| |
|
According to this article, false documents were provided in the justification of this war to the media, the world community, and to U.S. officials. While it seems to be public opinion that Bush has been thus far unwavering in his commitment to the goals and values behind this war, he has publically compromised his own rationale repeatedly, all the while rolling out brand new reasons for a war on Iraq. He (or his cabinet) has issued and withdrawn conditions for the avoidance and cessation of conflict in Iraq, announcing as each condition is met that new conditions now exist and old ones are no longer pertinent. If nothing else, Bush has made it clear to the world and to the U.S. that his motivations for war this on Iraq are concerned with anything but disarming Iraq of weapons declared illegal by the U.N. While we can argue for days as to the validity of an "Army of Liberation" fronted by the U.S., the question here is not whether or not an Army of Liberation is possible. Those referring to the American role in rebuilding parts of Europe and Japan after World War II will recall that the U.S. remained uninvolved in the conflict until war was declared by the Axis powers as a result of an act of violence against the U.S. Iraq has neither commited such an act nor given the world reason to believe it will. It's been mentioned elsewhere on Barbelith that the CIA produced a report recently declaring an attack on the U.S. by Iraq to be highly unlikely. To argue that U.S. and U.K. behaviour in this instance might be appropriate in the context of World War II is fallacious. The stated reasons for conflict by the powers-that-be have a dramatic effect on the tone, and perhaps ultimately, the outcome of the conflict. It is my contention that the irresponsible jockeying, possible overt deception, and unclear rationale that are the hallmarks of U.S. foreign policy in the context of current events are a clear indicator as to the (lack of) relative moral and political justification for this war. This war is, in many senses, wrong. Not just because it flouts the U.N. -- everyone flouts the U.N. sometimes. This war is wrong because it's rationale deceives, outright, the public of the two nations principally involved in accomplishing the war in order to secure their support. Because it shows no intellectual integrity or consistancy in the presentation of it's rationale. Because the decision to execute it was made principally by individuals who stand to benefit financially and politically from a U.S. occupied territory (even on a temporary basis) in the Middle East. Because it greatly threatens innocent individuals throughout the world -- the least of which being those of the Western democracies this war is ostensibly supposed to protect. Bush will enjoy the protection of the American Secret Service all his life for serving as President of the United States of America. I can't say the same for the U.S. and U.K. citizens who stand to bear the burden in death and injury for Bush's political agenda. I can't say the same for anyone in Iraq.
There is much talk about democratizing the Middle East in the name of protecting the West (which will soon mean "Western-style democracies") from 'Islamo-Fascism'. Unfortunately, the doctrine of democracy by force presently in action is precisely the explanation for violent acts given to Al-Q'aida recruits the world over. It might seem logical to argue that a rise in the power of Islamic extremists is a temporary but necessary evil resultant of the actions necessary to negate the societal impetus that creates them. This argument, however, utterly rejects the question of whether or not we can solve this problem by selfishly and brutally enforcing our worldview and projecting our interests onto the politics of Middle Eastern Arab nations. I believe this question, thus far ignored: Will a free and wealthy post-war Iraq excuse the blatant disrespect for the arena of world opinion and especially the opinion of neighboring Arab states... I believe that this question is far more important than the question of Iraq's limited cooperation with U.N. sanctions or the rewards of creating another democratic state in the Persian Gulf. More important to the world, and even, in the long run, to the U.S. It seems to be the stance of many Americans that overwhelming military might is equal to a lack of negative consequence, functionally speaking. They do acknowledge that this war will likely fuel the hatred of extremists, and perhaps even ignite the concern of moderates. But they don't translate that into an actual failure to protect U.S. interests or, perhaps more importantly, the failure to be a responsible member of a world community. To make the claim that Saddam 'did it first' is totally inane -- that doesn't excuse everyone else from their obligations or responsibilities. The U.S. has almost consistantly been involved in violent uprising and even the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons in the Middle East for thirty years.
