Fighting with Mexico

At the February 15 march against the war here in Seattle, once in a while, people would start chanting, "Hey hey, ho ho, we won't fight for Texaco!" Unfortunately, it was kind of slurred and out of synch, and it wasn't all that many people [chanting], so it sounded kind of like they were saying, "hey hey, ho ho, we won't fight for/with Mexico," which caused a bit of confusion and some giggling.

It made as much sense as the current rush to war. The Bush administration talks of people hating us because we have freedom, democracy, and so on, and how we are going to bring this to the people of <insert country of choice here>. Yet he doesn't listen to his own people; support for the war is tenuous and most people don't think he's presented convincing evidence (and is anyone really surprised, considering this is the man who urged people to elect him and not get tangled up in facts—oh yes, tricksy, tricksy facts—and just trust him). The US has been trying to bully countries into voting for war at the Security Council, and alternately dismisses and issues veiled threats to those countries who dare to listen to their own people.

It is impressive that countries so dependent on US aid have been holding out on the vote. It says, perhaps more than any other argument, just how soundly Bush & Co. have failed to make the case for war. Do they want regime change? Disarmament? Inspections? Enforcement of current regulations? It all varies depending on which day it is. Try as they might, they haven't shown a link between Iraq and everyone's favorite boogeyman, al-Qaeda or some other sort of terrorist group—“terrorist” being today's preferred put-down. Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, which many hoped would turn world opinion to Bush's favor, had about as much proof of the alleged link between Iraq and terrorists as a Mariah Carey movie has sharp social commentary.

Even for me, cynic that I am, the "it's all for oil" explanation seems too pat. Sure, oil is a major consideration—as a State Department official quoted in the latest issue of "The American Prospect" said, "If the Gulf produced kumquats, would we be doing this? I have my doubts." Oil figures prominently in any discussion of the geopolitical issues of the area; oil is a major reason in the push for war—though for the Administration to actually say it would be oh-so-gauche—and in the French-led resistance to it. But it seems to me that Bush is risking precipitating all the things that this war is supposed to fix or prevent; among them, an oil shortage. Surely, he must know this. There must be someone at the White House who's mentioned this.

Hussein is, of course, a complete asshole. A dictator. Someone who's committed numerous human rights abuses and who should not be in power; someone who should be at The Hague and later rotting in prison, afraid to die and dying afraid of what may come afterwards. But he's by far not the only one; the US has made a conscious decision to let others like him—and perhaps even worse—stand, and befriended them and offered aid when it was deemed to further the national interest (whatever that is).

And this leaves me right back at the beginning—completely baffled as to why our government is happily skipping towards war. The world being what it is, you can't just go around removing governments you think are wrong—there are consequences to be considered; there are alliances to be forged and compromises and promises to made. The possible consequences, in this case, just don't seem worth it to me. But, what do I know. I don't think that "he tried to kill my daddy" is a good enough reason to risk throwing the world into turmoil.