Below James Carroll, Boston Globe columnist discusses “the situation,” which is what, he says, the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict” has devolved into, and then Robert Scheer, Los Angeles Times columnist, offers his version of the “situation” here in the United States on the morning of the “state of the union.”
Our situation, as Scheer says, is not particularly hard to grasp. At some level, many, if not most, Americans understand it all too well. A small group of men (and with the exception of Condi Rice, they are men) with a long-standing imperial dream, Napoleonic in scope, of reshaping the world in their own image, took a contested election by storm and, with the help of a providential catastrophe seen by and shocking everyone to the core, ran with it. Now, they are mad for the war that, they believe, will give their shape, their stamp, to the world. And they are quite capable of making that war of their dreams, too, despite the fact that it’s utterly unwanted globally, even, largely, domestically, even by our top military men.
Why, the Washington Post reports today (“Desert Caution” by Thomas E. Ricks), that “Stormin’ Norman” Schwartzkopf, the general who led our last blitz into Iraq as commander of US forces in the Gulf War in 1991, doesn’t see the need for war this time around. “Candidly,” he’s quoted as saying, “I have gotten somewhat nervous at some of the pronouncements Rumsfeld has made.” On an American war in Iraq, “in sharp contrast to the Bush administration — he supports letting the U.N. weapons inspectors drive the timetable: ‘I think it is very important for us to wait and see what the inspectors come up with, and hopefully they come up with something conclusive.’… He expresses even more concern about the task the U.S. military might face after a victory. ‘What is postwar Iraq going to look like, with the Kurds and the Sunnis and the Shiites? That’s a huge question, to my mind. It really should be part of the overall campaign plan.'”
To read more on Stormin’ Norman click here
The Busheviks see a world of riches within their grasp and the thought of bankrupting the rest of us, in every sense, evidently doesn’t phase them a bit. The question is, will we let all this devolve into a “situation,” too? I liked James Carroll’s modest phrase at the end of his column, “It is up to me to speak.” That, it seems to me, is our obligation. Otherwise we have a situation. Tom
In the silence, a prayer
By James Carroll
The Boston Globe
January 28, 2003JERUSALEM: ”WE USED TO call it the `conflict,”’ my Israeli friend told me, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, ”but now we call it the `situation.”’ The difference is instructive. A conflict is of limited scope and duration, with an inbuilt dynamic toward crisis and resolution. A conflict draws action out of those involved. A situation is more permanent, a static adhering to the structure of things, unresolvable. A situation invites passivity.
JERUSALEM: ”WE USED TO call it the `conflict,”’ my Israeli friend told me, referring to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, ”but now we call it the `situation.”’ The difference is instructive. A conflict is of limited scope and duration, with an inbuilt dynamic toward crisis and resolution. A conflict draws action out of those involved. A situation is more permanent, a static adhering to the structure of things, unresolvable. A situation invites passivity.
On another day here, I encountered an equally fine point of language – this time with a Palestinian friend. We had just entered the Holy Sepulcher, the church that marks adjacent sites of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. I was immediately struck by the fact that the church was entirely empty. In all my years of coming to Jerusalem, I had never been in the place except amidst crushing throngs of pilgrims.
To read more Carroll click here
The State of the Union
U.S. Knows Its Condition — Lousy
Most of us see through Bush’s fantasy that our grave national problems can be fixed by a war.
By Robert Scheer
The Los Angeles Times
January 28 2003Let me tell you about the state of the union: It’s lousy. The only real question is whether the president doesn’t know it or just doesn’t care.
You also have to wonder why the Democrats offer only token opposition to an administration run amok. And you might also be curious as to why the mass media have allowed this “what, me worry?” president to charm his way through the worst humbling of the U.S. economy since the Depression.
Perhaps all these powerful people just think we’re stupid. This seemed to be the belief last Wednesday, when the president pitched his latest economic stimulus for the wealthy while standing in front of a painted facade of “Made in the USA” boxes in a room where the words “Made in China” on hundreds of real boxes had been taped over by presidential volunteers.