|
|
| Resources | Colombia | Palestine | Iraq | People of Color | Students| Photos | Links |
We are at a critical juncture in American history. People throughout the country, including in the US Congress and the British Parliament, are debating whether it was correct for the US to go to war with Iraq.
During this struggle for summation over the key facts of the war, it is important that we engage in this discussion to argue: 1. What were the lies of the Bush administration; 2. What were the ACTUAL motivations for US policy towards Iraq; and 3. For how this should prepare us to examine the many other places the Bush administration is stretching to control – from Liberia, to Colombia, and to Palestine.
There has been a considerable amount of publicity recently on the lies of the Bush administration. Every major newspaper in this country has been covering the issues of how the Bush administration claimed Iraq was an imminent threat to national security, that they had significant quantities of weapons of mass destruction, and that they were trying to acquire nuclear weapons. However, in reality through weapons inspectors, and through the United States' own intelligence, the Bush administration knew their charges were overclaimed, and flat-out untrue in some cases. I think that there are a lot of good articles on this topic which I would encourage you to read including the July 13th article from the UK Independent entitled, “20 Lies About the War: Falsehoods Ranging from Exaggeration to Plain Untruth Were Used to Make the Case for War. More Lies are Being Used in the Aftermath,” by Glen Rangwala and Raymond Whitaker.
Although there is a discussion in this country about whether Bush lied and whether that decreases the legitimacy of his charge for war, I think there are some important issues on topic of foreign policy lies which are being left out of this topic in our main stream media which need to be added to the debate in this country. Therefore what I would like to talk about four lies that need to be more addressed in this discussion:
1. The lie that weapons of mass destruction are a proper justification for war. So what if they find large amounts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq tomorrow, would that have been a proper cause for going to war, for killing Iraqis, for using depleted uranium, for bombing cities?
The fact of the matter is Iraq has the right to defend itself. Iraq was attacked, bombed and threatened by the US for over 12 years. If they feel they need to develop or purchase weapons to protect themselves from the world’s most dangerous country – the United States – then they have the right to protect themselves. For the same reasons that the US would NEVER agree to weapons inspections, Iraq has the right to national sovereignty, which includes their own decision as to whether or how to defend themselves.
2. The other most frequent lie is the US war was to install a democracy in Iraq. Now this is an interesting label considering the US’ own history of elections- including Bush’s own – and considering that the US also thinks Israel is a democracy. Before the war the claims of how unjust the Iraqi government was, how the Iraqi people WANT the US to invade (despite the Persian Gulf war and 12 years of sanctions, yeah right), and how the US has the ability to “teach democracy” (like we have ever left a functioning democracy after military intervention in Latin America, Yugoslavia or most recently in Afghanistan). The US didn’t go to war with Iraq to promote democracy. Dropping bombs on people doesn’t bring them democratic rights. Shooting demonstrators who don’t want US occupation forces there doesn’t preserve democracy. And hand picking the Iraqi Leadership Council to draw up the next Constitution isn’t democracy either. The reason the US is committing these undemocratic acts is because democracy was never a motivating factor for the Bush administration.
3. My favorite lie is the lie that the anti war movement did not have an impact on the Bush administration. This lie is important, because if we believe it we will give Bush the ability to wage war and further increase US military intervention. Repeatedly Bush tried to create the appearance of not hearing the anti war movement or trying to make us seem isolated or confused despite our unprecedented size and international momentum. However, we did have an impact. Bush, Blair, Powell, Rice, and Rumsfield had to campaign harder for this war than ever before. European and Middle Eastern countries didn’t send troops to participate –not because their leadership didn’t support the war but because their constituents didn’t! Bush wanted to start the war much earlier and to send in many more troops. Frequently military generals would tell the media that his decision to delay the war and to send so few ground troops were mistakes, however Bush felt he couldn’t agree to the military’s game plan because it wasn’t politically palatable with the growing anti war movement which was already demonstrating in historic numbers BEFORE the war had even started! To try to take the momentum out of our sails Bush declared the war over quite prematurely. Since the war has been declared “over” at least one American soldier has died in combat per day. Troops and their families are furious that even though the war is “over” they are in life threatening situations every day. They are angry that the Iraqi people obviously don’t want them there. Many soldiers don’t want to be occupiers. They were told this war would be “a walk in the park” and are angry they were lied to as well.
4. The last lie I will cover is the lie that the US has the right to go to war with any group or country labeled as a “terrorist”. Bush told the American public that there were direct ties between Iraq and Al-Quida despite a complete lack of evidence for this claim. He also inferred that Iraq had a level of responsibility for the 9-11 hijacking even though NONE of the hijackers were from Iraq and there is no evidence to support this claim either. He did such a good job with this lie that two-thirds of Americans BELIEVED these lies to be true!
Although there is some discussion of how these were indeed NOT facts but rather fiction, there is an important piece of analysis that needs to be added to the debate. Who does the US label terrorists and why is the label of terrorism by the US government enough justification for war?
The US uses the label of terrorist as a political smokescreen for national liberation struggles. Iraq was a “terrorist nation” because they dared to claim to have national sovereignty and the right to control their own political future. They also dared to encourage and support the Palestinian struggle for freedom and to be a beacon of resistance throughout the Middle East. Do these actions justify the label of terrorism for the Iraqi government and people?
