|
|
|
|
|
|
Deck chairs on the Titanic? Waiting for history to judge Bush's Iraq nightmare By Colleen Redman We teach our children not to resort to violence as a way to solve problems, and yet our country models it to the deadliest degree every day in Iraq. Even though violence can only provide temporary fixes because it doesn’t address root causes, we continue to accept war as a fact of life. While it could be argued that it is never the right response to conflict, some wars are easier to explain to children and to ourselves than others. For instance, not many protested U.S. military action in Afghanistan after 9/11, where those believed to be responsible for the attacks were said to be based. The invasion of Iraq has been more difficult to justify and was questioned from the start by many Americans and much of the world. It was not fought in self-defense; Iraq posed no immediate threat to us. There was no active genocide to stop. The rally cry to liberate Iraqis from Saddam’s brutal rule was as empty as the one for disarming him of the WMDs that he didn’t have, considering that most of his worst offenses happened years before while the U.S. was supporting and helping to arm him. If the Bush administration would have stated the unspoken reason that many suspect for the invasion – geopolitical advantage in an oil rich Middle East country – would the American people have stood for it? The insurgency that took hold in Iraq, fueled largely as a reaction to occupation, interrupted U.S. plans that were already set in place to privatize the country. The privatization of Iraq would have provided long term U.S. control there and a windfall for U.S. businesses. In my mind, privatization is nothing more than a modern term for colonization. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national Security Advisor under President Carter, said on a recent PBS News Hour segment, “The American effort in Iraq is essentially a colonial effort. We're waging a colonial war. We live in the post-colonial era. This war cannot be won because it is simply out of sync with historical times.” Colonialism almost always results in long standing bloody violence. Those who resist the occupation of their country and use unconventional weapons because they do not have armies are considered terrorists across the board. Now that the war is so unpopular, people are looking for who they can blame for it. Even Democrats, the majority of which voted against the 2003 Iraq war resolution, are being lambasted for not coming up with solutions, as if it’s their responsibility to fix Bush’s failed policy. Democrats who voted to give Bush a blank check in Iraq should be criticized for being so late in complaining, but I don’t think a Democrat, or most Republicans for that matter, would have chosen to invade Iraq. Everything that is happening in Iraq was predictable and was predicted. Even Republicans in Bush’s father’s administration were concerned about the ramifications of getting rid of Saddam and creating a vacuum of power in which longstanding warring fractions would emerge. The Bush Administration chose to ignore warnings and intelligence that didn’t fit their plans. Their justification for invading Iraq was built on rhetoric and a house of cards, and so it was bound to fall. I feel the heartbreaking horror of 9/11 being rubbed in everyday when I see the faces of U.S. soldiers memorialized on news shows. Three thousand American deaths on 9/11, three thousand more since then with no end in sight makes me wonder if the 9/11 terrorists have already won. Even worse and less publicized are the numbers of innocent Iraq civilians killed as a result of the invasion. More than when Saddam was in power. How do we justify “collateral damage?” Is it any more preferable than terrorists killing civilians? I’ve lived through presidencies that I was unhappy with before. I don’t expect to always have someone I voted for in the White House. But the very least I expect as an American is that my leaders won’t perpetrate wars. The world is paying a high price for George Bush’s learning curve in foreign affairs, for his reckless disregard of international law and order, and for his administration’s negligent lack of post war planning. Debates about what to do in Iraq will no doubt continue, but sending more troops or not is not the most fundamental question. The problem is the war itself. If we couldn’t prevail in Iraq when the insurgency was young and Iraq seemed there for the taking, what makes anyone think we can win now that it’s strong and a civil war is taking place on top of it? So doubtful that an escalation of troops will help the situation in Iraq at this point, retired General Anthony Zinni recently said, “the debate is wrong. I think Congress is debating the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.” How will history judge Bush’s presidency? I don’t want to wait that long. If Bush was the CEO of a big company he would have been fired or prosecuted by now. A vote of no confidence, Impeachment, and Congressional investigations are in order. President Bush is ultimately the one responsible for the nightmare taking place in Iraq, and he should be held accountable for it. Note: This article was published by JUST Response on March 7 2007. Colleen Redman is a writer and poet who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains. She can be reached via her website www.silverandgold.swva.net.
|
