oh dear lord
I was all set to write up a number of posts with my take on various developments in Iraq, including the welcome news of the death of Iraqi strongman "Chemical Ali" Hassan al-Majid, the weekend incursions into Baghdad, and the apparent discovery--at last!--of some chemical weapons (Update: or not...).
After seeing this (warning: not for the faint of heart), I don't really feel like it any more.
His name is Ali Ismaeel Abbas; he's 12 years old.
The Bush Administration and the hawks are full of justifications for their cherished war, not a one of which is worth, in my eyes, this boy's suffering.
Yeah, yeah, our forces try not to do this sort of thing, and good on them for it--really! And no one is excusing the atrocities of Saddam's regime. The difference here is, we are repsonsible for this. As I've already said, Bush's pet war isn't worth to me the blood of one Iraqi child. How many kids, I wonder, are the hawks willing to see killed and maimed in furtherance of their ambitions?
Does anyone have a satisfactory answer to the concern--much more immediate than the bogus so-called threat of chemical weapons that Saddam, inasmuch as he posesses them, has been deterred from using so far even in defense of his capital--that this boy's mutilation, and that of other children killed and maimed by this war, isn't going to cause terrorist blowback against the US for years if not decades to come?
And can Bush, or Rumsfeld, or the neocon hawks, or the warbloggers, give this kid his arms back?