A recent
excellent article by Elliot D. Cohen suggested that George Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq, and his decision to continue the war regardless of the cost in human life and treasure, is based on the treacherous ideology expounded by “Project for the New American Century” (
PNAC). I would like to expand a bit on that idea, because I feel that it is so important.
First, a question worth considering: Is it only ideology that is driving George Bush, or is it more his desire to repay his supporters by satisfying their insatiable greed?
No bid contracts for reconstructing the damage we have caused to the Iraqi infrastructure have put billions into the pockets of Bush supporters. Now
we hear (big surprise) that Iraq’s oil reserves are “about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial new law…” And the Bush administration has never given the slightest indication that its several massive
military bases being constructed in Iraq are not meant to be anything but permanent, regardless of the outcome of the war.
So, I repeat: Is this ideology or just pure greed? Or, is it possible to tell the difference? Or, is there a difference? Cohen quotes the PNAC document as stating, “We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our
interests and
values.” (emphasis added). ‘Interests’, of course, can very well represent greed.
But what about ‘values’? ‘Values’ is something else entirely. PNAC’s reference to ‘values’ in their document lends an air of nobility to it. After all, how many Americans would object to us trying to spread our ‘values’ around the world? The point is further emphasized by PNAC’s statement (referring to the military missions that it advocates), “there can be no retreat from these missions without compromising American leadership and the
benevolent order it secures.” Well hey, what American, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, could object to securing a
benevolent order?
Thus, most Americans who read the PNAC document without reading between the lines will consider it to be a benign, and even a
benevolent document. Hell, even I, who consider myself to be a liberal, can look at “spreading American values” and “securing a benevolent order” in a positive light. Yet, if most Americans had been taught to be more discerning about such things they would give more consideration to what PNAC means by American “values” and how that comports with what they have advocated and what is now taking place in Iraq and elsewhere. Are PNAC’s values American, and are they moral? That is a question that is well worth considering.
I for one agree that we should attempt to spread American values around the world. As a matter of fact, the United States already
has spread many of its most important values around the world, as when Eleanor Roosevelt led the successful international effort to incorporate many of her recently deceased husband’s ideas into the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But judging by how the Iraq war was initiated and how it has progressed, I would say that my conception of American values differs greatly from PNAC’s, George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s conception of American values. The American values that I would like to see spread around the world are the American values upon which our nation was founded – i.e., those proclaimed in our
Declaration of Independence. Americans should take a hard look at how those values differ from the values proclaimed by PNAC/Bush/Cheney:
Differences between American values proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence and PNAC/Bush/Cheney valuesAll men are created equalThe second paragraph of our Declaration states that “all men (and by implication women and children) are created equal”. Our Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution shortly after its ratification, in order to translate the rights proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence into the reality of Constitutional law.
Yet George Bush has proclaimed that Iraqis and others captured in the Iraq War (which he considers to be the centerpiece of his “War on Terror”), or in other actions that form part of our “War on Terror”, are not entitled to such rights. His indefinite detaining of prisoners without even charging them with a crime is a gross violation of the due process clause of the
Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. For those who
are charged, the refusal to allow them access to counsel or to confront witnesses against them violate our
Sixth Amendment, as does the prior presumption of guilt, as when Bush and Cheney make
public statements as to their guilt. And the
condoning of torture by the Bush administration violates our
Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinessLet’s just consider the right to life here.
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, mostly civilians, have died in this war thus far. U.S. bombing campaigns in Iraq, though not specifically
targeting civilians, have been the subject of
much criticism and carry with them the potential for killing large numbers of civilians. For example, a report from hospitals in Najaf, covering a period of less than a month in the spring of 2003 following U.S. aerial bombing, showed
378 dead Iraqis, mostly civilians. The
use of chemical weapons in Iraq has resulted in many terrible deaths, to civilians as well as to Iraqi fighters. Ferocious U.S.
military attacks on populous Iraqi cities result in numerous civilian deaths. Destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure during the course of the war has greatly reduced the access of Iraq civilians to such basic needs as electricity, clean water supplies, and basic health care. For example, three and a half years after the invasion of Iraq, residents of Baghdad were receiving a average of only
2.4 hours per day of electricity.
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new governmentWe said in our Declaration that people have the right to abolish their government when it becomes destructive of their rights. Well, the Iraqi people
want us out of Iraq, as shown in every public opinion poll that I have seen. Yet, George Bush has acknowledged no right of the Iraqis to get along without our
benevolent assistance. On the contrary, he has repeatedly put demands on the Iraqis to do his bidding, making numerous public pronouncements to the effect that they are not doing enough. Whose country is it anyhow?
The coming surgeNevertheless, with George Bush’s presidency in tatters and his approval ratings at an
all time low, he seems to feel that he needs to bet everything on the “success” of his war in Iraq, regardless of the cost. But what will a “success” in Iraq mean?
Michael Moore has recently written a
letter to George Bush, suggesting that he send in 28 million Americans to kill 27 million Iraqis. Though intended partly as dark humor, the letter makes a critically important point, which has great relevancy to the current situation and is chilling in its implications.
One of the great problems with this war, as with the American war in Vietnam, is that it is very difficult to differentiate fighters from civilians, if “fighter” is defined as someone who intends to attack U.S. troops. The reason for that is that a large portion of the civilian Iraqi population has more sympathy for the “insurgents” than for the American military, and they approve of violent attacks against U.S. soldiers. Therefore, any effort to spare civilians will hamper our efforts to kill “insurgents”, and conversely, the most effective way to ensure that more insurgents are killed is to be indiscriminate in our killing. That in fact is one good explanation for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians already killed in this war.
Though George Bush may be less concerned with foreign opinion than any previous U.S. President, nevertheless both foreign and domestic opinion must have operated to some extent to restrain even more killing of Iraqi civilians than would otherwise have occurred. But his plans for the coming surge suggest that he may be willing to throw off some or most of the remaining restraints in a desperate effort to “win” this war. The likely cost in additional lives lost and torn apart is horrendous to contemplate.
Where does that leave us?Most experts agree that George Bush’s surge plan
will not be successful. But I’m more worried that it
will be “successful” than that it won’t be – by the PNAC/Bush/Cheney conception of “successful”. Their definition of a “successful” outcome could very well mean tens of thousands of additional Iraqi deaths, further ruination of their country, thousands more American deaths, tens of billions of dollars more debt for our country, and new lows for our international reputation. But worse yet, George Bush and his PNAC supporters would feel all the more emboldened to turn the American military against more countries, in order to further their dream of securing a “benevolent” world order and preserve
their – certainly not American – values.
And who would benefit from
that? Certainly not me. Certainly not the thousands of dead American soldiers and their families. Certainly not the good majority of American citizens. Certainly not those who would be casualties of
World War III. I believe that any honest assessment of this war will show that a “victory” is likely to benefit only those who have already benefited: Those corporate interests who have received and will continue to receive no-bid contracts to “reconstruct” Iraq and to exploit the oil reserves which it appears will soon be available under “a controversial new law”.
These people have no shame. They appear to have no conscience. I do not believe that George Bush is out of his mind. Rather, I believe simply that he has no respect for the rule of law, either as specified in
our Constitution or in
international law. Nor does he share the great American values upon which our country was founded.
Only vigorous opposition by the American people and our Democratic Congress will stop him.
Russ Feingold’s courageous recommendation to withhold funds for George Bush’s adventures is one very good idea. But removal from office, starting with
impeachment, would be a more permanent and appropriate solution.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
