Paying the price

What does it mean to take a stand for something, if you're not willing to sacrifice for that position? President Ford is the latest in a string of people who've expressed their disagreement with President Bush's war, but not until they're no longer in danger of losing anything. Ford gave the interview to Bob Woodward in the summer of 2004, but embargoed it until after his death. Had that interview been published at the time, don't you think it might have had an impact on the election, and hence, the war? If Ford really believed that the war in Iraq was a mistake, why wasn't he willing to face the heat he would have taken from the right-wingers? Should loyalty to former aides trump his responsibility to the country?

Another example of not sacrificing for principle is going on in the Episcopal Church. A handful of churches have recently decided that that they want to leave the Episcopal Church, and create a new "diocese" in the US under the direction of the Most Reverend Peter Akinola, Archbishop in Nigeria. These churches have declared that they believe the Episcopal Church is wrong in its response to homosexuality, though the catalyst for action seems to have been a woman being elected Presiding Bishop.

Ok, fine, they have a differing interpretation of scripture. Were the priests involved resigning their ordination, I could respect that. If the members of the congregation were walking away and starting anew, I could respect that, too. But that's not what's happening here. These parishes want to walk away from the Episcopal church on principle, but keep everything; the priests wish to continue being priests, and the congregations want to keep their buildings and grounds. That might not be a problem in a more congregational church, such as the Southern Baptists, but in a hierarhical church like the Episcopal church, it doesn't work that way. The church building and grounds belong to the diocese, and the bishop has authority over the priests. These parishes claim to be taking a stand against homosexuality, but they don't want to sacrifice anything for that stand. That's not about principle; that's about power.

If you're not at least willing and ready to sacrifice, then what kind of stand are you taking? If you support the war, or at least the troops, shouldn't there be more to it than slapping a magnet on your car and spending your tax cut?

After Hussein's gone, then what?

So it looks like Saddam Hussein is going to hang, mostly because he misjudged how the US would react to his taking Kuwait. Yes, yes, technically, he's being put to death for dousing the Kurds with poison gas, but that's not really why.

The crimes Hussein was convicted of in that show trial in Iraq were committed back in 1982. Coincidentally, Hussein was also fighting Iran, and anybody fighting Iran back in those days was our kind of guy. He may have been a monster, but he was fighting Iran, the country that held Americans hostage! They were really bad guys!

We were perfectly happy to meet and cooperate with Saddam Hussein even after he gassed the Kurds, as long as he was fighting Iran. It was only when Hussein thought we'd ignore him while he took over Kuwait that he became a problem for us. He wasn't enough of our monster for us to be comfortable with his having more oil fields. That's when he became a really bad guy.

How any of this has any connection to 9/11 or terrorism in general is, of course, a mystery. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden weren't working together, and didn't share the same goals. Hanging a deposed head of state isn't getting rid of a terrorist; heads of state are interested in remaining heads of state, and while they may do all sorts of vile and despicable things to stay that way, terrorism isn't usually their method of choice.

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a vile and evil man. But why did we pick him to focus our energies on? He's hardly the first vile and evil dictator, and he won't be the last. What exactly are we accomplishing by hanging him?

Of course, that question can be asked more generally: what exactly are we trying to accomplish in Iraq? Does anyone in the administration even know?