Author: rakemag

We were in the Al-Amariya bomb shelter, listening to the guide’s report that 400 women and children were incinerated here when U.S. “smart bombs” found their way into the structure. The men and boys had stayed home to prevent looting of their houses. I was standing next to Ahmed, the friendly, ever cheerful professor of veterinary science at Baghdad University, who led us from one site and meeting to the next. And I asked him whether it was only a bomb shelter (because it looked to some in our group like a communications center, and perhaps at one time had been one). He became agitated and his face took on a grim expression. He told me that relatives of his had died in the shelter. As sympathetically as I could, I said that our government had admitted it was a mistake. I had difficulty believing they would deliberately bomb an installation they knew to be a bomb shelter. “Why not?” he said. “Your government deliberately bombed and destroyed the bridge over the Tigris River at a time they knew people and vehicles would be crossing it.”

As our visit to the shelter was ending, a congenial young reporter from Austrian Radio wanted to interview me. He asked me to comment on the fear of many Austrians—that if Saddam Hussein were not deposed he could become another Hitler. Saddam has the psychological capability to emulate Hitler, I said. But he lacks not only the geopolitical capability, given the fractious Middle East, but also the economic and military capability, which was lost in the Gulf War and the resulting sanctions and controls.

During the first day of the conference, I had lunch beside the Tigris, with several professors of veterinary medicine. Two splendid Arabian horses were being saddled up in a nearby pasture, and behind them in the distance were the twin stacks of the city’s electric power plant. I asked what would happen if the plant were destroyed—as it surely would be—when the bombs started falling again. They said it would be like 1991: For weeks if not months, residents would have to use candles, do without refrigeration and flush toilets, and get their water from the polluted river.

During a trip to ancient Babylon the next day, a professor of architecture said that all Arabs share the dream of an Arab nation that includes all the Arab states, and that Saddam Hussein is the only leader still alive who genuinely represents that dream. I said it seemed to me an unrealistic goal—how could those independent states ever agree on a leader or a central government? He replied that it need not be a nation, but perhaps something like the European Union. If the Europeans can have such a union, why not the Arabs?

On our last day in Iraq, six of us visited the Um-Al-Maarak (“Mother of All Battles”) mosque in the outskirts of Baghdad. It is a gleaming gem in blue and white, surrounded by inviting pools and walkways. It was built by Saddam Hussein, and is the model for an enormous mosque under construction, to be called the Saddam Mosque. It is intended to be the largest in the world. We were told that its grounds form a map of all the Arab countries from Morocco to Saudi Arabia, visible from above.

I thought that finally I understood the “problem of Iraq.” History is repeating itself, but on a much larger scale. At the end of World War I, the Ottoman Turks were driven out of the Middle East by tribes of the Arabian peninsula assisted by British soldiers, one of whom was Colonel T. E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”), who supported a “pan-Arabic” union of the tribes. When Lawrence asked his superiors to supply the Arabs with cannons for use against the Turks, his request was rejected for fear that with such armaments the Arabs could become too powerful to manipulate. Today, the United States and various other western countries wish to unseat Saddam Hussein because they fear that he or some leader inspired by his example will one day establish a union of Arab states that will control all the resources of member states, especially the oil, and thus become a powerful economic competitor to the western nations and their various unions and alliances.

A more recent history seems to be repeating itself, too. To justify the Vietnam war, our government demonized Ho Chi Minh, leader of the movement to unify Vietnam. The U.S. argued that the result of inaction would be the domino-like collapse of the countries of Southeast Asia, and maybe even a Chinese invasion of our country (by sea, in their navy of what were then mostly junks?). Today, our government demonizes Saddam Hussein, and insists that he must be removed to protect us from anthrax and nerve gas (to be delivered in his 300 km-range rockets?).

It was shocking to learn that Eisenhower, perhaps our most honest president, had said that the Vietnam war was really about the “tin, tungsten, and rubber” of Southeast Asia. Today we are more cynical. We’re not surprised when our commentators generally agree that a principal aim is to insure that the vast oil reserves of Iraq remain available at acceptable prices. That doesn’t mean we have to assent. A common theme of the anti-Vietnam-war movement was that a Pax Americana—the U.S. as policeman of the world—was neither acceptable nor possible, and most Americans agreed. Today, our government maintains that a Pax Americana is both viable and right—whether the United Nations concurs or not. An alarming number of our fellow citizens seem to agree.—Wade Savage

I beg to differ with a few of the assumptions Mr. Hans Eisenbeis makes in his recent article on SUVs [Good Intentions, February], but in the interest of space, I’ll only rant on one: I have no self-hatred nor is any element of my sense of self tied up in my opinions about SUVs. I hate SUVs so much, I even renamed them a few years ago—after practically being run off the road once again by a white, gold-trimmed, dinosauric SUV driven by a petite soul whose head was no bigger than the “switch to 4-wheel drive” toggle. I now call them FUVs. The new name reflects what I really wanted to say after that incident. But, due to my “reasonable” nature (apparently due to my Northern European roots, according to Hans), I could only sigh. And daydream of making a citizen’s arrest for attempted vehicular homicide. I hate the FUVs of the world because:
—I can’t see around them when they’re behind or in front of me. They impair my ability to drive defensively.
—They’re gaudy—incredibly ugly—and now so damn popular that my otherwise psuedo-cool-n-campy view of Anywhere, U.S.A.’s Main Street is wrecked. It’s now just plain old ugly.
—The popularity of gas-guzzling FUVs has raised the price of gasoline. I am absolutely, positively 100 percent sure of it.
—When FUVs park next to me, I have to pull out of a spot blindly. If I ever hit anyone/thing because of that, I’m just going to have the victim call the FUV owner’s insurance company.
I hate very few things. I hate bigots, I hate polyester pants, and now I hate FUVs. It’s that simple. No extra passion, no nothin’, other than they drive me crazy. People I love and care for drive them. My siblings drive them, my friends drive them, my boss even drives them. But I’ll always hate FUVs—no matter who drives them or how they’re packaged; no matter how “cute” or “cool” automakers try to make them.

Betsy Gabler, St. Paul

I laughed so hard with your SUV article. It is so true. I am one of the few owners whose SUV spends more time off-road than chasing to the supermarket. I live in a rural area, megasnow, and I am a nurse who must get to work when scheduled. Just caught your link off the KARE -11 site, and I will return for your cutting-edge commentary. Meanwhile, I am going to go buck my Jeep through some snow—just because I can!

Char Woizeschke, Windom

You might remember that I revoked Clinton Collins’ “Brother Card” a few months ago [Letters, September 2002]. Clinton, after reading your most recent column, my knees buckled. I don’t think I have ever read or heard a more balanced position to the reparations/affirmative action issues that face this nation. Your article was so strong in terms of positioning the issue outside the Black community and making it a national crisis for all American citizens. I pride myself on being well read, from conservative viewpoints to the very liberal positions, and usually I find most tip in favoring their alliances. I have never read words on paper that have moved me emotionally, where I have gone directly to the computer to write a response, in the form of a “thank you.” I find great pleasure in knowing a man who holds this idealistic position on these issues during these critical times.

Rod Martens, Minneapolis

Yes, Sid Hartman works hard at his job and does it well [“Celebrating Sid!,” January], providing inside dope for that noisy, pushy minority who think pro sports are important. Many of us have meaningful lives and don’t need to identify with the staged battles between millionaires. Sid is also a tireless crusader against women’s athletics, and ignores or denigrates all sports except basketball, baseball, football, and hockey.

Hans Arlton, Minneapolis