February 1, 2005

NO “BUTS” ABOUT IT

Train wreck of an election (James Carroll, Boston Globe, February 1st, 2005)

In thinking about the election in Iraq, my mind keeps jumping back to last week's train wreck in California. A deranged man, intending suicide, drove his Jeep Cherokee onto the railroad tracks, where it got stuck. The onrushing train drew near. The man suddenly left his vehicle and leapt out of the way. He watched as the train crashed into his SUV, derailed, jackknifed, and hit another train. Railroad cars crumbled. Eleven people were killed and nearly 200 were injured, some gravely. The deranged man was arrested. Whatever troubles had made him suicidal in the first place paled in comparison to the trouble he had now.

Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech, and the Washington establishment will applaud him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. More than 1,400 Americans are dead. An Arab nation is humiliated. Islamic hatred of the West is ignited. The American military is emasculated. Lies define the foreign policy of the United States. On all sides of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there is wreckage. In the center, there are the dead, the maimed, the displaced -- those who will be the ghosts of this war for the rest of their days. All for what?

Tomorrow night, like a boy in a bubble, George W. Bush will tell the world it was for "freedom." He will claim the Iraqi election as a stamp of legitimacy for his policy, and many people will affirm it as such. Even critics of the war will mute their objections in response to the image of millions of Iraqis going to polling places, as if that act undoes the Bush catastrophe.[...]

Something else about that California train wreck strikes me. As news reports suggested, so many passengers were killed and injured because the locomotive was pushing the train from behind, which put the lightweight passenger coaches vulnerably in front. If, instead, the heavy, track-clearing locomotive had been leading and had hit the Jeep, it could have pushed the vehicle aside. The jack-knifing and derailment would not have occurred. The American war machine is like a train running in "push-mode," with the engineer safely back away from danger. In the train wreck of Iraq, it is passengers who have borne the brunt. The man with his hand on the throttle couldn't be more securely removed from the terrible consequences of his locomotion. Thus, Bush is like the man who caused the wreck, and like the man who was protected from it. Deranged. Detached. Alive and well in the bubble he calls "freedom," receiving applause.

They really are very angry at the Iraqis, aren’t they?

Posted by Peter Burnet at February 1, 2005 7:41 PM
Comments

The man's ignronce is broad. Not just with American foreign policy. He has no understanding of railroad operations or why trailing locomotives have been used on commuter trains since at least the 1960s. For one thing, "engineer safely back away from danger" is wrong. The operator was seated in a cubicle with nothing in front of him but a sheet of glass. I haven't seen it reported, but odds are he didn't make it.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at February 1, 2005 8:35 PM

Lends itself nicely to the "at least Saddam made the trains run on time" justification though.

Posted by: oj at February 1, 2005 8:45 PM

Despair, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, that's what Liberals are focused on. It's the lense through which they view all events and the actions of all people. James Carroll is one angry, rage-filled individual.

Posted by: Dave W. at February 1, 2005 9:50 PM

This guy doesn't realize which side of the bubble he's on.

Posted by: David Hill, The Bronx at February 1, 2005 10:28 PM

I don't think he knows what an Iraqi is. the only person in the world that he really and truly hates, other than O'Brein, is George W. Bush.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 2, 2005 2:30 AM

He's wallowing in a tar pit of his own making.

Posted by: Dave W. at February 2, 2005 2:39 AM

So what is this guy's point? That we should have left Saddam in power to butcher the people of his own country, and give out big checks to the families of suicide bombers in Israel? That the obvious expression of Iraqi popular will should be ignored? That the guy who ended a brutal dictatorship and brought people democracy is worse than the brutal dictator?

Posted by: Bart at February 2, 2005 6:40 AM
So what is this guy's point?
President Bush is the anti-Midas – so evil that anything he touches turns evil. Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 2, 2005 12:35 PM

That's what I mean, AOG. It's one thing not to like Bush but if you're going to criticize a specific policy, you should at least explain why some plausible alternative is better.

Otherwise, you're just redoing the Monty Python Argument Sketch. Or engaging in simplistic nihilism. In any event, you just ooze off into irrelevance.

Posted by: Bart at February 2, 2005 1:06 PM
« MOVEIN.GOP: | Main | KILL THEM FASTER: »