“Our Oil” Under Their Sand
Part 1 of a Series
Columnist Peter Pattakos is an Independent who strongly supports the War in Iraq. He resides in Chicago, IL.
“What is our oil doing under their sand?” This question has been posted on bumper stickers and posters and is a sarcastic and perhaps less abrasive form of the familiar anti-Iraq-War refrain “No Blood for Oil.” Implicit in these criticisms is the commonly asserted charge that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the safety of Americans and everything to do with profiteering and commandeering control of Iraq’s oil resources. Oil is undoubtedly an important resource to the U.S. and the world, and Iraq certainly has a lot of oil within its borders; but while it is correct to say that the presence of this oil has a lot to do with why we went to war, it is important to understand why this is so, and why the connection between Iraq, oil, and terror relates quite directly to the safety of Americans and the world at large.
A proper conceptualization of what the U.S. is up against is necessary to understand this connection. What the U.S. is up against is larger than Saddam Hussein, and doesn’t require nuclear weapons to be extremely dangerous.
The threat is a nebulous group of people who are in control of vast amounts of a region’s and our planet’s resources (a great deal of it being oil) who conceive that their power/wealth absolutely depends on choking off the freedoms of (and in many instances terrorizing /raping/ murdering large portions of) their populations. Unfortunately, that they conceive their wealth to depend on this repression necessarily makes it so. Saddam Hussein was the poster child for this group of people, which includes Assad in Syria, the mullahs in charge of Iran, Bin Laden (if he is still alive), and various Al-Qaeda leaders/financiers throughout the Middle East. To justify their rule, these rulers normalize the situation of their victims by using Islam to paint self-determination as evil. Their subjects know no freedom, and war against freedom gives their life meaning that it could otherwise not have without self-determination. This depravity gives birth to suicide bombers, murderous Baath party officials, Al-Qaeda soldiers, foot soldiers for Afghani warlords and the like... (continued in the comments)
Columnist Peter Pattakos is an Independent who strongly supports the War in Iraq. He resides in Chicago, IL.“What is our oil doing under their sand?” This question has been posted on bumper stickers and posters and is a sarcastic and perhaps less abrasive form of the familiar anti-Iraq-War refrain “No Blood for Oil.” Implicit in these criticisms is the commonly asserted charge that the Iraq War has nothing to do with the safety of Americans and everything to do with profiteering and commandeering control of Iraq’s oil resources. Oil is undoubtedly an important resource to the U.S. and the world, and Iraq certainly has a lot of oil within its borders; but while it is correct to say that the presence of this oil has a lot to do with why we went to war, it is important to understand why this is so, and why the connection between Iraq, oil, and terror relates quite directly to the safety of Americans and the world at large.A proper conceptualization of what the U.S. is up against is necessary to understand this connection. What the U.S. is up against is larger than Saddam Hussein, and doesn’t require nuclear weapons to be extremely dangerous.
The threat is a nebulous group of people who are in control of vast amounts of a region’s and our planet’s resources (a great deal of it being oil) who conceive that their power/wealth absolutely depends on choking off the freedoms of (and in many instances terrorizing /raping/ murdering large portions of) their populations. Unfortunately, that they conceive their wealth to depend on this repression necessarily makes it so. Saddam Hussein was the poster child for this group of people, which includes Assad in Syria, the mullahs in charge of Iran, Bin Laden (if he is still alive), and various Al-Qaeda leaders/financiers throughout the Middle East. To justify their rule, these rulers normalize the situation of their victims by using Islam to paint self-determination as evil. Their subjects know no freedom, and war against freedom gives their life meaning that it could otherwise not have without self-determination. This depravity gives birth to suicide bombers, murderous Baath party officials, Al-Qaeda soldiers, foot soldiers for Afghani warlords and the like... (continued in the comments)
By Kyle - 12/29/2005
29 Comments:
Peter Continues...
Certainly Saddam and Al Qaeda, etc. are different in some respects, but they are (rather were) exactly the same in the crucial respect; they viewed their interests as diametrically opposed to freedom, and had declared war on our way of life. Note that Bin Laden’s justification for the 9/11 attacks was as simple as U.S. presence in the Middle East and support of Israel. The presence of democracy and accountability in the Middle East is inimical to these people having their way, and they’ll do anything to prevent it. This is why Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers and harbored international terrorists and this is why Al-Qaeda is diverting so much attention to Iraq. Remember, 9/11 was only one of a series of brutal and destructive attacks. We had no reason to think that these attacks would stop or slow down unless the U.S. took action. Complete removal of U.S. presence in the Middle East and standing witness to the destruction of Israel (not coincidentally the only real democracy in the Middle East) does not seem to be a viable option.
