THE PROBLEM, THE SOLUTION(S)
by Andrew Williams

"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem."--Eldridge
Cleaver

"People who say 'You're either part of the solution or part of the
problem' are part of the problem."--Robert Anton Wilson

Anyonw who read my last column on the inherent flaw in Aristotelian logic
will know that I vehemently disagree with Cleaver and vociferously agree
with Wilson. But some commentators, in their rush to crush the anti-war
dissent movement with their withering and patronizing disdain, have
lambasted us protestors for not offering what they consider to be workable
alternatives to war against Saddam Hussein. (And let's be simon-pure about
this: though our troops would be fighting Iraqi soldiers, it is
Hussein--and/or his oil--that our government wants. The citizens of Iraq,
who are more shit-scared of war than we are, will be piggies-in-the-middle
in the proposed conflagration.) So, on behalf of us dissenters, I am
taking it upon myself to respond to said commentators personally.
Ladies and gentlemen, we of the anti-war dissent movement are under no
obligation whatsoever to provide alternatives to war. Our job is simply to
"petition for redress of grievances" as stipulated in the First Amendment.
It is the job of the diplomatic corps and the Presidential cabinet to find
other ways--besides bloodshed--to contain or neutralize Saddam Hussein.
The paucity of imagination in both departments in dealing with the
weasel-wording dictator of Iraq is undoubtedly due in small part to the
actions and speeches of our own weasel-wording dictator-President. But
since you're going to act like complainy-pants
until we present some equitable and/or workable solutions, I'll throw
y'all a few marrow-rich bones to suck on.
1) Give inspections more time. (A common refrain at protests.) It is known
that Hussein banned UN weapons inspectors from Iraq from 1998-2001. It is
equally known that neither the UN nor any of its signatory members acted
in any significant way to remedy that situation. But as long as inspectors
are in country, their presence does put a significant damper on any work
the Iraqis might be doing on nuclear or bio-chem weapons.
2) Make it personal. Bush wants to fight Hussein. And while Hussein is
making at least token concessions, he doesn't seem to be backing down. One
of Hussein's advisors, speaking with tongue (presumably) in cheek,
suggested that the two dictators get in the ring and fight it out to the
finish. That seems equitable to me. If they are such brave men, whose
actions echo their words, then they should have no qualms about resolving
their differences mano-a-mano. After all, neither man is a coward. Right?
(And while they're at it, let's show the whole grudge match on
pay-per-view. Gentlepeoples of the media, get out your checkbooks and let
the bidding war begin!)
3) Love bombs. Recollect in 1968 that the cops in Chicago were
super-uptight about the Yippies descending on Chi-town for the Democrats'
nominating convention because--so their story went--the YIP was planning
to spike the city's water supply with LSD. We could do the same in Iraq.
After all, it was the CIA who in/directly popularized the use of acid with
their infamous MK-ULTRA experiments on unwary johns (and even Company men;
never forget Frank Olsen.) Obviously, though, LSD should not be the drug
of choice here, since its use is as likely to create Heaven as Hell on
Earth in the mind of the consumer. Perhaps Eli Lilly--in which the Bush
family is a major shareholder--could spare a gross ton or 10 of one of
their still-under-patent SSRI's?
4) Food not bombs. The Iraqi people view the US with more alarm than they
do Saddam Hussein because of ther international embargo that our
government helped promulgate, plus such minor details as the damage to
their cities and the citizens killed in the previous war. If they're ever
going to come around to our side--even to the point of ousting Hussein
themselves--we have to stop acting like the bad guys in their eyes and
start providing much-needed supplies. Food and medicine would be a good
start. And there is a legion of assistance organizations, domestic and
foreign, that are ready, willing and able to pitch in on such an
initiative, including the one that gave me the name for this proposal.
Granted, some of these proffered solutions come across as either naive or
tongue-in-cheek. And maybe none of them will work. But aren't they all
preferable--even as comic relief--to killing thousands, perhaps millions
of Iraqis and Americans? Why should we the people fight a war that the
politicans and businesspeople want? Why should young men die yet again for
the glory of old men? Must we continue to repeat the mistakes of history,
as Santayana warned? Or can we at long last break free of history's
vicious, bloody cycles to arrive at a diplomatic resolution that doesn't
involve or invoke rockets' red glare and bombs bursting in air? The
future--if any--awaits our decision.