|
Over the past almost six years, we've heard a variety of reasons why the U.S. had to invade, make war on, and occupy Iraq. Whether it was the weapons of mass destruction, bringing democracy to the region, fighting the terrorists there so we don't have to fight them there, getting our hands on their oil, the reasons were plentiful. Taken by themselves, they were rather noble -- well, except for the confiscation of the oil. And most of them were achievable.
The hard truth, however, is that ALL those objectives could have and would have been much more effectively achieved without going to war. All of them.
We've listened to the whining excuses of so many congresspersons and senators who said they voted for the war because they believed the information coming from the boooooosh administration: that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that terrorists were gathering in Iraq, and so on. Many of us on the "outside" knew it wasn't true, even though we didn't have access to the intelligence reports. I suppose, in a way, our "knowledge" was no more valid than the "knowledge" that god exists, but we at least had some logic on our side as well as published reports by U.N. inspectors. The point, however, is that invading and making war on the country was NOT the most effective way to deal with even the potential for biological and/or chemical weapons, let alone nuclear. It just didn't make sense.
As for bringing democracy to the region, we have first the lessons of history that the current administration is dead-set (pun intended) on ignoring: Is this a region culturally predisposed to democracy? Is it even democracy if it's imposed on them against their will? But again, the point is that whether the power-blind administration thought it out that far or not, the imposition of democracy by means of bombs and machine guns is futile.
It's been made abundantly clear that the public services infrastructure in Iraq pre-invasion was a hell of a lot more productive than after. The damage that had been done by the U.N. embargo was bad, very bad, but the damage done by the invasion was far worse. And despite all the money that has been dumped into Iraq and all the time and effort spent to "restore" necessary services, the place is in far, far worse shape than it was in February 2003. Lifting the trade sanctions would have gone a long way to help the people of Iraq; dropping bombs hasn't accomplished anything.
Over and over and over, we heard the mantra that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless and brutal dictator and had to be removed. But we tried to respond that first of all, he was a creature of our own U.S. creation, and second, that as ruthless and brutal as he was, he had achieved stability through a secular dictatorship. The Islamist fundamentalists like bin Laden were as anathema to Saddam Hussein as to us. In fact, they were probably more so, because Saddam had no use for their challenge to his power, but he also had no sympathy with their religious fanaticism. The booooooosh administration, on the other hand, has that much in common with the al-Qaeda terrorists. But once again, effective removal, or at least neutralization, of Saddam Hussein could have been achieved without resorting to war. His execution via kangaroo trial only made the U.S. a war criminal. Oh, it probably gave boooooosh and cheeeeeney orgasmic spasms of glee, but if that's all that can be said in favor of the deed, then we have sunk to a truly sub-human level.
Control of the oil would have been much more efficient without the complication of war and insurgency and sabotage.
Indeed, even the legacy of boooooosh would have been that of a true Churchill, not this demented fantasy he entertains, probably while engaged in earnest conversation with the bust in office. The bust of Churchill, that is, not the "bust" that is booooosh himself.
The whole lie about the connections between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks is utterly meaningless in terms of "succeeding" in the war. There has been ample documentation that the Iraq war has created far more terrorists (those who have actually committed acts of terrorism) and potential terrorists (those who just haven't done anything . . . yet) than existed before the U.S. invasion. Had the boooosh administration worked with Saddam Hussein to keep terrorists out of his country -- much the way Churchill worked with Stalin to vanquish Hitler and the Nazis -- we would all have been better off. Had the booooosh administration concentrated on finding bin Laden and his minions, we would all have been better off.
The attacks on Afghanistan had some logic: the desire to root out bin Laden and al-Qaeda and perhaps even dislodge the repressive Taliban from power in that poor country. But the assault on Iraq NEVER had any logic behind it. NONE. And it has caused irreparable damage to so many thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives, American and Iraqi, not to mention the loss of cultural heritage, the interruption of vital public services, and so on. And of course it has siphoned off so many resources that could have gone to Afghanistan.
Two horrible facts remain, and must be confronted by both the Congress and the administration before any progress can be made toward ending the war and the occupation and then restoring America's reputation.
First, the government must acknowledge that we cannot go back in time and undo all the horrific damage that's been done to Iraq and the Iraqi peoples. Going forward down the same road we've been traveling is not going to halt the destruction, and no "victory" can ever replace the lost loved ones. So far, no one has been able to provide a definition of any kind of "victory" that would even begin to justify the horrendous losses borne on all sides. We must get off this highway of death immediately. Continuing with a failed policy will not bring success. Period.
Second, once they have stopped digging the hole deeper, the government must acknowledge that every one of their goals could have been achieved easier and more effectively without war. This is a huge confession, and I doubt many of those responsible for instigating and implementing the war are truly capable of admitting a mistake of this enormity. They may have to find an explanation for why they did something so monstrously stupid: Were they blinded by a desire for revenge against someone, anyone, for the losses of 9/11? Did they feel they had to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING in response? Did they simply believe that the United States of America was so powerful and had such a wonderful reputation that whatever we did would surely be seen as right and good? No matter how they frame their excuse, they still must admit they were wrong and they made a mistake.
There will be, of course, extensive ramifications, and how these are dealt with will require careful thought and more soul-searching. The one motive in going to war that does seem to have been fulfilled is the shifting of wealth from the working classes to the elites, especially through war profiteering and the privatization of the military. How will the U.S. military be restored after the depredations, not only of losses to life and limb and heart and mind, but also the losses of vital functions that have been privatized? How will the government handle the enormous profits generated for companies like Halliburton and Bechtel and their stockholders in light of the massive government fiscal deficits those profits represent? How will the American reputation be rebuilt in light of the unconscionable destruction wrought upon the peoples of Iraq?
Perhaps the toughest realization of all is that not only were the stated goals achievable without war but that the war has itself now made most of those same goals unachievable. The sectarian violence that Saddam Hussein kept under control now rages freely. The terrorists have a living, breathing recruiting poster. The flow of oil is a trickle. There is nothing even remotely resembling democracy in Iraq. And there is virtually nothing the U.S. can do to change that.
Except withdraw. As awful as the scenarios are painted of what will/would happen upon an American withdrawal, they may actually be better than our staying. Rather than the imposition of order from without, the Iraqi peoples -- Sunni, Shia, Kurd -- will have to achieve their own resolution. They may endure a long civil war from which emerges a single nation united under a strong leader, even a dictator like Saddam; they may splinter into ethnic enclaves. As awful as the prospect is of standing by and watching the carnage of a civil war that we, in our meddling, have unleashed, that may be better than staying and providing the motivation for the limited but unending civil war now going on.
We would all have been better off, six years down the road, if the booooosh administration had not taken us to war. We can't change the past, but we can still change the future.
Tansy Gold
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
