Try to contain your surprise, but I disagree with Jim Henley’s assessment of the validity of our reasons for going to war against the Baathists in Iraq.

Jim says that our failure to find actual WMDs means the whole thing was an unjustifiable farce. He picks apart two arguments commonly used by hawks to offset this: 1) Saddam Hussein was bad enough to warrant forcible removal from power, WMDs or no; 2) Saddam Hussein bluffed, we called him on it, no harm, no foul. Reason 1, sez Jim, is no good, because it requires a major rethinking of the role of American military power in the world, and moreover if the Bushies thought it would fly they’d have advanced it in the first place, since you didn’t need UN inspectors to prove that Saddam was a grotesque murderer of the highest order. Reason 2 won’t wash, he argues, because Saddam wasn’t bluffing: He and his underlings said over and over again that they had no WMDs, the U.S. would have said he had them no matter what, and Hans Blix only took the very moderately tough stance he did in order to placate us bellicose Americans, so in the end the Baathists were, if not telling the whole truth, a lot closer to the truth than the US/UK coalition.

Well, Reason One is simple enough to be done with: Yes, I think the American military should be used to depose tyrants and promote constitutional democracy. There’s obviously got to be a priority structure, since we don’t have the means or the manpower to fight the entire Axis of Evil plus the AoE Junior Auxilliary simultaneously, but generally speaking Gulf War II was in line with a foreign policy I was advocating during my wildest and wooliest collegiate Bush-hating days: Stop paying the bastards, and start ousting them. Obviously this doesn’t sit well with Jim, who, as a libertarian, is primarily concerned with leaving well enough alone. How leaving well enough alone in countries ruled by mass-murdering dictators is libertarian is something that continues to escape me, but in all fairness Jim’s been riding this train of thought for a long time now, so I guess he’s figured it out.

Reason Two is trickier. It’s certainly distasteful/distressing/disturbing (depending on how charitable you want to be) that our government and its intelligence wings either had no clue what was really going on in Iraq, or had a clue but decided to burnish it into a direct causus belli anyway. (Again, I really wouldn’t have cared if they’d argued for the removal of that monster by saying he’d kidnapped Santa Claus and was preparing to unleash Gidrah the Three-Headed Monster, but that’s neither here nor there for the moment.)

But was Saddam Hussein really not even bluffing that such weapons existed? Of course he was bluffing. He certainly knew his statements were never going to be taken at face value by the U.S. and U.K.; in diplomacy, whose statements are taken at face value? (Iran’s, I guess, if you’re the International Atomic Energy Agency, but that’s another story.) You can’t just go by what he or Tariq Aziz said on television to determine whether or not they were makin’ with the obfuscation. If this were a novel, they’d be what you’d call “unreliable narrators.” (Hell, even the anti-war types refused to believe Saddam was in any way allied with Islamic reactionism, despite any number of statements of his to the contrary. Funny how much credit they’re willing to give this man, who by the way had a Koran written in his own blood and paid the Islamic death-cult suicide bombers of Palestine 25 large a pop, on certain other matters: “Hey, if the man says he’s got no WMDs, he’s got no WMDs!”)

And he was, in fact, an obstructionist when it came to the inspections regime, quite independent of how the U.S. interpreted his moves. We know what legitimate UN-overseen disarmament looks like; we’ve seen it in South Africa, for instance. We did not see it in Iraq. Clearly, someone thought they had something to hide. And someone thought they had political intimidation points to score by acting like it. By all accounts Saddam himself believed he had WMDs, and was made to believe this by an entire chain of military and scientific officials scrambling desperately to convince him. They wouldn’t have put their necks on the line if WMDs weren’t something the man had, you know, asked for.

As the Kay Report made quite clear, Iraq most certainly did have a WMD development program. Some of its constituent parts were hidden, buried, rearranged, stashed in scientist’s home frigidaires, and integrated with civilian infrastructure; some of them were burned or shredded far from the prying eyes of international oversight. Why, exactly? So that the scientists could eat botulin-sicles and grow gardens in nuclear reactor parts? Because they didn’t want the UN inspectors to see them without their make-up on that morning?

