Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

This is a point that many Iraq war supporters keep returning to. It was a worthwhile cause to use military force to remove a horrific tyrant. It is hard, if not impossible to argue this point.

Recently I heard a pro-war commentator observe that the Bush Administration took a step toward "ending the hypocrisy" of longtime US policy in Iraq (and the region) with the removal of Saddam's brutal regime by military force. The idea is that the US has done business with toxic powers in the region to suit its interests for decades, and that removing Saddam was an important step toward correcting this regrettable pattern of policy, and that because of this, liberals should not be criticizing the war.
Again, it's not a slam-dunk to argue against this position, taken at face value.

The problem is, it's not that simple. The Bush Admin. talks a good game about "democracy" and "freedom", and it denies any long-term claims to Iraqi soil and/or sovereignty, but ongoing events seem to suggest otherwise.

Troop strength is as high as ever, and Bushco is focused (fixated) on "defeating the terrorists" (insurgents) instead of on the draft constitution, which was rushed, and is seriously flawed. Add to this the "enduring" US military bases now under construction in Iraq, and suspicion grows. When the Iraqi president recently spoke out on a proposed troop drawdown, he was forced to retract his statement by Bushco.

Suppose that Bushco does in fact seek to profit from its "investment", to control Iraq for strategic and/or economic advantage, indirectly via a US-friendly proxy-government of sorts and more directly through a long-term military presence.

Does this change the equation, the rationale? It has to. The mission was named Operation Iraqi Freedom. Now Iraqi freedom is one thing, but long-term US domination is another. I don't see how the US is "entitled" to any long-term, hands-on benefits from its so-called good deed.

For purpose of this discussion, let's assume that Bushco does seek to get its hooks into Iraq permanently. Here, then, is the progression:

1. The US backs Saddam in the 1980s, turning a blind eye to his atrocities, supplying all manner of weaponry and support to help him prolong the Iran-Iraq war for eight tragic years, a war which cost a million or so Muslim lives, a war which Saddam started. In short, the US backs and empowers a murderous butcher because he fits in with US interests at the time.

2. Because of this, it may be argued that the US owed the Iraqis and other victims of Saddam in the region not only an apology, but a firm remedy. One could argue that removing Saddam was a moral obligation of the US. I don't agree, but such an argument is conceivable.

3. In 2003, the US sends in troops and does in fact remove Saddam. But if one subscribes to the above "moral obligation" theory, this merely squares the debt, right? It doesn't follow that the US should retain any long-term strategic benefits as "payment" for what it was obligated to do in the first place, right? This would only amount to more hypocrisy; a different strain of it.

The bottom line is that, whether one supported the war or not, the US now must step up to the plate and try to properly finish the political process, and then get the hell out of Dodge. It must abandon any designs it had on the country, especially militarily, and it must declare such in plain language. It must be forthright (for a change) about Iraqi sovereignty, and actions must match the words from now on, starting with a phased troop drawdown, immediately. Enough of the lies and subterfuge. Enough.

Paraphrasing our President - "Iraqi freedom... bring them democracy. It'd be the first time in history that Democracy would be established in the Middle East."

Without a doubt Iraq is Dubya's grand pet project... worthy enough to lie about. Why wouldn't the Middle East be better off with a democratic society in their midst? Nobody (except for some Mid-Easteners) would doubt that a democratic society would be good for the Mid-East.

But the most important question(s) that have yet to be dealt with, by the Administration, Congress or the people of the U.S. (IMHO) -
1) Who is paying for his dream to come true?
2) Why must America borrow money from foreign countries to realize his hopes and dreams?
3) How long and how much will his dream cost the American public?
4) How many soldiers must lose their lives so George can attain martyrdom?
5) How depleted should our treasury get before America realizes this dream of George's is just that - a dream of George W. Bush.

I've said for years now, even before his re-election - George Bush and Company have hijacked the Republican Party (GOP) - the once "Grand Old Party" has become "Greed Over Principal," taking one of the hallmarks of Conservatives - fiscal responsibilty, and throwing it out the window. We stand economically weaken by the policies and out-right theft of this current administration. According to George Will (Conservative columnist) the amount of lobbyists in D.C. has more than doubled since 2000. Bush has not used his veto power ever in the (5) years of his Presidency... allowing any and all House and Senate members to have whatever they want... as witnessed by the latest Transportation Bill. None of these mentioned things (among many others) has any fiscal responsibilty to them at all... they are anti-conservative, but yet the Administration continues to "rope-a-dope" by somehow convincing Republicans (and Conservatives) that his policies are their policies.

