Reply to an Iraqi Taxi Driver As conscientious citizens of the world's only superpower, it is incumbent upon us to address the heartfelt plea of an Iraqi taxi driver, recently quoted, that the U.S. put a stop to Saddam Hussein's vicious campaign of murder. We should also give due weight, in our foreign policy deliberations, to his suggestion that war is the optimal way to go about this. Let us say then, for the sake of argument, that the current course of invasion and bombing is indeed the anointed path to save Iraqi citizens from their sadistic leader, that we can find meaning and redemption in the ultimate, albeit involuntary, sacrifice paid by countless thousands of Iraqis, that we are content to categorize the deaths of some millions by disease and starvation as "collateral damage", and that we can be satisfied everyone else has inhaled the radioactive dust from U.S. uranium-enriched bombs in a good cause. Nor let us protest too strongly the other ramifications of war -- that men are butchered, women raped, families torn apart, and the surviving children traumatized for life. Let us also agree to stomach the deaths, in spirit if not in body, of the military personnel employed in 'Operation Iraqi Freedom'. Let us say, too, that we don't mind unleashing the rage of the entire Arab world against us, inciting generations of terrorists to come, or disgusting and alienating the other civilized nations of the world. We are, after all, the U.S., mighty and invincible, supreme and individable. Let us be untroubled at the coming breakdown in social cohesion and "law and order" at home, now that the U.S. administration has signaled even international law is to be held in contempt. Let us also, in our quest for noble and transcendent virtue, not worry unduly about destroying Iraq's legacy of ancient architecture, literature, or archaeological finds, nor about possibly irreparable harm to the region's ecology and environment. And finally, let us say, that we are satisfied to see a conquered Iraq parceled out to U.S. corporations. We must also, of course, put aside all scurrilous and naughty gossip about ulterior motives such as oil! For that kind of talk is most unpatriotic and unseemly in the midst of such a crisis. All in all, let us say we are prepared to make, and prepared for the Iraqis to make, all these sacrifices, so they can be free again to enjoy human rights. There is one niggling question, though. If the U.S. quest were to stop human-rights abuses in Iraq, shouldn't that have been the sole focus of lobbying at the U.N., instead of the rather embarrassing forgeries of evidence about weapons of mass destruction and concocted links between the Butcher of Baghdad and the killers of Kabul? Might not the U.S. have called for teams of human-rights inspectors, who would interview political prisoners and family members of victims, and order the demolition of prisons and torture chambers? May I venture to suggest that approach might have received a kinder reception from those stubborn French and incredulous Russians? Might it have sent a powerful message to the world, that the U.S. is prepared to intervene militarily against human-rights violators? Well, anyway, it's a bit late for that discussion now, isn't it? No point wasting time in fruitless hindsight. The invasion has started. So it compels us to look forward to a new Middle-East federation of democracies, where the dictators have fallen, regimes have crumbled, and free peoples have embraced their utopian future in which human rights are upheld. There is one slight problem, though. The U.S. does appear of late to have been rather reticent about international cooperation on human rights, not least in its opposition to the International Criminal Court. Wouldn't it perhaps be rather difficult for the U.S. to bring Saddam Hussein before a court it doesn't recognize? And then there is that somewhat awkward contradiction to human rights in that concentration camp run by the U.S. in Guantanamo. We must also admit, I'm afraid, that the U.S. has at times shown a little too much fondness for certain dictators, even Saddam Hussein, when it suited it. Permit me also to wonder if it makes better sense to curb a dictator with an invasion when -- if you'll pardon my crude metaphor -- you already had him by the balls. Didn't the mere readiness to use force seem rather compelling in the months prior to invasion? Rather more persuasive, perhaps, than all these bombing runs, forays into the desert, and prolonged sieges that seem set to drag the military campaign beyond the four months U.N. inspectors had asked for to complete their mission. The U.S. military's present bite does seem a little shy of its prior bark, don't you think? Oh, but there I go again, harking back to a past that is irredeemable now. Do forgive my pointless digressions. It is time to look forward to that blissful state in which the U.S. shall rid the world of all evil, beginning with Saddam Hussein, unless of course that elusive trickster Osama bin Laden is found in the meantime. All we would have to do then, to oblige our taxi driver, is persuade Saddam Hussein to stand out in the open with a target on his head and to forswear his rather obstinate tendency of sacrificing everyone else around him first. Still, as we are reasonable people, and reasonable people should allow for an optimistic outcome, let us imagine the U.S. removing this dictator from power, making a successful stand for human rights after victory, and sustaining the effort thereafter, though we would have to allow that poor, dear Afghanistan was left in rather a messy condition herself. Oh dear, but then there is another slight quibble. You see, the U.S. would somehow have to accomplish this telescopic philanthropy abroad, while careering towards repression at home, overturning the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on which the nation was founded, raping the environment to benefit the wealthy, mortgaging our financial future, and spouting a religious zealotry that blasphemes the Creator and Christianity. A rather glaring contradiction, don't you think? Nevertheless, as I'm such an agreeable fellow, and as we should all pull together in unity in these bewildering times, and as patriotism is such a noble form of blindness, I should probably allow that the administration can be one thing at home, and another overseas, and somehow pull off this identity transplant in its foreign dealings, even though the Good Book tells us that a tree can only produce one type of fruit, good or bad. Ah, but I seem to have run beyond two pages. I do hope I haven't taken up too much television-viewing time of the war spectators, and that they will permit me this small indulgence. You see: lies are simple, and truth is complicated. April 2003 . The poems on this website are protected by U.S. copyright law and registered with the U.S. Library of Congress. Please direct any requests for publication, in whatever form or medium, to the author, Ian Reed, at tango_poet@hotmail.com (212) 841-0341. .