This, to me, has always been the horse-shittiest part of the anti-war argument: that Saddam was harmless, forever and ever, amen. Clearly he and his government made every effort to stay just shy of openly pursuing the program, while continuing to preserve the means, materiel and knowledge necessary to reactivate it the second the heat was off. Anti-war forces conveniently forget that before the present administration called bullshit and forced the Iraq issue to the forefront of world attention once again, the cry wasn’t “Let the inspections and sanctions work,” it was “Let the inspections and sanctions end.” Saddam was gambling that, if he gathered enough sick babies into one or two hospitals, trotted in credulous BBC reporters, and said “we can’t afford medicine” over and over again, he could then sit back in one of his several dozen palaces and watch the world force an end to the sanctions regime that prevented him from fully purusing his WMD ambitions. And the sanctions were already splitting apart at the seams: even nations friendly to the U.S. were beginning to flout them, to say nothing of Syria, Jordan, Russia, and France. If 9/11 hadn’t happened I am positive they’d have been completely scuppered by now; as it was the make-or-break point was delayed by a few years, but make no mistake, it would only have been a delay, and then Saddam would have been free to pursue his clandestine weapons program with all the gusto of, well, seemingly every other Muslim dictatorship with Kim Jong Il on the speed dial. A war in which Saddam Hussein and his mob were removed from power permanently was and is the only way that this endless cat-and-mouse game could be stopped.

To recap, what exactly were we facing? An unspeakably brutal dictator, with no compunction about inflicting mass civilian casualties even within his own borders and on fellow Muslims, and with a proven record of doing just that repeatedly for decades on end; an un-deterrable dictator, who had invaded two of his neighbors, attacked a third, and seriously threatened two more, despite overwhelming evidence that these courses of action would be disastrous for himself and his nation; an opportunistic dictator, who had not hesitated to very publicly cast his lot with religious fundamentalism and its murderous vanguard in Palestine and Kurdistan, even after our post-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan showed that such alliances were potentially fatal for the states involved; an ambitious dictator, who had used WMDs in the past and greatly desired to maintain the ability to use them again in the future despite the tremendous personal and financial risks inherent in the pursuit; a patient dictator, willing to play a decade-long waiting game with the world at the direct expense of his citizenry until international inertia and greed in Europe, Russia, and the Mid-East won out once again, leaving him free to pursue weapons that he felt would make him, at long last, untouchable. Throw in what I think was our moral obligation to end the reign of this dictator we once supported, over a people whom, after Gulf War I, we betrayed, and explain to me again: Why was this war not a good idea?

I don’t know if it’s something in the water or what, but it’s getting nice and mean around the comics internet. First Graeme McMillan goes on a bona fide fanboy rampage, then Matt Maxwell, Dirk Deppey, and Chris Allen put the boot into sundry targets.

Delicious.

Went by the comic shop today, and what to my wondering eyes should appear but a trade paperback of The Dark Knight Returns, with the interior redesigned by Chip Kidd as well as the cover. When I bought the hardcover version with its Kidd-designed cover, I was awfully disappointed to see that inside, unlike the through-and-through redesign of The Dark Knight Strikes Again, it was the same old Kidd-free stuff. So why did DC get all fancy-schmancy with the less fancy-schmancy edition–and screw over the people who splurged for the hardcover in the first place?

Jeebus, but is Graeme McMillan ever on today. Just start here and start scrolling up. The man snarks with the absolute best of ’em.

All sorts of new stuff in the blogroll today, including a few brand newbies in the comics blogosphere. Stop by and say hello!

And Roger Langridge did a cartoon about it. (Permalink for Modern Tales subscribers here.)

Uh, congratulations, Jim! I guess!

I’m not going to take down the big Phoebe Gloeckner illustration below–hopefully I’ve pared it down to a size where you can still read it, but it doesn’t bust your browser and make the rest of the page impossible to read. Moreover, I just really like having it on my own page.

But Phoebe herself just uploaded a fancy-schmancy navigable version of the illustration on her own webpage, one which you can view row by row in several sizes as opposed to the whopper of a .jpg you see below. Click here to check it out.

If you’re digging on the Phoebe Gloeckner photo essay below, here’s a similar piece she did for the L.A. Weekly.

If you’re digging on this blog, there are other entries from this past weekend waaaaaay down there, below the interview. Scroll down!

