January 9, 2005
-
THE CONVERSATION PICKS UP…
There’s been some interesting comments on my site to tackle, and I’m gonna weigh in a bit. First topic is Iraq. Clearly, some good will come out of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. However, we must put the argument back into focus about Iraq. First of all, invading Iraq was meant to be part of a war on terror. In that respect, this was the wrong war, at the wrong time. As defined by Bush, the war on terror is not a war on any kind of terror, it was meant to be a war on terrorists who threatened the US. It was meant to be a war on al-Qadea. Invading Iraq not only did nothing to weaken al-Qadea, it in affect aided their efforts, by diverting our troops from Afghanastan, and by putting ourselves in a war that has become a recruitment ad for al-Qadea. We have also alienated out allies, weakening efforts to combat al-Qadea on a global front, and giving coutries like Iran a little bit of breathing room.
Besides being misguided on the war on terror, the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq is one we should examine. Democracy is a term our government has often used to promote economic interests in foreign affairs. Rather than promoting a democracy in which a country can choose how to rule itself, the US has in the past promoted a democracy in which their economic system must mirror our own. In 1954, the US attempted to overthrow the gov’t in Guatamala in the name of promoting “democratic stability,” a convenient euphemism for maintaining a system of rich and poor. The US also gave military and financial aid to Columbia (i don’t have the dates in front of me), in the name of democratic stability. Columbia at the time was committing some of the worst human rights violations in the world, and the plight of the poor led to the drug trade we deal with today.
So…to flat out say, we’re bringing democracy to Iraq and the Middle East, does not touch upon the underlying theme, that we’re really trying to promote an economically unjust system of rich and poor. Even WWII, where our entry put an end to Hitler’s death camps, we must not forget that the US was not interested in saving the Jews or even ending fascism. In fact, in the 1940′s, the US still supported racism against blacks back at home. There’s more underlying this, but our motives, even in that “good war” are suspect.
To say we’re supporting democracy in Iraq, is to say we’re supporting the wealth of American corporations. If we are to assume that US democracy is supreme and therefore we should spread it as we please, we should look no further than the fact that the US has the highest level of child poverty of any industrialized society. Is that what we hope to bring to Iraq as well?
Now, on the issue of tax and spend. Those who rail against this, generally are against wealth being taken from individuals in taxes, and redistributed in the form of social programs, programs aimed generally at helping the poor. You rarely hear those same people complaining about money being redistributed from the poor, to the rich, in the form of corporations paying minimal taxes, and government subsidies.
Comments (6)
underneath war is always economic motives that lead to a shift for or against and drve the base…just one of the layers…
Our government is set up essentially to protect wealth and its acquisition by the few. The obvious example is that “economic power” is rewarded (the rich can legally use their power to steal from you), but physical power is outlawed (if you overpower someone and take their money you get arrested). The foreign policy initiative of the US government since WWII has been the promotion of capitalism: the creation of cheap ways of getting products essential for US corporations and the forced marketing of our goods to less powerful nations. Essentially a more sophisticated version of the Brits decision to create opium addiction in China so they could steal the opium from Afghanistan and trade it for tea.
So we go to Iraq to secure oil supplies because, while oil use in Europe has actually dropped since 1970, US oil use has increased almost 50%. If we weren’t interested in oil, but wanted to remove threatening dictators, we’d have gone after Pakistan, or Zimbabwe, or Libya.
“First of all, invading Iraq was meant to be part of a war on terror.”
Do you really believe that?
For a more relevant history of US interventionism in the overthrow of democratically-elected foreign governments, look into the history of Iran. The Iranians tossed out their king (the Shah), and formed a democratic government. That democratic government nationalized the Iranian oil industry, which made it harder for US oil companies to do business there. Lo and behold, in 1952, the Shah makes a comeback, his new political rise greased by the CIA (and other foreign interests, as well). Not long after, there’s another takeover by the democratically-minded Iranians, except this time they’re Islamic fundamentalists. US foreign polcy makers call it ‘communism,’ in order to justify their support of an Iraqi strongarm whose name should be easy to figure out.
So there you have it: Failed US foreign policy helps create Saddam Hussein and legitimizes Islamic fundamentalism, all within 20 years.
Basic human rights: the ability to survive for example, are allowed to be controlled by wealth. If I want a place to live I have to pay whatever costs capitalists decide to charge (true in the US, not, for example, true in Germany, Cuba, or Sweden). If I want to eat, I must pay what capitalists decide. If I want to survive a medical emergency I must pay what capitalists decide. This all represents theft and extortion. The forced transfer of money and resources from the poor to the rich. If you suggest anything like “affirmative action” which might allow have nots to share in the fruits of the economic power structure, the right immediately whines that their priviliidges are being unfairly taken away.
It’s one thing to try deny economics, but its funny watching someone trying to deny reality itself. If you were a farmer, would you ever make a statement like, I can eat what the land decides to produce? The land isn’t deciding anything, and neither are “the capitalists”. No one is born with a right to survive. If you don’t believe me, take a quick glance at societies who have decided such things are rights. You must work for your own survival. It is a product of our wealth that we have such discussions. We are so far removed from everyone literally having to work the land for their own food and survival that many have lost sight of the necessity to work at all.
Yes, you are correct that we have often insisted countries adopt not only democracy, but capitalism. I don’t see us doing that in Iraq, but I agree that we should not.
By the way, I have trouble believing that when Iraq is said and done, it will have higher rate of child poverty than it did, regardless of the system it adopts.
One point I forgot to address gov’t subsidies: I often rail against them. Bush’s steel tariff, for example, saved something like 100,000 jobs in the steel industry, and cost 300,000 in other industries due to the higher cost of steel. The agricultural subsidies are inhuman, benefit mainly rich conglomerations, and speaking of US policies hurting the rest of the world, South America (and the US as a direct result) would be infinitely richer were it not for these. We would not tolerate such actions from OPEC. If I ever saw a truly free trade Democrat, I would not hesitate to vote for them.