The only other option is to establish accountability in the Middle East so that a democracy becomes strong enough to accomplish two things: 1) provide the people with a stake in their own outcomes thus eliminating the frustration that leads to so much terror, and 2) provide people of this region the means to defend themselves against terror. For the Iraq War to be a success it must result in the reallocation of the vast resources of the country to the Iraqi people so that Iraq can stand along with Israel as a model for freedom in the Middle East.
James Madison, the father of American property rights as embodied in our Constitution, believed both that because a skewed distribution of wealth threatened the very fabric of society, he could not rightly oppose all forms of redistribution. Few will argue that wealth gaps can threaten the fabric of society, undermining security, wealth, and thus, autonomy. Madison himself once expressed the truism that pre-revolution France could have benefited from “a more equal partition of property,” and it is easy to see that a skewed distribution of wealth is a root cause of the terrorism emanating from the Middle-East. The main difference between Iraq and France in this respect is that the people of Iraq would never have been able to accomplish a revolution on their own because Saddam, with his rape squads, torture chambers and mass graves was actively and brutally policing his country to repress any such attempt at revolution in a way that the French aristocracy never would have dreamed of doing.
Iraq was a logical place to begin this necessary redistribution campaign and plant the seed of democracy for many reasons: The nature of Saddam’s grip on the country (it was his and his alone), his control of billions of dollars, the nature of his rule (crimes against humanity, attacks on the U.S., support for terrorism, pursuit of WMDs, violation of a multitude of U.N. regulations), and most importantly the fact that the country’s oil in the hands of the people gives democracy a better chance to succeed in Iraq than anywhere else in the region because Iraq’s resources are greater than that of any other nation in the Middle East. A system of self-government cannot survive without resources, especially in a region so hostile to democracy. 9/11 and the proliferation of terror from/throughout the Middle East provide strong evidence of the fact that self-rule is a natural right of all people, and if people are denied that right there will continue to be awful consequences; especially in today’s world that is smaller and more interconnected than it has ever been. In that sense, Iraq’s oil can be viewed as “our oil,” i.e. the oil of free people, who should be free to trade their resources with other free people in order to realize the mutually beneficial transactions that have continued to improve our quality of life since the dawn of civilization.
Quite the eloquently worded retort anonymous. All Tommy Boy references aside (great movie, yes), it is nice to see you put forth the time and effort to come up with a well written argument for Peter's point of view. Very scholarly on the whole.
Thanks. I can't learn because W is taking away all my education money!
Pete, why do you ignore the potential that the War in Iraq and the side effects have increased anti-Americanism in the Middle East? Some factors to consider include the high number of civilian causalities in Iraq (we care so much we don't know the exact number. Al Franken has a great line on this - "Before we win hearts and minds, we have to protect heads and chests."), torture in U.S. prisons (or turning it over to foreign governments to administer), rape in U.S. prisons (pictures), and death in U.S. run prisons (pictures again).
Maybe the way this war has been run has created more recruits for Al Qaeda?
Also, I doubt the oil will "end up in the hands of the people" in Iraq. My guess is it will be taken over by a Bush crony like Chalabi or a multi-national oil conglomerate.
The potential for anti-American sentiment is a valid concern. In speaking with a friend (Ben's brtoher) who lived in the Middle East for 6 months last year, the best way he could put it was that there wasn't really an anti-American sentiment due to the war, but more of an anit-Bush. Jordan could probably give you a better picture of what he experienced, but from my understanding most of the disdain was directed just toward the President, but that a lot of that seemed to be via the lone government-controlled media outlets. Even as a Christian-American in an Muslim Middle Eastrn country, he said he never really fely unsafe or threatened, granted though this is now nearly a full year ago.
George W. Bush Announces Plan to Run for Third Term in '08
by Kamal El-Din
Unconfirmed sources report that, after reflecting on his future legacy, the President has decided to seek a third term in office. Bush White House insiders indicate that after skimming the book, "When Trumpets Call," by Patricia O'Toole, the President has decided that he has too much work to do and the remaining three years of his Presidency just aren't enough time.
