|
The
Shifting Sands of War Rationales
by
Kristina M. Gronquist
“We
won’t leave
Iraq
until we achieve victory . . . until the mission is completed . . . we
can’t leave before the job is done.” These
are the phrases we hear repeated like a broken record by the wagers of war
and lives. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold recently pushed Bush for a
withdrawal timetable. The Wisconsin Senator said there are three important
questions the administration must answer:
1)
What is our mission?
2)
What is our time frame in which our mission can be accomplished?
3)
Over what period of time can our exit happen?
It strikes me odd that a U.S. Senator, along
with millions of other Americans, has apparently forgotten what the
mission was in
Iraq
. It was to find
WMD
. Remember, folks? We went to war for the only reason a nation is allowed
to go to war under international treaties--to defend itself against an
imminent threat. So the answer
to question one is that the mission was to find
WMD
that never existed. It follows that the answer to the time frame under
which this can be accomplished, the subject of question two, is now
irrelevant. The time frame is up; everyone agrees there are no
WMD
. This reality means that the answer to question three is ever so simple.
The period of time over which our exit can happen is and must be
immediately.
The
media has effectively been pulled under the shifting sands of deception by
the Bush propaganda team as to what our mission in
Iraq
was and is. The mainstream media repeated the
WMD
story ad nausea before the war, but now they have been struck blind, deaf
and dumb with amnesia, harping all the time about
Iraq
’s alleged road to democracy, and parroting the official line as to why
we can’t leave, until
Iraq
is stable and “democratic.” Well, excuse me, but who is responsible
for all the instability in the first place?
Did Bush ever tell us that we were going to war to risk blood and
treasure to install “democracy” in
Iraq
? So why is this the reified line of the day, the unquestioned story,
posing as truth?
Of
course, most Middle Easterners and enlightened others know that this
post-WMD fabricated rationale of “remaking
Iraq
” isn’t genuinely guided by the true lofty goal of implementing
democracy. Instead, its focus is synchronizing Middle Eastern/Arab/Muslim
social and cultural values with Western plutocratic values, because that
will better facilitate a global world order that revolves around
U.S.
economic interests. That is why the real goal in
Iraq
is a long term presence; this is why Bush offers no timetable, as private
contractors and oil firms salivate over building permanent
US
bases in the land of the two rivers.
NPR
was interviewing average “people on the street” about their opinions
on
Iraq
, just before Bush’s canned cheery speech on the one year anniversary of
Iraq
’s “sovereignty” under military occupation. Most of the people
struck me as incredibly gullible because they had all fallen in the pit of
believing and talking like the mission in
Iraq
was originally about creating a pro-US “democracy.” One 30-year-old
guy proclaimed that if there is democracy in
Iraq
in 20 years, “it will be worth it.” I wonder if that means he’s
willing to sign up today to go be a bullet stopper in Iraq, or perhaps he
wants to go there to interview the loved ones of Iraqi civilians who have
been slaughtered by the Coalition of the Willing, or he could visit the
20,000 plus “insurgents” being held captive in Iraq’s ever
increasing dank prison system. How complacently arrogant and idiotic the
masses are over here, armchair experts, talking heads, discussing when,
where and how there might be democracy in Iraq, while real Iraqi people
– men, women and children – bleed to death day in and day out in the
insane chaos our leaders have willfully created.
If
Bush and the media succeed in convincing Americans that this mission is
about democracy, not
WMD
,
as originally stated, then I presume we will soon be invading a host of
undemocratic nations, friends and foes alike. Let’s not leave out
Uzbekistan
or
Pakistan
.
Iran
recently had elections, but it is doubtful they will be left out of this
worthy crusade. I hope all those laughing 20-something bimbo-people
appearing on the reality shows (usually discussing drunken dates or
jumping into the sea from helicopters in bikinis) are prepared to be
drafted, because we will need a hell of a lot of young people to complete
the violent democracy-by-force campaigns that lie in their not so
promising Orwellian futures. On the bright side, at least the
“Survivor” show will have turned out to be good practice.
|