People are getting more and more creative with their get out the vote videos as we slide toward election day.
Tag Archive for 'Iraq'
photo by soundfromwayout
Several months ago, I posted about the Bush administration’s attempt to strong arm a permanent stay in Iraq, despite Americans and, more importantly, the Iraqis not wanting such a deal to be made. Lots of debate ensued about the Iraq war.
Conservative blogger Chris Ford asked:
. . . So your overall argument for war, if I am reading right here, is that we should not attack a country unless we are attacked? Basically the whole reactive vs. proactive right? . . . At what point, in your view, would you say the american deathtoll have to be in order for us to attack a country/dictator? This isn’t a loaded question. I’m even interested to see if you think that we should do nothing at all in the course of an attack on us.
Violence begets violence. Even after being attacked, diplomacy trumps bombing. It’s not as though Al Qa’ida has a website with the location of its international headquarters posted under its contact information. Even if you set out to kill terrorists, taking out civilians is unacceptable collateral. Not only are you unlikely to strike the core of a terrorist organization with bombs, you are apt to assist the terrorists in driving new recruits to their side. Terrorists take their disapproval of American foreign policy to extremes; for the average individual, disapproval would not be expressed with violence, but take out a hospital or school yard or wedding party, and the goodwill evaporates.
In Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky discusses philospher Jean Bethke Elshtain’s 4 criteria for a just war.
First, force is justified if it ‘protects the innocent from certain harm’; her sole example is when a country has ‘certain knowledge that genocide will commence on a certain date’ and the victims have no means of self-defense. Second, the war ‘must be openly declared or otherwise authorized by a legitimate authority.’ Third, it “must begin with the right intentions.” Fourth, it must be a last resort after other possibilities for the redress and defense of the values at stake have been explored.’ (p 203)
Few of the US’s counterterrorist acts meet these standards — our foreign policy keeps repressive regimes in power, until they no longer suit us, and then we replace that leadership. In fact, Chomsky points out that, in the 1980s, the US Army “defined terrorism as ‘the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature. . .through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.’” (p. 188). That definition got retired and was never replaced. Fitting, as we respond to terrorism with acts of terrorism.
We were alone in our desire to start a war after 9/11. A late September 2001 Gallup Poll asked “In your opinion, once the identity of the terrorists is known, should the American government launch a military attack on the country or countries where the terrorist are based or should the American government seek to extradite the terrorists to stand trial?” (p.199) Of 36 foreign countries surveyed, India and Israel were the only two nations to support a military attack, the other 34 weighed heavily in favor of court proceedings. Here are a few examples.
Country / Percent Favoring Judicial Response / Military Response
France 67 29
Germany 77 17
Israel 19 77
Italy 71 21
Peru 89 8
Spain 86 12
Switzerland 87 8
United Kingdom 75 18
United States 30 54
Mexico 94 2
Ukraine 84 8
Venezuela 86 11
(Random aside, though we came to dub France a nation of cheese eating surrender monkeys, it was the Western European nation most supportive of military action. Merci mille fois!)
The US is out of touch with a realization accepted by the rest of the world. Violent retribution isn’t easy to tightly control, so diplomacy and solid police work should take the lead. RAND, a well-respected social issues think tank released their latest report on terrorism: How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida (Full Report / Summary Only). Their researchers examined 648 terrorist groups active between 1968 to 2006 and found:
All terrorist groups eventually end. But how do they end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that most groups have ended because (1) they joined the political process (43 percent) or (2) local police and intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members (40 percent). Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups, and few groups within this time frame have achieved victory. . . The authors conclude that policing and intelligence, rather than military force, should form the backbone of U.S. efforts against al Qa’ida. And U.S. policymakers should end the use of the phrase “war on terrorism” since there is no battlefield solution to defeating al Qa’ida.
Military solutions dismantled terrorist agendas just 7% of the time. In the case of Al Qa’ida, the group stepped up its terrorist attacks AFTER 9/11 suggesting that military action further energized the hydra-esque group.
So when Chris asks how many Americans have to die before we can strike back with impunity . . . There is no magic number. In response to any attack, I’d want to know the serious and vigorous attempts to use law enforcement, court proceedings, and negotiation had failed. Tit for tat is just going to lead to World War III.
And for a portion of our population, WWIII is the desired outcome. The problem with turning to police work and open discussion is that it cuts of the profits flowing to companies like Halliburton and Blackwater, who rake in huge government contracts with little accountability for getting results or providing quality goods and services. Blowing up countries yields more profit to corporations with the opportunity to destroy and then reconstruct societal infrastructure than tense negotiations that yield limited violent outbursts.
For more on retribution and American foreign policy, check out Chapters 8 (Terrorism and Justice: Some Useful Truisms) and 9 (A Passing Nightmare?) of Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance.
Update 8/10: NYTimes Columnist Nicholas Kristoff covers the RAND study today in his column, “Make Diplomacy, Not War.”
British newspaper The Independent published reports that the Bush administration is negotiating a secret pact with Iraq (and completely bypassing the legislative branch of our government) that would keep the US in the Middle Eastern nation indefinitely.
Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. . .
Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.
The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.
The Bush administration continues to overstep its authority by negotiating a deal not covered by the checks and balances created by our THREE branches of government. While the justice department seems to have fallen in line with the the criminal elite in the executive branch, Democrats in the legislative branch, who seem to be finding their spines again, would likely make such a pact difficult to pass. So Bush and his team are going to bypass them altogether. The executive branch of the government should not get away with making decisions that have long term consequences without the full support of the legislative arm.
Additionally, yesterday, Reuters made clear that Iraqis are not looking for a permanent American presence in their nation.
A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday. . .
“The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq,” the letter to the leaders of Congress said.
That letter sounds pretty clear that the Iraqi government wants guarantees that no arrangements with Iraq mean a permanent US base in Iraq. If our “goal” is to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, shouldn’t we grant them the freedom to decide the direction to take the country, now that the big bad dictator with weapons of mass destruction has been removed from power, tried, and hung? Afterall, Americans insist the US government should listen to their citizens wants before making decisions
a recent World Public Opinion poll found that 81 percent of Americans believe that “when making ‘an important decision,’ government leaders ’should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public’s views
Iraqi Parliament representative Nadeem al-Jaberi told the US House of Representatives that
The majority of the people of Iraq are with the withdrawal.… Perhaps even about 70 percent.
Surely then, we should have that same expectation of our treatment of other countries; we should respect and honor their opinions on how to lead their country, right? But in order to respect the Iraqi people, we’d have had to have been there for legitmate purposes in the first place — bringing democracy to the Iraqi people is a convenient, if not ironic, cover. Since increasing evidence shows that Bush and his team lied about WMD that allowed for the greenlight to invade Iraq, invading Iraq for access to oil pretty much requires or permanent presence in that country.
Perhaps rather than war mongering for limited national resources, we could have instead invested the billions on alternative energy — which is the future — not the planet’s remaining oil reserves. What’s important is that we’ve brought freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, and we’re going to tell them what to do with it, parallelling our leadership’s respect for our own democracy (and Constitution).
I’m still amazed that GWB landed a 2nd term. But given his record lows, I’m hoping McCain will have a major uphill battle since he’s already been dubbed McSame and Bush 2.0. Fifty-six percent of his own party is unhappy with the general direction the nation is headed in, so embracing Bush policy might not be best come November. Overall, 76% of voters are ready for a new direction.
Despite the fact that this recession has been coming since at least the (Bill) Clinton administration, Bush is taking the beating. And McCain whole heartedly embraces Bush economics.
Republicans are not upbeat in regards to the economy. When those stimulus checks arrive in mailboxes this summer, and the economy doesn’t see a major upswing, McCain’s going to have a tough time going into the fall campaign.
McCain’s other major platform is the Iraq war. Come hell or highwater, we’re going to stay until we win (even if the government can’t figure out what winning would be). Unfortunately for McCain, Americans want out of Iraq, while he prefers to retain the right to spread our troops even thinner by refusing to preclude another pre-emptive war. (And if you only need the rumor of weapons of mass destruction in your country to earn an attack with Bush, I can only imagine the reasons McCain will provide when sending out the troops.)
In fact, in a recent poll of Americans, getting out of Iraq was the number one proposal to remedy the recession. The last thing McCain needs is to have a permanent stay in Iraq tied to the economic crisis here.
I’d like to believe it would darn near impossible for McCain to win in November, but Bush is wrapping up a second term, and I rejected the notion of that win 4 years ago.
Bush intends to keep the US in Iraq for the foreseeable future, after starting a war based on lies and non-evidence. Busy secretly negotiating agreements he says are beyond the scope of congressional approval. Easy for him to commit since he doesn’t actually have to serve in Iraq.
Clearly the Iraq experience is traumatizing to many soldiers. Not only is morale incredibly low, but
There were 23 suicides among American soldiers in Iraq and Kuwait last year, all but one by gunshot, and most involved young enlisted white men who faced personal financial problems, failed personal relationships or legal problems, Army officials said. (NYTimes).
The vets who make it home aren’t doing much better. The New York Times recently uncovered 121 cases of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans standing accused or convicted of murder since their return to the States.
Seems entirely understandable that few are jumping at the opportunity to join the Army. Slate columnist Fred Allen sheds further light on the new soldier recruitment issue:
They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007.
…80 percent of high-school graduates finish their first terms of enlistment in the Army—compared with only about half of those with a General Equivalency Degree or no diploma. In other words, taking in more dropouts is a short-sighted method of boosting recruitment numbers.
His article is worth a read as it covers a number of the dangers in continuing to lower the standards for entry into the Armed Forces. Aptitude exam scores are dropping which has a lasting effect on field performance in terms of skill, strategy, and retention.
If we’re going to continue overtaxing our Armed Forces abroad, dropping standards lower and lower will soon cease to suffice, given the poor returns from the bottom of the barrel. Seems like draft talk could wind up back on the table out of desperation with the next adminstration because of a lack of sufficient options.
Recent Comments