From Rich Johnston’s column today:

I’m hearing rumours from the comics stratosphere (different to the ‘blogosphere’, as it’s higher up and actually makes a difference)…

I’m sure this harsh assessment of comics bloggers has nothing to do with the fact that, a couple of weeks ago, a comics blogger very publicly stole the thunder from the Great Big Announcement that Rich has been lording over everyone for week after endless, tedious, mind-numbingly repetitive week. No sir, nothing at all.

And I’m sure he would have written all that business about said Great Big Announcement being “the worst kept secret in comics” if he’d gotten to make the announcement himself as planned. And as advertised, in his own column, as recently as two weeks ago.

Yeah. Sure.

(Actually, Rich Johnston is one of the best comics journalists (yeah, that’s what I said) around. I impatiently reload CBR to get a look at his new column each Monday–it’s genuine appointment reading. But making fun of the comics blogosphere? So 2003, chief.)

A big day for the blog! I am thrilled to be able to publish, for the first time anywhere, an interview I conducted with cartoonist, novelist, and illustrator Phoebe Gloeckner on April 24th, 2003. I

Phoebe Gloeckner is blogging!

Actually, expect some big Phoebe Gloeckner-related developments on my blog by Monday…

I sat there and watched the news in disbelief last night.

Disbelief that these fucking idiots got so upset about this.

Let me see if I can explain the source of my disconnect with the outrage here:

HE’S THE CROCODILE HUNTER.

The baby was never at risk. You know why? BECAUSE HE WAS BEING HELD BY HIS FATHER, THE CROCOFUCKINGDILE HUNTER.

Why do we need to even discuss this any further? I mean, if I saw someone holding their kid while feeding a crocodile, you know what I’d say? “Who does he think he is? The Crocodile Hunter?” And when I see the Crocodile Hunter holding his kid while feeding a crocodile, I say “Yep.”

People are trying to compare this to the Michael Jackson balcony-dangling incident. But Michael Jackson’s sobriquet is “The King of Pop,” not “The Balcony Hunter.” If he’d spent his entire life hunting balconies, then I wouldn’t have complained about his baby-dangling incident, either.

People. Get a hold of yourselves.

HE’S THE CROCODILE HUNTER.

Please excuse our appearance–the front page of ADDTF operates by date, not number, so since I went so long without posting over the holidays, it’s gotten pretty sparse. I’ll make up for it soon, I promise. (Now comes the part where I try to balance blogging, fiction writing, and job hunting. Oh yeah, and watching The Return of the King a few more times. Should be a pip.) In the meantime, why not check out the archives, over there on your left?

Also, here are a couple of highly enjoyable year-in-comics recaps from two of my comics blogfathers, NeilAlien, Strange-blogger Supreme and the ever-lovin’ blue-eyed Bill Sherman. Jim “Not Hanley, nor his Universe” Henley also gets in on the act, somewhat irreverently; Franklin Harris puts in a mixed-media effort in his print column “Pulp Culture,” also known as “I can’t believe a newspaper prints a column this cool.” And a tip of the hat to Alan David Doane for pointing me in the direction of this smart wrap-up by Shawn Hoke (permalink pending). In addition, Alan reports on the best comics-related news of 2004. Trust me–you might as well just declare that particular contest over right now.

And if you missed it, here’s my Best-Of for the year. Read it again, for the first time!

—–

I don’t have the patience to do a proper Best Of 2003 so I’m just going to list some comics and if you want a more in-depth kinda deal maybe I’ll link to some other people who’ve done that sort of thing

Which is a roundabout way of saying “Here’s my Top 25 Comics Released in 2003 That I Read.”