The label of terrorism is not used to discuss the US’ own behavior in Iraq or to describe Israeli occupation because the label is NOT about condemning brutally violent behavior, but rather a tool of propaganda.
Then if we didn’t go to war to defend the world from terrorism, or for democracy or to save humanity from Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, why did we go to war?
For the same reasons the US has historically gone to war and for the same reasons that the US is currently escalating their military involvement in Liberia, Colombia, and Palestine. The US uses it’s military to expand its economic and geo-political control of the world.
Iraq despite 12 years of sanctions and inspections was resisting the US’ interest in Iraq’s oil. Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world that are controlled by Iraq’s publicly owned company. Iraq refused to allow their country to be submissive to the US and the UN. Iraq’s position as a leader in the resistance to the US’ economic and political interests in the region prevented the US from being able to succeed in their agenda throughout the Middle East. As long as Iraq was able to resist the US’ efforts in their own country, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians were being sent a pro – resistance message.
Knowing the truth behind what ACTUALLY motivated the US to go to war with Iraq presents us with 2 actions to take:
1. To struggle with people, the media and our elected officials over what were the REAL LIES and what were the REAL ISSUES that were behind the war with Iraq. As our country struggles to understand the war, we need to use this opportunity to re-energize the people who did come out to demonstrate, and to win more people over to the idea that the US government does not fight wars for benevolent reasons – despite their rhetoric.
2. To use this war as a lesson, which we can use to examine future instances of US militarism. Everyone should look past the rhetoric of the president – any American president – as to what are the REAL motivations for war. One should look right away as to what are the geo-political and economic interests for the US corporations in that country and not listen to “caring message” of the US government.
For example, we can use the lesson of Iraq and look at other examples of US intervention which the Bush administration claims we are involved in to “promote democracy”, to “protect the world from weapons of mass destruction” and to “fight terrorism.”
Although Bush claims he is interested in helping “fight terrorism” in Colombia and Palestine, what he is really condemning is are the rebel groups who are fighting for national liberation against imperialism and against capitalism. If he was so concerned with “fighting terrorism” why would he want to give military aid to Colombia who Amnesty International and Americas Watch have labeled the worst human rights abuser in the Western Hemisphere and to the Colombian government who these same groups have documented gives US military aid to right wing paramilitary death squads? If Bush was so concerned with “fighting terrorism” would he give 13 million dollars a day to the Israeli government who has murdered over 3,000 Palestinians since the Intifada began, and who murdered Rachel Corrie this Spring?
The US government says it is interested in “promoting democracy” yet it hand picked the lead negotiator and new Prime Minister for the Palestinian people and wrote the “peace agreement” which doesn’t address any of the concerns the Palestinian people have been demonstrating for for 54 years! How is it democratic to stand with Israel against allowing Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, or to deprive people of the water and crops they need to survive, or to not allow people to move freely within their own country or to establish a state based on privileges given based on religion and race?
Is the US really concerned that North Korea is developing a nuclear weapons program when India and Pakistan were treated in a very different manner or is the role of resistance to the US’ economic project in Asia the true concern of the US? Or is the US more concerned that nuclear weapons could protect the entire Korean peninsula – especially when the 2 Koreas become one again?
Is the US really concerned with human rights in Colombia and Liberia? Or is the US using the civil wars in these 2 countries to further perpetuate the US’ economic interests in the region. Colombia has the 2nd largest oil reserves in Latin America and has some of the largest untapped deposits in the region. West Africa provides the US with about 15 percent of our oil reserves, which is the same amount we import from Saudi Arabia. Liberia is strategically located close to the Gulf of Guinea where vast untapped oil reserves were recently discovered. If the US controlled this area the US could have a 25 percent increase in oil imports from Africa. Is it a coincidence that Afghanistan, Iraq and now Colombia and Liberia all have oil connections for US multinational corporations? Or is this one of the unspoken truths, which guides US foreign policy.
Now I’m not arguing that oil is the only motivating factor for US intervention, just that the geo-political as well as economic interests of the US should be looked to first when evaluating WHY the US wants to intervene in another country.
In conclusion, the Iraqi people are still fighting against US imperialism. We need to continue to educate people about the situation in Iraq and get them to become politically involved. Iraqis are continuing to die defending their country, fighting for their own political future independent of US control. Their fight is just. They have the right to their own country and we have a political responsibility to get our country’s forces to leave.
Additionally, we need to use this war as an opportunity to teach people to become more consistent anti-imperialists. Yes we were lied to as to what the US knew about Iraq’s weapons programs, and as to what motivated the US to go to war with Iraq. However, this is not an isolated incident of manipulation. It’s US foreign policy. What is unique is that we are having a more open dialogue as a society as to whether we’re going to stand for this. I think we shouldn’t stand for this and we should use the lessons of Iraq to examine future US military interventions. We can educate the tens of millions of people around the world that demonstrated that US military intervention in Iraq is not just wrong in Iraq – it’s wrong everywhere.
Hands off the World! US out of Iraq Now!
Anti-War
Committee |