In a sense, we've been trying to engender demoracy in the Middle East for thirty years. Really, as long as despotic states are willing to support the financial interests of Western democratic states, we don't concern ourselves with their method of government or their human rights record. It is only in the case that a profit stands to be made that we tamper in the politics of the Middle East. In reality, this is an awfully convenient battle for democracy.
How can we honestly assert ourselves in the name of freedom and in the name of the Iraqis, given our track record of self-interested military tampering that leaves opposition movements to be crushed by dictators; that leaves dictators in the position to enforce rigid theocracy and more? Is it a reasonable contention that the result of our past involvements in Middle East politics still leave us in a position of moral superiority due to their state now? Must Saddam's brutal regime be dismanted immediately, by the U.S. and the U.K., with no delays, no contention, no blessing from the U.N.? Is this necessary and desirable? Is this the only way? For a while there, everybody but Bush was optimistic about the inspections. What changed?
Bush talks about democracy and freedom and the crimes of Saddam's regime while others, some responsible for planning this war and the policy that governs it, talk about the importance of having U.S. military control to assure a continual flow of oil toward the U.S. economy. Some even emphasize the importance of controlling the flow of oil to the rest of the world as a sort of preventative measure to deal with other economically formidable nations who may one day militarility challenge us. What's really being implied by foreign policy in Washington is that the ends justify the means. According to Washington, U.S. government is quite simply the best in the world, and prolifering U.S. government can only result in good things for everybody. Washington knows, however, that much of the world does not agree. As far as Washington is concerned, those nations that practice a disorderly form of dissent against Washington's political ideals have become too unstable. It has become not only morally justifiable to the political elite of America, as anything that will bring third-world, depostic nations into the cradle of Western society is indeed seen as good, but also strategically necessary. Strategically necessary because, as has been pointed out by others, many Arab nations have little interest, being nearly as insular as the U.S., in helping along U.S. agendas in the Middle East -- but they simultaneously enjoy residence on one of the most politically and economically important chunks of land in the world. This puts us all at an impass. Most Arab nations are not yet sure they want to make the switch to democracy. It's not easy to make these transitions without violence -- not always because of any great evil on the part of those in office, but because it's hard for enough people to be sure, all at once and in the same way, that democracy is the right thing to do. Furthermore, it's difficult to manage the transition of those currently in leadership, as they are needed to help transit the control of national resource away from the state. You'd have to admit, that'd be an odd task to be managing after spending your life governing those very resources for the state. But would you trust those who stood up for office after the present leadership stood down to manage affairs well? It's not a simple task, breaking old habits. Not for the people, not for the state.
All these things in consideration, then, this war was a bad idea. It was introduced and at first waged through sometimes clumsy and sometimes deft P.R. maneuvering. There is good reason to believe it is being persecuted for purely selfish reasons on the part of certain wealthy Americans who have no sense as to the realities of war, and still the U.S. calls this action "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Some of the ideas that were tossed out by the Bush administration during the justification phase of this operation were, in a sense, valid. In my opinion, however, they do not validate Bush's (or the Coalition's) actions in a larger context. In my opinion, even the discovery of a cache of chemical and biological weapons under Saddam's bed in the Presidential Palace would not excuse the manner in which the case for this war was handled. The September 11th attack on the U.S. is not analagous to Pearl Harbor, and even if it were, the Japan in this scenario is an ideological group more alike to a corporation than a country. The reasons behind the war in Iraq right now seem to have much more to do with nationalism than security, freedom, war crimes, or weapons of mass destruction. While I will not have the facts necessary to argue from a standpoint of historical evidence for or against the war in Iraq until all is said and done, I believe it is necessary to opine on what information I do possess, and to oppose the war and Bush's conduct accordingly.
Do more people feel this way than it seems?
I would welcome a rebuttal, and I promise to keep a cool head. This is important to me. |
|
|