The book, "When Trumpets Call," by Patricia O'Toole, examines the frustration Roosevelt felt and his inability to let go after leaving office in 1909. This seems to have struck a chord with a President who is know as an intellectually relentless man with dreams too big to be contained by two four year terms.
"The President just has too much he wants to accomplish." said White House spokesman Ben Lion. "He needs more time to fully realize his goals for the country. He understands that there are a few technical obstacles in the way for a third term, but our legal team is examining these closely. We are a country at war and the powers granted to the 'Commander and Chief' during war time are extensive and not fully defined. We will research the issue and explain how it can legally be done."
Legal experts familiar with the legal problems surrounding a third Bush term are divided about how difficult it would be to achieve.
"I don't see that this is going to be a problem at all." says Heritage Foundation Chair Bill Winthrop III. "We've actually done all the research. We did it back during the Regan administration. We figure it will only take an act of war, one law and an executive order. If the President wants it done we can knock it off in a few weeks."
"I disagree with my friends view of the situation." says David Frum from the Project for a New American Century. "The powers granted to the President during war time already account for changing commanders in the middle of a war. Secret provisions in the constitution dictate that during war time a President can decide to remain in office past his allotted terms. All this talk of constitutional barriers is bunk."
Bush Cheney '08 banners and signs are already available at the BushCheney'8 website.
Great Post Pete-
As an ardent supporter of this war, I see the benefits much as Pete does:
Under normal circumstances, Iraq and its comparables would be writhing in poverty, but oil has freed them from accountability. Oil gives them power to thrive, power to control, and power to harm. And when this ill-intentioned power is based in religious extremism the danger is undeniable. In an ever shrinking world, the middle east would have become a terrible deterrent to global prosperity.
What Pete does not talk about is the arguments put forth by Bob, Chuck, Kyle etc:
The sacrifices you speak of are so important to realize. Despite the reality of terrorism, I have never seen the Middle East to be an immediate threat to the destruction of our society, and to attack and kill based on long term, big picture ideals is a hard thing to justify. We have sacrificed our own personnel liberties, we have weakened short term global harmony, and worst of all, we have caused the death and destruction of so many lives.
However..... I believe the elimination of dangerously oppressive, religious based governments- to strip fanaticism of its power- is as noble a cause as you can have. A cause whos long term effects have the potential to truly benefit the world at large despite all the harm we have done.
When this whole thing is done the voices from the left will be instrumental in returning our own country to accountability and ensuring the entire process of war is not done in vain. Anyone who supports this war without attention to its problems is as dangerous as the enemy we face.
Kyle, while I didn't mention it in my post, I agree that there certainly is a danger that Anti-Americanism will/has increased in the Middle East, but I am confident this will only be a short term increase in such sentiment that will be offset and then greatly surpassed as freedom continues to take hold in the MIddle East. Of course, this depends on the U.S. seeing things through in Iraq and in the Middle East at large. Certainly the transformation from despotism to democracy is not a seamless one, and it is difficult to imagine that it could be, but there seems to be a strong force of Iraqi's, young and old, committed to self determination and thankful to the U.S. for the help. I don't think the administration had any illusions that there would be a short term increase in anti-Americanism as a result of this war, but this risk was weighed against the risk of terrorist attacks in the future as well as with respect to the rewards that free societies in the Middle East will yield.
See the below paragraph from strategypage.com that I linked to from instapundit.com on 12/19/05:
"This relentless progress of democracy is causing quite a commotion throughout the Arab world. While it is fashionable to denounce the American presence in Iraq, and what the Americans were doing, the Arab language buzz on the net is going in unexpected directions. Because of al Jazeera and the Internet, young Arabs everywhere are not only able to observe what it happening in Iraq, but to discuss it with young Iraqis. These discussions are not noted much in the West, because they generally take place in Arabic, and often via email and listservs. The non-Iraqi Arabs are impressed at the proliferation of media in Iraq, and the eagerness of Iraqis to vote, and make democracy work. The economic growth in Iraq is admired, and is already attracting entrepreneurs from other Arab countries. The more cynical non-Iraqis believe that it will all come to nothing, and that another Saddam will eventually emerge and shut down all this democratic nonsense, as is the case in most of the Arab world. But the pessimists appear to be in the minority. Arabs are tired of dictators, economic stagnation, the corruption and living in a police state. Moreover, there’s a nimble quality in Arab thinking that allows them to simultaneously blame the Americans for going into Iraq, and praising the result."