This President has used the GOP, has used the Conservatives, has used the Evangelical right wing, and has used our Treasury and Armed Forces for but one purpose - to make himself "something"... after his defeats and losses as a private citizen, his dubious record as a Govenor, this man is wanting to prove himself to his father, plain and simple, and that proof will be had at any cost, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of principal, regardless of cost to this country.

no 'phased troop drawdown. '

the US needs to get out immediately period.

the debt was not squared by removing Saddam. if what you say is true regarding the Reaganite past of support for Saddam in the 80s, and all reliable sources agree that that is the case, if that is true, then the US SHOULD BE PAYING REPARATIONS TO IRAQ AND IRAN, and the officials involved if still alive [unlike, say, Reagan who's dead] should be prosecuted together with Saddam as accomplices, or better, turned over to the Int'l Crim. Court.

further, and some of these arethe same people, those who organized and orchestrated the present war sould be indicted for the crime of agression and war crimes for civilian deaths. if they are so confident in the justification for the war, they can argue the case before a court.

the US SHOULD NOT BE IN iRAQ, if the war was not justified. sure the US has a responsibility to help fix the damage, were that possible, but that doesn't give the US a license to imperial military occupation. the obligation can be discharged through monetary compensation and humanitarian aid. if peacekeepers are required and a wise choice, it should be UN run, not run by the imperialist aggressor. the argument that we habve to be there now regardless of the justice of initiating the war, is seriously fallacious. if the war was not just, or based on lies, or illegal, then the US is morally disqualified from further involvement in a role of leadership and militarism. any other position amounts to rewarding aggression, sending the message that anything is excusable as long as time passes and justifiable through force and power.

of course this sounds fantastical, but such (a fantasy) is justice in a world of hypocrisy.

e_dog wrote:the US SHOULD BE PAYING REPARATIONS TO IRAQ AND IRAN, and the officials involved if still alive [unlike, say, Reagan who's dead] should be prosecuted together with Saddam as accomplices, or better, turned over to the Int'l Crim. Court.

further, and some of these arethe same people, those who organized and orchestrated the present war sould be indicted for the crime of agression and war crimes for civilian deaths. if they are so confident in the justification for the war, they can argue the case before a court.

the US SHOULD NOT BE IN iRAQ, if the war was not justified. sure the US has a responsibility to help fix the damage, were that possible, but that doesn't give the US a license to imperial military occupation. the obligation can be discharged through monetary compensation and humanitarian aid. if peacekeepers are required and a wise choice, it should be UN run, not run by the imperialist aggressor. the argument that we habve to be there now regardless of the justice of initiating the war, is seriously fallacious. if the war was not just, or based on lies, or illegal, then the US is morally disqualified from further involvement in a role of leadership and militarism. any other position amounts to rewarding aggression, sending the message that anything is excusable as long as time passes and justifiable through force and power.

I actually agree with all of this. The unconditional, blind support for Saddam in the '80s by Reagan's bunch is perhaps the main reason it upsets me so much to see Reagan deified as he always is. Screw that. Personally, I would have no trouble with reparations, indictments, etc. Of course, the idea of Reagan's crew being prosecuted together with Saddam as accomplices, as you suggest, assumes a captive Saddam (a result of the 2003 invasion).

And you're right. The US does not have license for extended "imperial military occupation". Absolutely not. This is my main point (although I arrived at it in a roundabout way). I suppose people will always argue about whether the initial action to capture and remove Saddam was justified or not (my answer is no). But like I said, the removal of Saddam is one thing, but imperial military occupation and dominance is quite another-- it speaks to the corruption of this Administration. We all need to wake up and recognize the difference. We need to pressure the hell out Bush, Inc., and tell them in no uncertain terms that it is time to leave.

As for the speed of troop withdrawal, well, if I had my way, I would prefer immediately, same as you. I was proposing a compromise, basically. Thanks, e_dog, for your response.

Cecil, your comments are on the money.

We have accomplished our "regime change". As far as I'm concerned, it was never justified, but it is done, or nearly so, and it's time to get the hell out. As I said, it seems clear that Bush has imperialistic designs on Iraq, despite his actual words, and this can only lead to an endless quagmire, illegal in its nature, with no realistically conceivable resulting benefit that would justify the enormous cost.

And yes, conservative Repubs everywhere have been duped by these people in DC, who are leading us down a fiscal road to ruin.

ps...

I delved into all that debt/obligation business to try and debunk the notion that the US somehow "deserves an (imperial) reward" for its removal of a tyrant. The math just don't add up.

mtmynd

Why wouldn't the Middle East be better off with a democratic society in their midst? Nobody (except for some Mid-Easteners) would doubt that a democratic society would be good for the Mid-East.

I really don't agree with this one.

If you have never embraced another culture before, you'd be surprised how different one's cultural p.o.v can be, and still be coherent, from their p.o.v, even if it's incoherent from yours.

"We" use democracy. "We" consider it as a good thing because it suits what we define as good and righteous and moral.
But before installing democracy there, I'm not saying it would make the Iraqis unhappy, but here's my point.

First consider your culture [I assume you're a US-ian]:
*A bit more than 200 years old, thus little cultural heritage.
*Strong christian influence, which reflects itself in country's laws and moral principles, even for those who aren't religious (for example, if you're uncomfortable in showing your genitals in front of strangers, that's why).
*more or less temperate climate, and many natural resources. Combined with the previous economical success, wasting, buying unimportant things and attachment to objects has increased.

Now take Iraq, or another such country. I'll use the information I gathered, if I'm wrong please say so.
*Thousands of years old, contains some of the oldest human relics ever found. A very rich cultural heritage.
*Strong muslim influence. So strong, in fact, that it is almost impossible to speak their language without evoking Allah (it's used in many expressions etc).Current interpretations of the Quran also suggest that Western technology (electricity & everything) is condemned by Allah, or at least ot be used only moderately.
*desert climate. Apart from oil, natural resources and water aren't found in every corner and wasting is considered as immoral.

Now, if you just consider the differences in religion, both countries diverge a lot when it comes to morality. We're also talking about people who've been moving in a different moral direction than christianity for a time in which a human lifetime is meaningless. Therefore -I've never been there so I can't be sure- it is a very big possibility that in Iraq, the words "good", "moral" and "righteous" have a different meaning there, and therefore that the US constitution won't correspond to this common definition.
We should let the people choose what they want, if they want a centralised power or a less centralised one. Or install a flexible gov. that would allow them to organise and change it into whatever they want.


========



I had a talk with a shopkeeper once, the guy had lived in 14 countries on 3 continents, and had lived under several kinds of governments. What I got from his experiences, is that werether you live in a democracy (or at least today's version of a democracy) or under dictatorship doesn't change a lot in your way or life. What makes life change is the nature of the political leaders themselves. Some dictatorships can be smooth, and some democracies, well... We might be able to call them dictatorships in disguise soon (at least the real ones are honest about it lol).

good points, traveller.

thanks for taking the time to state all those factors that go into separating the American mindset from the Middle Eastern Moslem mindset.

Along with this of course is the non-status of women and children in most Arab states.

have to go, but wanted to say that there is no conceivable way that the average U.S. citizen can guess what is best for the average citizen in a Middle Eastern country.

judih

What's good for Jimboloco is good for America.

It is incredible to see the Iraqi's going to the polls.
They are an occupied country
wondering how they will avoid civil war and so
are voting for an end to the occupation
no more no less
altho disguised and opportunistic
perhaps even propitious
nevertheless
hardly a shot was fired
and it's time to bring 'em home.

hello, traveller -

Very good points you've brought up. I was speaking hopefully when I wrote, "...except for some Mid-Easteners" which should have been most, but in defense of that word, I was speaking to Americans, fairly or not.

I am aware of the cultural differences between a Christian-based society and that of a Muslim-based society, at least a 'surface-observational' awareness. I have never believed that there could ever be a 'Christian Democracy' (for lack of a better term), for as we are all aware, the Mid-East is an ancient society, and still basically a tribal one, made up of a variety of influences that, may or maybe not, are from the variety of interpretations of the Qu'ran. (we are seeing that similar variety of inflluences occuring within our own borders).

But I have also seen this war as a war, not only of cultural differences, but more importantly for the western-mindset*, a war of modernity versus non-modernity - does the world accept human progress and the use of sciences and energy to 'better our lives' or do we continue to subscribe to philosophies based upon religious doctrines? Obviously the differences between the two not only bring conflict within an individuals mind but also conflicts on social levels.

(* 'western' mindset may not be a completely fair use of the word, as various countries have taken technology and sciences to improve their lives, i.e., embraced the continual fluctuations of what we call 'modern', i.e., Japan, Mexico, Brazil, China, etc... not only English speaking countries)

In many ways what we are witnessing in Iraq and the Mid-East is not just a fight over energy supplies or religious differences, or even democracy, but a war for or against modernity (depending upon which side we're on). The duel is being waged and nobody knows for sure whose philosophy will win, but waging the battle is... may Truth win out.

Thank you for your reply!

[How long have you been in the Antarctic?)

hi cecil, for as long as i've known him, traveller likes to ride the planet upon the shoulders of a penguin. It takes a while to criss-cross the Antarctic, but this gives him plenty of time to make careful observations.

judih

Plenty of time and plenty of contemplation... nice!

dunno traveller...based on my conversations with many shopkeepers (which are primarily migrant workers in most middle east countries) and people of the countries themselves, in oman, bahrain, and the UAE, people do want democracy...although they want an islamic version of democracry

those countries that have held referenda on the issue know this all too well (see oman and qatar, for starters)


mnaz, i'd be very interested in the sources for the info on the US building bases in iraq

There are quite a few articles out there. None of them can entirely fill us in on the real story and intent behind these new bases, since the Pentagon will not say. Anyway, try these...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0930/p17s02-cogn.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfron ... _iraq.html

http://www.rense.com/general37/decep.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e10478.htm

Google 'enduring bases', or 'permanent bases', iraq, for more, if desired.

thanks mnaz

this still looks like a campaign for isolationism to me...i know folks have said that before, i just don't agree with it...i believe in globalization as a natural force, and isolationism just doesn't fit in with that...not saying all the tools of globalization are the right ones, though

the base issue seems tied into that...to me, it seems like the natural extension of the desire of a country to protect its national interests...of course, that country should be wanted there by the country, and i don't know of any current examples where the US is based somewhere they aren't wanted

yes, i know i'll get the iraq stuff now...i'm just not all that certain what the average iraqi wants is known...of course, there is no such thing as the average iraqi, is there? but based on first-hand conversations, i am reasonably comfortable that, in general, iraqi women want the US there and iraqi men do not

i digress