Still there are and will be far more Iraqi's murdered than American or British soldiers.

So unneeded is this entire conquest, it was put together by the neocons who control the Bush administration. The excuse used was the security of this country from WMD's in the hands of a murderous dictator. Conveniently overlooked was the support given to Saddam Hussein by a past Republican administration. This support was of a ruler given to using poison gas against the Iranians and his own Kurdish subjects. It is interesting to note that the messenger in those days was the same man now running our DOD. He is the leader of the pack to conquer Iraq and through that exercise hegemony over the Middle East.

It is doubtful that any of the cabal who created this exercise had any real knowledge of the Middle East and in particular of Iraq. I spent much time in this area, doing private commercial work and supplying information to the then Senator John F. Kennedy. In Iraq I knew sixteen people, including the King and the Prime Minister. Every friend except one, who was away, were assassinated when the Baathists took over in their coup , later referred to as a revolution. If I had kept to my schedule I would have been blown away with the rest of them. This experience alone gave me an insight in the violence and instability of the area. I am sure the neocons in Washington never had the benefit such a trip.

We, the liberators, they told us, were to be welcomed with flowers and kisses as we overthrew the tyrant, protected a cultural heritage of greater antiquity than our own, and saw that the oil revenues would benefit the people instead of the gang in power. We were sold a bill of goods by some very slick snake oil purveyors. No excuse; any one with a curiousity to try to understand the region would have been alarmed by such intelligence. A little study of modern history would have created another platform of knowledge.

Basically going back to WWI, the destruction of the Hajas Railroad was critical to the Allies in suppressing the power of the Turks. They were the eras "axis of evil" with Germany. Anyone who has seen the great film, Lawrence of Arabia, or read his book, Seven Pillars of Wisdom would have a cursory if romantic view of what was going on in those days. The actual sequel was really bad,however. We, the Allies, had promised to give the Arabs their independence. Of course, we did not keep that promise. Instead, like almost everything of the Versailles Treaty we laid the groundwork for our future problems. So the Turkish Empire was carved up and parcelled amongst the Allies. The area of Mesopotamia was turned into Iraq and a puppet government installed. Completely ignored by the Allied mapmakers were the religious and ethnic differences, including the certainty it would take a very strong central authority to keep all the indigenous tribes in harmony. The history of the Western interference in the Middle East has been one of overwhelming hubris. Lacking any real comprehension as to what we are dealing with, they have what we want and need, and we are going to get that oil, one way or the other.

Now from an imperial fortress, called The Green Zone, we have taken the positions of overseers. We create a shell government, charging it to build their armed forces to protect themselves from themselves, to plunder their own establishment, and with such desperation for local youths that it is easy for them to be recruited as insurgents. Like the Romans at Carthage we destroy Falluja and Tal Afar. There is no exit strategy, there never was. We are there for the long haul. We are not the Answer. We are the Problem.

And what is the proper name for the result? It is Civil War.

email this post to a friend:

Friday, October 07, 2005
Probably Our Major Problem Today

The US Supreme Court is in dire need of even more attention than it is presently receiving. Our future, our children and our grandchildren are going to be effected by who is currently elevated to the court.

Family history tells of the friendship between grandfather Frank O. Butler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. The friendship was destroyed, according to local legend, by FDR's seizing control for park lands large holdings coveted by FOB in South Dakota. At that time the Butler's were serious cattle & horse ranchers there and in Montana . This was also the reason for such large holdings west of Chicago to fatten beef for the stockyards. However to hear FOB, it was that FDR was trying pack the Supreme Court and 'betrayed his class'.

Now we have a similar situation of a highly controvesial president moving to set the agenda for Americans way beyond his term of office. Many presidents have tried and some have been successful in changing the course of jurisprudence. Some have also been surprised with the end result of positions taken by their appointees.

What is at stake? Well some very current items are: Oregon's right to die law, California's medical marijuana, Abortion rights to a younger girl, Protecting public employees as whistle blowers, Federal funds for colleges tied to military recruitment. These are just some items presently on the docket. Not mentioned are major hot button, highly divisive issues just over the horizon.

We are currently faced with the nomination of a highly conservative, fundamentalist, worshiping crony of the president to replace Justice O'Connor. Bush trusts nomine Harriet Miers' judgement and says it will never change. He finds her a strict constructionist who will follow his approach to the Constitution. I suppose that is similar to the US Supreme court's postion in 2000 about the Florida Supreme court's finding on the presidential election proceedure. Ms. M'iers has a fundamentalist (accept Jesus Christ or go to hell) approach to law and politics. Of great curiousity should be her tenure with the Texas Lottery Commission and its connection to George W. Bush's history with the Texas National Guard.

An interesting sidelight to this nomination are the conservative oppositions to it. Could it be a Trojan Horse? If I were in Carl Rove's shoes I would like to see such mutterings to throw the disorganised Democrats completely off balance.

Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts