And then there's the press 

Comments

One of the byproducts of the Bush Administration's dissembling regarding the reasons for going to war is that nobody outside of the executive branch (and I would guess this applies to many within the White House, as well) can be clear on what the real motiviation is. We hear from some that it is revenge, because Saddam tried to kill Bush's wife; from others we hear that it is all about oil. We hear of the neo-con dream to remake the middle east, starting with Iraq. Some say Saddam had to go because of his human rights record. Unfortunately, the discussion has been so corrupted by misinformation, cover-ups, and probably outright lies, that none of these reasons, no matter how far-flung they may seem, can be entirely discounted. It may be that they all played into it. As a result, nobody in this country can truly know the basis for our foreign policy. More ominously, nobody overseas can either. Machiavelli famously posited that it is better for the king to be feared than loved. There are other choices, though; respected and trusted would be nice. I believe we had a great degree of that from the rest of the world following 9/11, but we have squandered it. We broke faith in Afghanistan by our failure to secure and rebuild the country. We launched a war in Iraq based on flimsy premises. Much of the rest of the world now regards us as unstable and dangerous. We have become what we have accused others of being, the greatest threat to peace and stability, not just regionally, however, but throughout the world.

The Bush team should have openly revealed it's real motivation. It's not that the real motivation wasn't known to anyone who keeps up with public policy and politics. Wolfowitz, Pearl and the Neocons have for more than a decade seen Iraq as the lynch pin in remaking the political culture of the Middle East. I imagine that Bush and his team regarded the American public and the public worldwide as too naive to appreciate the real issues. The presumptiousness of this position seems to be lost on Bush's supporters. Perhaps if the truth had been stated openly, public awareness would result in an outcry in the US beyond anything seen prior to the invasion. Indeed, the governement may have been forced to back down if enough Americans said "no." I don't pretend to know if Bush's team was right or wrong, but I am troubled by aspects of both the positions of both Bush supporters and Bush detractors. Bush supporters seem all to ready to dismiss evidence of dishonesty. We are still supposed to be governed by consensus. Presidents may believe the public is naive, but it's still our government and the kind of governement we want is our call. But, we rely on truth from our President and policy makers so that we can make informed decisions. When the president is not forthcoming for political reasons, he short-circuits the democratic process. This is disgraceful and Bush's supporters have failed to face this failure. On the other hand, the Bush detractors seem all too dismissive of the brutality of the Iraq regime. I say dismissive because most say "Sadam was a bad man." This kind of observation does not even begin to approach a reckoning with the monstrous brutality, the untold hell-on-earth, that millions have gone through under the bloody rampage of this evil being. Playing up the current difficulties in an occupied Iraq seems evidence of a complete moral failure to grapple with the holocaust that has been ended by the Bush policy.

Knowing the truth now obviously wouldn't change the reality. I still cling to the conceit, however, that in a democracy the people are owed the truth, particularly about matters as grave as whether or not to go to war. To believe and to advocate otherwise is to invite the destruction of our government from within. That Saddam was evil and ought to have been replaced is a point that was indisputable. It remains to be seen that in the long run the Iraqi people will be better off without him. History is replete, even within just the last quarter century, of despotic regimes that have been replaced by others even bloodier and more repressive. Nevertheless, if Bush and his people wanted to go to war based on that, on the record of Saddam's despotism and our obligations to relieve the world of tyranny, then that is how the debate should have been framed. It was framed instead on the dubious and still unsubstantiated claims that Saddam posed a threat to us and was a destabilizing force in the region.

If you knew the truth, would that make the reality any less different? Should Saddam stay in power? Ask this as a historical question. Why did great powers fall or struggle against other nations? Because they turned a blind eye to the rest of the world assuming that no one would challenge them. Yes, we did win WWI and WWII, but why did we let it get so far? Saddam invaded Kuwait, like an early 20th century figure we all know. Why aren't his actions deeply concerning? Because it happened a decade ago, and we assume that we're the superpower? How naive. I know its difficult to see the past as it really was. We all see the past as we are told about it. But try to consider how it must have been prior to those major events. Where are we know? What are the next major events? Remember, size of force is no longer an issue. It just takes one madman and a nuclear weapon to bring destruction to your doorstep.

Add Comment