"Before we can set out on the road to success, we have to know where we are going, and before we can know that we must determine where we have been in the past."
--President John F. Kennedy
During this month of September, our nation is engaged in important discussions about what we might do to find the "road to success" in Iraq. General Petraeus spoke to congress yesterday; congressional leaders are speaking to the media today; and the president will address the nation later in the week.
Is it a coincidence that these discussions are taking place during the week that the nation remembers the September 11, 2001 attacks? Or might it be part of the administration’s on-going attempt to connect the two, and to replace reason with emotion? I believe that it is fair – indeed, important – to note that the administration’s WHIG (White House Iraq Group) engaged in a purposeful effort to convince the American public that Saddam was connected to 9/11, and that the invasion of Iraq was a patriotic action necessary to insure our safety.
When we mention the purposeful lies that were used to justify the war in Iraq, most republicans (and sadly, many democrats) will say that what happened in 2002-’03 is not important, and that because we are there now, we must focus exclusively on how we find that road to success. Yet, as President Kennedy noted, we cannot hope to do that without determining why we are where we are today.
Two things are clear: there were forces within the administration who were intent upon invading and occupying Iraq long before 9-11, and these same forces purposely lied to the American people about yellow cake and mushroom clouds in order to advance their plans. Thus, the question that we must answer, in order to understand why we are in Iraq today, is: what were the real reasons the neoconservative forces in the administration had for invading Iraq before 9-11?
If, for example, they desired a base in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, which happens to contain a large supply of oil that they might exploit, then we must consider if these same goals influence the current policy. If the goal is a stable Iraq (much less a democratic state), then we need to consider if that is realistic with a US military presence, and US control of Iraqi oil resources?
The neoconservatives had documented their plan to prevent any other nation from playing the role of a "global power," and even as a competing regional power. Today, we hear the administration and its puppets saying that the US must prevent Iran from exercising too much power in Iraq’s future. Why? Is it realistic to think that Iran is not going to be a regional power in the Middle East? If Iran has relations with both Russia and China, is it intelligent to think that the US should, or can, prevent Iran from exercising influence within Iraq?
If our national purpose is to help stabilize Iraq, then the US should be withdrawing its troops, and allowing the international community to assist Iraq in repairing the terrible damage that the Bush-Cheney administration has done. The road to success can not by-pass a role for any of Iraq’s neighbors.
But if our nation’s mission still is based upon the true reasons that the administration had for this war of occupation, what General Petraeus said yesterday has to be viewed in that context; what many of the elected members of congress are saying to the media is meaningless; and President Bush will say later this week will simply be more of the same lies that are intended to appeal to emotion, rather than reason.