The best way I can put what is troubling me is to let someone else spell it out. This is Fereed Zarakia, a columnist for Newsweek magazine, writing in a June 30th editorial about "The Speech Obama Should give On Iraq":
"In six months, on Jan. 20, 2009, we will have a new president. But it is not clear that we will chart a new course in the ongoing war in Iraq. Senator McCain has promised a continuation of the Bush strategy—to stay in Iraq with no horizon in sight, with no benchmarks or metrics that would tell us when American troops can come home. In 2006, when levels of violence were horrifyingly high, President Bush and Senator McCain said that things were going so badly that if we left, the consequences would be tragic. Today they say that things are going so well that if we leave, the consequences would be tragic. Whatever the conditions, the answer is the same—keep doing what we're doing. How does one say 'Catch-22' in Arabic?
Now what do you call a place you don't want to be, where no matter what you do or say, you cannot leave until the people there tell you your time is up? Most people I think would say, "a prison". Zakaria to me hits the crux of the matter on Iraq--it has been a costly five-plus years over there (nearly a trillion dollars spent, four thousand dead Americans and thousands seriously wounded, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and yet the only thing that has changed has been we have sent more troops over there even though the polls say the majority of Americans think invading Iraq was not a good idea in the first place.) But if things go well, we have to keep troops there. Ditto if things go bad.
Iraq is apparently not a nation for the definition of nation is one that came together in some historic moment from its own internal reasons. Iraq is more a creation of the British Foreign Office in the 1920's than it is a nation. The old-school colonial British spent over a decade there trying to make it work until they pulled-out in the early 1930's and installed a Sunni King over the Shiite Majority.
Is Iraq a colony? Surely not--all the colonies in the past were set up by Europeans and the Japanese to make money and expand their influence. Yet Iraq costs us billions and we get little if nothing in return, just more talk about how we can't leave for fear or chaos returning, the same chaos we had when we were in there with fewer troops. Some colony!
Think the British East India Company would have started up in India if it cost those early corporate buccaneers money from the very start? Not bloody likely. Ditto the Belgians in the Congo and the French in Indo-China. Nobody would put up with such a loss in blood and treasure for no gain...well, almost nobody. Remember when the Neo-Cons said that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion?
No, the USA is not a colonial power. Our government wants the Iraqis to govern themselves. Except...we now ignore their Prime Minister, Nori al-Maliki , when he asks Washington to set a time table for with-drawl of our troops. So Iraq is not a nation, colony or an asset to us and the reasons we sent troops there--WMD and a big al-Queda presence--turned out to be bogus.
Most societies send criminals to prison--right now, we have set up a new prison, where we send good men and women willing to fight and serve and die for their country. It's a new twist--send law-biding and patriotic people to a hellish prison while their lying and/or duped leaders twiddle their thumbs back home and try and stay in power with promises that Americans here won;t have to sacrifice anything at all and even promise us more tax breaks we can't afford because we're going deeper into debt supporting keeping men and women away from their families...for what, exactly?
We are in the exact same position the Soviet Union was in with Afghanistan. We need to develop an better exit strategy and get the hell out of there like yesterday. We are loosing far to many soldiers for what? At some point you have to cut your loses. They are going to have to sort out their issues on their own. After all it is their country.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree.
ReplyDeleteI wish the current administration was more agreeable
ReplyDeleteMaybe the next one will be more willing to cut its losses and bring the troops home in some set time-frame.
ReplyDeleteEvery American generation seems intent on sacrificing the lives of many of it's young. On top of the war we now have 2.3 million people in prison, far more than China or Russia or any other police state, mostly for non violent drug use. So the beat goes on and on, only getting worse and worse now for our young people. And we have the nerve to call our country the land of the free.
ReplyDeleteI think you touched on something very serious here Doug, and it goes much much deeper than just Iraq.
Well heck, someone redefine colonialism for me. I would have thought occupying another country, keeping troops there (who are not required to keep to any Iraqi laws), setting up a govt which is forced to answer to you (USA govt and military) and not allowing Iraqis out either (except for a selected few), would indeed be defined as colonialism, imperialism or whatever.
ReplyDeleteIts not just a prison for American soldiers, the Iraqis aren't having a great time either.
And to add to the stats there are also about five million Iraqi orphans now.
Sorry, I could have stated that better. I meant the "not a colonial power remark" ironically. It is colonialism as you say; it's just that its a colonialism without any gain to the Imperial country (or to the Iraqi people, who have gone from the stark terrors under Saddam's family to the mass displacement and chaos of the post-Saddam Era.) Hardly enough improvement, apart from Saddam's direct victims, to justify the displacement and losses of family unity you mention.
ReplyDeleteSo right Khoreia. Odd that a nation with 5 percent of the world's population has an estimated 20 percent of its prisoners...many, as you say, non-violent criminals trapped in the prison/parole system.
ReplyDeletePerpetual war is a stated neocon policy aim. It is the way Israel got over the the bursting Dot.Com bubble in the 1990s and prospered as a 'security state' at perpetual war with it's neighbours and this is seen as a desirable state of affairs, for the business community globally.
ReplyDeleteGlobalisation means that it doesn't matter what cost this all has for the American public provided it creates massive profits for the 'robber barons' who toy with the US and world economies for their own amusement and gain.
The futures capitalists and speculators that view wars as video game treasure hunts... have no concern with minor considerations like human life, on the contrary casualties only confirm their Athenian god delusions that makes them feel powerful as well as rich beyond all measure.
Unregulated amoral Capitalism is the name of the game I think and I doubt Americans are going to vote against that in November or any time in the foreseeable future.
This acceptance that it is Capitalism that is destroying America would involve a massive psychological adjustment that would bring with it the inevitable collapse of the entire house of cards and the doublethink notions of liberty and justice.
For the perpetual war to be brought to an end... America must first go collectively mad.
The people would have to reject almost everything the all pervasive media tells them and all received wisdom would have to be interrogated for the validity of it's truth claims.
Blogs like this are an important part of that questioning process I think, but it seems to me that a social and cultural revolution is now the only answer to your question 'for what' Doug. For everything Americans have always believed in.... seems to be the uncomfortable answer to me.
very true.
ReplyDeleteIt's like a second post-Civil War "Gilded Age", brought on by the Reagan-Era nonsense of deregulating banking and financial markets...a formula so popular and successful in the short term that hotshots in both political parties picked up on it...as apparently so did some of the commanders at sea on HMS New Labour.
ReplyDeleteWe won't have to wait around much longer for that.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt about that Doug, this is a globalizing and globalized phenomenon I think, the only ones not in it are the 'rogue states'.....As a matter of fact the good ship New Labour is listing heavily to port right now, I think the shot from the Glasgow East bi-election.. currently being lined up.... will hit it right in the bridge.
ReplyDeleteUnhappily the replacement vessel has a similar cut to its jib....but it's a lot more vulnerable to conventional weapons, having the old Etonians back in charge will be almost nostalgic for me.
They may even enjoy a ceasefire for the first week of their rule, but after that the blunderbusses will be out. We are on our way back to the 19th century here too. Politics has become a theme park to help us adjust to the fact that there is no democracy.
But, I don't have to tell you this Doug, life in one party states can be simply exasperating can't it?
Ultimately therapeutic perhaps?
ReplyDeleteMan the lifeboats!! Women, children, MPs and hedge fund managers first!
ReplyDeleteIf the old Etonians win, does that mean gentlemen will have to wear their school ties? Working men will have to doff their caps in the street to any woman in a fancy frock with an upturned nose?
One hopes so. Things are getting edgy over here.
ReplyDelete