Another thought. If instead of posing as a mighty and morally pure savior, the President of the USA said—“We have done wrong, and we must spill our blood and treasure to make it right. We have collaborated to keep Saddam in power to oppress his own people. We have betrayed the people in 1991 when we incited them to rise up and then did nothing when they were crushed. So we have been evil-doers, and we must make amends by getting rid of Saddam.” Who could have argued with such a reason for going to war?

I have played this scenario in my mind often: suppose not the USA, but Russia proclaimed it would overthrow Saddam. It would claim that Saddam had, would, will, or could assist the Chechnyan guerillas. Such a claim would be believable, since (unlike the USA) Russia has had a hot war on its own territory, and the Chechnyan guerrilas and Osama’s people are almost the same organization. But no one would support such a move by Russia, and everyone would condemn it.

I have gotten in a few heated discussions about the Iraq War (or is it a battle, part of a bigger war, like WW 4). First, was it justified? The only justification one sovereign nation has for attacking another, is that it has been attacked, or is very certain that an attack is imminent. It is not enough that an attack is probable. Was Iraq planning to attack the USA? No one claimed this. The reasons presented kept changing. To free the Iraqi people. To prevent Saddam from giving Osama Weapons of Mass Destruction. For OUR FREEDOM (this was more the slogan of the pro-war media and those who demonstrated in favor of the war). Then the domestic campaign—now that the war is started, even if it is unjustified, we must not criticize it, but must support our troops. (I am not an American, but live a mile from the border, and so get American TV). All these reasons seem very strange. Why has the freedom of Iraqis become so important now, when even during the decade of sanctions the policy of the Coalition or Alliance has been to keep Saddam in power? If Saddam were intent upon giving Osama Weapons of Mass Destruction, would he not have done this long ago? Was Saddam a threat to domestic freedom in the USA?

Suddenly it occurred to me. The war was not to eliminate Saddam’s regime, but to prevent a loose-cannon regime from replacing the Baath regime. Perhaps it was known that Saddam’s regime would inevitably fall, and this would happen soon. Who would take its place? The only way to make sure was to move in before a regime change. In other words, this was not about causing a regime change, but about managing a regime change.

A few weeks ago, here in Canada, in Queenston Park (where brave General Isaac Brock fought off an American Invasion force and died in the arms of my ancestor, John McDonald) Canadians and Americans got together to support the war. They appeared on the television, and Canadians were saying things like “we must support the troops, the president, for our freedom…”. The troops are not our troops, the president is not our president, and this is not a question of our freedom. I recalled an episode from the History of Persia. In the 1950s there was an elected government, but it chose to nationalize the oil in that country. The agents of Britain and the USA manufactured bogus protests to make it appear that the people were opposed to the elected government, and this led to a manufactured revolution. The result was that the Shah replaced the democracy. That, of course, led to further problems. The people hated the Shah, and overthrew him. The Ayotollahs replaced the Shah, and the Ayotollahs hated America. So when Saddam attacked the country of the Ayotollahs, and gassed their soldiers, the Americans supported Saddam. So, how credible is the claim that this is all about bringing democracy? The whole involvement is precisely because the Americans overthrew a democracy. And what of Canada? I cannot believe that a real Canadian would speak of supporting the head of state of another country as if it were his own country. The whole Queenston event, and other parallel events, smack of the same sort of manufactured demonstrations (brought to us by the same people) which brought down the elected government of Iran so many years ago.

Just war is a hard thing to do. In any conflict at least one party is wrong, which means that the odds are that if your country is involved in a war, there is a 50 percent chance that your country is in the wrong from the outset. Furthermore, in some conflicts both parties may be wrong. So up the odds that your country is in the wrong to 60 percent. Furthermore, it is not enough to have a just reason for going to war, you must also use just means, and this is very very hard. So up the odds to 70 percent. Furthermore, even if your reason is just, you may have ulterior motives, which can make the thing bad. So up the odds to 80 percent. So, pacificists are wrong in principle, but for the most part right in practice. They are wrong in principle because if it is wrong to make an aggressive attack, then the defender must have a right to defend himself. So at least the defender has the right to wage war. They are right for the most part in practice, because the chances are that if your country is going to war, it is most likely wrong.

In my translating work today, I came across a Polish phrase sztuka sowizdrzalska—“soveezdzhalska art”. It referred to a genre of art, literature and performance that flourish in Poland maybe around 1600. Since it was a Polish form, there was no English translation, though I thought of “mummery”. The thematic material consisted of the actions and misadventures of low-born people, rogues, ne’re do wells, scatterbrains. Finally, I found a German site that referred to this word, since the art-form was also related to something in Germany. And the German site used a word that led me to the English word “picaresque” (from picaro, Spanish for “rogue”. So the translation is “picaresque art”. Translation is more of art than science.

Dies XIV Mai MMII

Hodie incipio blog. Benevolens lector, ut certiorem te facias qui sim, ite ad http://www.vaxxine.com/hyoomik. Videtis illic icones, picturas, illustrationes, et articulos de philosophia.

(English) Among other occupations, I am trying to make my own “Wasli” paper. This is many sheets of paper glued together and polish until smooth, used in India and Pakistan for painting miniatures. A friend who has learned this process will show me soon. Meanwhile, I am staying at home because of a mysterious influenza and prefer not to see visitors, and so I am doing my own experiments. Different kinds of paper. Different kinds of glue (rabbit skin, wall-paper paste, flour, white glue). Different ways of stretching paper. Wet paper, dry paper. Pressing the paper as it dries. Et cetera.