Chernus:The Democrats' Iraqi Dilemma

[bluestateboomer]

The Democrats' Iraqi Dilemma: Questions Unasked, Answers Never Volunteered
    By Ira Chernus
    TomDispatch.com

    Sunday 22 July 2007

    Pity the poor Democratic candidates for president, caught between Iraq and a hard place. Every day, more and more voters decide that we must end the war and set a date to start withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Most who will vote in the Democratic primaries concluded long ago that we must leave Iraq, and they are unlikely to let anyone who disagrees with them have the party's nomination in 2008.

    But what does it mean to "leave Iraq"? Here's where most of the Democratic candidates come smack up against that hard place. There is a longstanding bipartisan consensus in the foreign-policy establishment that the U.S. must control every strategically valuable region of the world - and none more so than the oil heartlands of the planet. That's been a hard-and-fast rule of the elite for some six decades now. No matter how hard the task may be, they demand that presidents be rock-hard enough to get the job done.

    So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate. The powers that be just wouldn't stand for that. They see themselves as the guardians of world "order." They feel a sacred obligation to maintain "stability" throughout the imperial domains, which now means most of planet Earth - regardless of what voters may think. The Democratic front-runners know that "order" and "stability" are code words for American hegemony. They also know that voters, especially Democratic ones, see the price of hegemony in Iraq and just don't want to pay it anymore.

    So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war - with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts - while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.
More:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072307H.shtml

[shimmergal]

1. Hmmm...

Actually I part company with Chernus on much of this. The first duty of ANY government is to protect its citizens.

Now this includes domestic policy as well as the foreign arena--the Repubs. certainly fall short here on health care, economic well-being for all, etc.-- and it need not involve "hegemony", but any government that doesn't make its people's protection its first priority deserves to be replaced.

As to how we got into this position of "empire"--while not discounting the machinations of corporate interests, etc. we more or less fell into the power vacuum which existed at the end of World War II. Certainly not all of our policies and military adventures in the 60+ years since have been either benevolent or wise. But one has to remember, nature abhors a vacuum.

I would like to know what Chernus thinks the first responsibility of any government is? He doesn't say. As a scholar of religious studies, rather than of history or political science, perhaps he hasn't thought it thru.