1. Epileptic Volume 1, by David B.

2. Shrimpy & Paul and Friends, by Marc Bell

3. Ultimate Spider-Man, by Brian Bendis & Mark Bagley

4. Alias, by Brian Bendis & Michael Gaydos

5. Ultimate Six, by Brian Bendis & Trevor Hairsine

6. Daredevil, by Brian Bendis & Alex Maleev

7. Powers, by Brian Bendis & Michael Oeming

8. Rubber Necker, by Nick Bertozzi

9. Teratoid Heights, by Mat Brinkman

10. Unlikely, by Jeffrey Brown

11. Black Hole, by Charles Burns

12. Ripple, by Dave Cooper

13. Squadron Supreme, by Mark Gruenwald & various artists

14. Kramers Ergot 4, by Sammy Harkham et al.

15. Palomar, by Gilbert Hernandez

16. The Ultimates, by Mark Millar & Brian Hitch

17. The Dark Knight Strikes Again, by Frank Miller & Lynn Varley

18. New X-Men, by Grant Morrison & various artists

19. The Filth, by Grant Morrison & Chris Weston

20. 100%, by Paul Pope

21. Supreme Power, by J. Michael Straczynski & Gary Frank

22. Blankets, by Craig Thompson

23. The Acme Novelty Date Book, by Chris Ware

24. Quimby the Mouse, by Chris Ware

25. The Frank Book, by Jim Woodring

For whatever reason, these were the books that got me really excited about comics this year. They were the pamphlets I could hardly wait to read, the graphic novels that floored me with the depth of their invention and enthusiasm, the hidden treasures from years past or countries abroad or scenes undiscovered. As you can see, if a meteor were to strike Fantagraphics headquarters tomorrow while Brian Michael Bendis was visiting for some reason (maybe to use the bathroom?), I’d have a lot fewer comics to read.

Again, this is just a list of great comics I actually read this year, which may explain the absence of several fan favorites (Louis Riel, The Fixer, Sleeper, Catwoman, Wanted). I decided to arbitrarily stop at Number 25, so my apologies to Ultimate X-Men, Arrowsmith, The Iron Wagon, Forlorn Funnies, Chrome Fetus, AEIOU, Maybe We Could Just Lie Here Holding Each Other Naked And Not Have Sex, Incredible Hulk, and so forth, some of which didn’t make the cut, others of which I just forgot until I’d already written out the list and don’t feel much like tinkering with it.

Other fine, more in-depth Best-Ofs are being brought to you by Johnny Bacardi, Jim Henley, Andrew Arnold, Chris Allen, Alan David Doane, Alan David Doane, and (you guessed it) Alan David Doane. Ninth Art has a bunch of year-end goodies, including Paul O’Brien’s Year In Review, a sort of group anti-hug in the form of the 2003 Brickbat Awards parts one and two, and (not a year-end thing per se, but as this is the year I joined the comics blogosphere in earnest, it’s useful to have a lexicon on hand) Andrew Wheeler’s comics dictionary.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy New Year, Happy Festivus, and happy reading!

This neat interview with comics journalist Joe Sacco over at the L.A. Weekly has been linked to by various and sundry people, and it’s definitely worth a read. Sacco’s an artist of extraordinary talent and power, and there are passages in both his major journalistic works, Palestine and Safe Area Gorazde, among the most memorable and moving in recent comics history. However, I continue to find his coverage of the battle between Israelis and Palestinians myopically one-sided.

I do agree with Sacco in that the Israeli settlements are a needless, pointless provocation that ought to be stopped right away. There’s simply no sense in hanging the fate of your entire country out to dry, and enabling your enemies to score innumerable propaganda points, on behalf of the group of Israelis who are least interested in secular democracy in the first place.

But Sacco has explicitly drawn the conclusion that the settlements, and the occupation generally, are the be-all end-all of the conflict, which is ludicrous. The fact must be faced that Palestinian civil society is in total nihilistic free fall. It’s often referred to as a death cult, and with good reason: take a look, just by way of a for instance, at this assortment of sermons from various imams, all Palestinian Authority employees. This kind of thinking–and the actions that flow from them, specifically trotting children around in mock suicide-bomber vests and sending teenagers into pizzerias in real ones–is not going to stopped with a two-state solution, or increased negotiations, or anything like that. Dead Jews are the one and only goal, and even if Israel were to be completely wiped off the map, the jihad would go global in a heartbeat. This mindset, murderous to the point of cultural suicide, is far and away the preeminent obstacle to a peaceful settlement in the region right now.

I’m interested to see how Sacco addresses the Islamic death-cult mentality that has so overwhelmed Palestinian society since the start of the intifada in his new book on the region, but if his description of the issues at hand in the above interview is any indication, it will still tell only half the story.

(One of the unfortunate aspects of this situation is that, for me at least, it calls into question the accuracy of his reporting on the Balkan wars. And what with Serbian and Croatian nationalism on the comeback trail, we need journalists we can count on over there.)

Never mind the naysayers, and don’t believe the anti-hype: Bill Sherman lays out many of the reasons Craig Thompson’s Blankets is, in fact, one of the best comics of the year.