With the Iraq War now in its fourth year and showing no signs of ending anytime soon, it's time to take a new look at that conflict from both sides of the debate.
Robert Dreyfuss has done that with an important article entitled "Permanent War?" It's long and complex, but very much worth a thoughtful reader's attention.
The reason the Iraq War is so important -- much more important than Vietnam was, really -- is that it's where all the threads of current American policy, foreign and domestic, come together. Control of Iraq, of the Persian Gulf, and of the oil resources of that region are essential to the American way of life continuing as we know it for any length of time.
We're talking of course about the pursuit of empire, oil dependency, a nation of suburbs and automobiles and strip malls, global warming and lax environmental policy, and the international corporate business model supported and backed up by a heavily-armed military establishment.
This is the way of life that Dick Cheney has declared "non-negotiable." And the viability of all these things depends on victory in Iraq.
The commonplace liberal verdict is that victory in Iraq can't be had -- "We can't win militarily," as John Murtha says. And while the war is going badly in a number of ways, and Dreyfuss lists them, he challenges the notion that victory is impossible, and writes:
The Bush administration's strategy in Iraq today, as in the invasion of 2003, is: Use military force to destroy the political infrastructure of the Iraqi state; shatter the old Iraqi armed forces; eliminate Iraq as a determined foe of U.S. hegemony in the oil-rich Persian Gulf; build on the wreckage of the old Iraq a new state beholden to the U.S.; create a new political class willing to be subservient to our interests in the region; and use that new Iraq as a base for further expansion.
To achieve all that, the President is determined to keep as much military power as he can in Iraq for as long as it takes, while recruiting, training, funding, and supervising a ruthless Iraqi police and security force that will gradually allow the American military to reduce their "footprint" in the country without entirely leaving. The endgame, as he and his advisors imagine it, would result in a permanent U.S. military presence in the country, including permanent bases and basing rights, and a predominant position for U.S. business and oil interests.
True, there is no sign right now that the U.S. is winning this conflict. But there is no sign that the insurgency is winning either. And in view of what's at stake, we have consider at the possibility that this thing may not end with Bush's departure from the scene; we could be in for the long haul. Dreyfuss continues:
Indeed, this war would have to be sustained not only by this administration, but by the next one and probably the one after that as well. For over three years, the United States has supported a massive military presence on the ground in Iraq, while taking steady casualties. It may be no less capable of doing so for the next two-and-a-half years, until the end of Bush's second term - and during the next administration's reign, too, whether the president is named John McCain or Hillary Clinton. At least theoretically, a force of more than 100,000 U.S. soldiers could wage a brutal war of attrition against the resistance in Iraq for years to come. Last week, in a leak to the New York Times, the White House announced its intention to leave at least 50,000 troops in Iraq for many years to come. Last week, too, the son of the president of Iraq (a Kurd) revealed that representatives of the Kurdish region are in negotiations with the United States to create a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq's north.
We need to start looking both at the Iraq War and the shape and direction of American society with a new pair of glasses. This might be the first time since the Civil War that we are forced to ask ourselves the most fundamental question of all: Exactly what kind of society and government are we going to have? What is to be our constitution, i.e., "plan of government?"
What is the role of militarism to be in our society and government? of international monopoly capitalism as represented by companies like Exxon? of oil and gas and coal and electricity? of our attitude toward the planet we live on? What is the basis of our moral outlook?
Someday, as Dreyfuss argues, the Iraq War may be brought to a "successful" conclusion. But that might be the worst failure of all. For there is one thing above all about this war we need to remember (Dreyfuss again): The war in Iraq was not a "mistake." It was a deliberately calculated exercise of U.S. power with a specific end in mind - namely, control of Iraq and the Persian Gulf region. It was illegal and remains so. It was a war crime and remains so. Its perpetrators were war criminals and remain so. Its goals were unworthy and remain so.
In other words, the continuation of the American way of life is dependent on the successful prosecution of a moral outrage.
Dreyfuss does not end there. I find his conclusions to this thought-provoking article genuinely frightening.
I urge everyone who thinks seriously about these matters to read it.
Respectfully,
Dave B
No comments:
Post a Comment