Standing Up To Tyranny - Who's Responsibility?

[MrScorpio]

I always shake my head whenever I hear the argument from the Neo-Cons, their fellow travelers and their Administration puppeteers that it was necessary for the US Military and the Coalition of the Billing to invade Iraq and topple the tyrannic regime of Saddam Hussein, because it was up to us to remove his tyranny from the face of the Earth. Well as you all know, this argument came as an afterthought when it became necessary distract attention from the pesky fact that the primary argument; i.e., those massive stockpiles of hidden Iraqi weapons of mass destruction failed to manifest themselves as per the Bush Administration's oft recited and highly publicized inventory.

There were other reasons why President Bush emphasized the necessity for you, I and every single American taxpayer to pay the steep price in both capital and the blood of our fighting men and women to counter the "threat" posed by a third world, toothless dictator has-been, who was surrounded on all sides by either his sworn enemies in Iran of by the most advanced, highly trained, best equipped, supremely motivated military force mankind has ever seen. Let's go back to his words, I think it's important that we do that we him this courtesy.

This is an excerpt from his 17 March 2003 speech to the nation: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat. But we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety. Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed."

Now, draw your attention to the areas that I highlighted. That's the justification: Bush's points were that Saddam Hussein had nukes and bugs, he was hiding those nukes and bugs, he had terrorist buddies who also hated our guts, and he was willing to give up control all of those expensive nukes and bugs to his terrorist buddies to punish the US (and pals) for no good reason at all. A simple, straight-forward line of reasoning exemplifed earlier by Secretary of State Colin Powell's spiffy presentation to the United Nations.

Bush cited "more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council", as our authority to take action, because of Iraqi defiance of those edicts. Our own national security was invoked, as he implicated that the attacks of 9/11 were a template for Hussein to follow and a reason for our preemptive defense.

I am tempted to remark on the lack of validity on all of his claims by reminding everyone that no WMDs have yet been found, as well as the irony that the United Nations Security Council failed to give the Bush administration its imprimatur to attack Iraq, an attack that would be in direct violation of the U.N.'s own charter. But that's not the point I'm trying to make.

To emaphasize my point, let me draw you attention what Bush expected from the Iraqi people themselves, those not named Saddam Hussein: "It is not too late for the Iraqi military to act with honor and protect your country by permitting the peaceful entry of coalition forces to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed. I urge every member of the Iraqi military and intelligence services, if war comes, do not fight for a dying regime that is not worth your own life.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders.'"

His instructions and expectations were made exceedingly clear: We're taking over and you, the Iraqis should STAY OUT OF OUR WAY! Again, you can't get any clearer than that.

That's what so ridiculous about the argument of the Administration and its apologists today, that our main purpose for attacking Iraq, deposing the Hussein regime and occupying the country, seemingly ad infinitum, was to insure the freedom and sovereignty of the Iraqi people. Bush never even made that argument. He didn't even expect that the Iraqi people play an active role in their own liberation, just that they don't become obstacles to our own eventual victory. But let's not mention, that even under scrutiny, sometimes this "freedom and sovereignty" argument is found somewhat lacking. If this crap wasn't so tragic, it would almost be laughable.

The problem with the Administration's current argument is this: When gauged against the historical record of countries whose populations have thrown off the yoke of tyranny against their oppressors, the experiment in Iraq is far from the established standard. The standard demonstrates that these events are INTERNALLY driven, not externally imposed. There are obvious exceptions, as demonstrated by the conclusion of World War II and when Vietnamese soldiers conquered the Khmer Rouge of Cambodia in 1979, in the conclusion of a series of skirmishes between the two communist countries, that revealed the horrendous extent of Pol Pot's Killing fields. But then, these liberations were from the direct result of war and the actions of the conquerors, not from the efforts of the people.

If you want to look at the rule, the list is long and concrete. Here are just a few examples of many:

The United States Of America
France
Mexico
Haiti
India
Cuba
South Africa
Eastern Europe
Israel
And a host of other independence movements throughout recent history.

The established policy of previous administrations were based on the real and pertinent history of national liberation and manifested their acknowledgment by issuing the appropriate edicts when the cause of liberation best suited their policies and propaganda. Check out the key point to the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act signed by President Clinton, "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction."

I don't know about you, but I can't but help notice the utter arrogance and incompetence of the Bushies when they failed to use this handy doo-dad to enhance their own time honored practice of parsing the hard work of others.

Today, The Downing Street Memo lays all of the Administration's previous and current reasoning, legality and rhetoric to waste. The truth is much too damning; that none of the reasons stated were valid. None of their justifications are valid today. What we have witnessed from the conquering of Iraq is an act of gangstering on a massive scale. This was most definitely the greatest war crime perpetrated by a ostensibly democratic government during any of our lifetimes; the unprovoked attack and dissolution of another sovereign country, the illegal occupation of that country and the slaughter of its citizens. None of which occurred for the benefit of our self-defense.

These events are so self-evident that no amount of empty rhetoric could even hope to gloss them over.

It's been proposed by more than a few on this forum that the Bush Administration represents a tyrannical regime that this country needs to liberate itself from. A metaphor that's all well and good. Now if I were to embrace this metaphor, I qualify it with this: The tools for our liberation lie with the ballot, nothing else. It is our responsibility to engage, persuade and unite with as many other people that we can, bound by our adherence to the democratic process. No other method will do. None of violence or counter-tyranny, for that is the path to injustice and disaster and we would be no better than those we oppose.

We all should make this pledge with our very lives.