The importance of the proliferation of media outlets and small Arab-owned business in Iraq is something that cannot be understated, and gives us great reason to believe that we can be optimistic that the inevitable short term increase in anti-Americanism will dissipate.
Also, Kyle, I hope that you are wrong w/r/t your doubt that Iraqi oil will end up in the hands of Iraqis, because if you are right, there will be serious trouble. If multi-national conglomerates get involved it is crucial that they are charged a proper price for the right to appropriate that oil and taxed on their revenues it is incumbent on Iraqi politicians to properly distribute those revenues.
Pete, thanks for the post. was busy all day, so i am jumping in late.
Why not Afghanistan? I just don't get it? If you want to win "hearts and minds" then turn that shit hole around.)
(Actually, I guess you actually admit that its because Afghanistan doesn't have oil, hence the cannot become rich, hence they don't have a reason to fight for democracy. maybe that is why. but it is unacceptable, in my eyes. afghanistan may be the poorest nation in the world....therefore, if you want to win "hearts and minds" then turn that shit hole around.)
Saddam was one of the most secular leaders in the Middle East, if not the world. So I cannot agree with comparisons to Bin Laden (regarding how they yeild their power).
Finally, I really have to tell you that I think a bumper sticker saying why is "our oil under their sand" is a bumper sticker wielded by a pro-war CONSERVATIVE not an anti-war liberal. I get that you think it is sarcastic, but I don't. I think (and have heard people say) that they really think that.....and they were moronic rednecks.
And Kyle makes a great point. Consider: US has, thusfar, resisted turning oil "sovereignty" over to the Iraqis. Not a good sign.
Pete,
Nice Post.
[Sorry I hadn’t responded yet, in an effort to "get a life" (as one of our anonymous commenters recommended I do), I tried to spend less time glued to my computer...didn't work out.]
It’s interesting that you say that these Saddam types, 'unfortunately conceive that their power depends on repression of their people.' Do they 'conceive' or do they 'realize' it? As a person realizes a fact. I ask because it seems pretty clear that this breed of power and wealth that you speak about is based largely on U.S. support or preference or at least tolerance.
Whether you like to admit it or not, repression of people in under-developed countries is profitable for us. Whether we are extracting natural resources or enjoying cheap labor or sidestepping taxes or polluting or dissolving entrance barriers for our companies...the worse the people are exploited the bigger the number on the bottom-line.
Big business caught onto something a long, long time ago. They realized that the best way to 'shape' the policies of other nations is to 'sponsor' politicians who pay off their debt by packaging questionable interventions in red-white-and-blue and selling them to the public.
[My favorite example is something called ‘Operation PBSUCCESS’ when a fruit conglomerate successfully lobbied the White House to covertly kill the democratically elected President of Guatemala because his policies were hurting profits. 100,000 people died in the ensuing civil war.]
I don’t think that this dynamic has changed much since United Fruit convinced Eisenhower to kill in the name of banana prices. Except that through decades of practice these interest groups, politicians and propaganda artists have nearly perfected the process. It’s virtually seamless!
The surplus of fear and patriotism that the White House won on Sept 11th was the blank check these interest group (who have united as an interest super-group) had always dreamed of. Finally profit-seeking was completely free from its moral and legal chains!!! In the hysteria of the post-Sept-11th-world, anything could be wrapped in a flag and sold to the American people, no matter how un-charismatic the salesman.
And the fate of the Iraqi people? Maybe in the process the Iraqi people would be better off, maybe they’d be worse off. The fate of these people was something that kept the PR machine working overtime but it was certainly not a strategic concern, let alone a justification for the invasion.
Maybe you’re right, maybe the White House (still composed of so much of the same blood that propped up Saddam as he gassed the Kurds) has turned over a new leaf. Maybe the Iraqi people will be handed the reigns to their nation and control their own priceless supply of oil.
Or maybe the White house will do what it has historically done (only more ruthlessly) that is serve the most powerful special interest groups with little concern for the welfare of the American people and zero concern for everybody else.
Pete,
I kinda went off on a tangent there. Let me address you post more directly because I don’t want to come off as so stand-off-ish.
I respect your vision.
I just don’t think this administration does.
The best way to gauge if these people’s intentions are genuine is through their past actions/policy. You have allied yourself with this administration because of what you perceived to be a common goal. Ever since you’ve been unwilling to acknowledge even the most overt abuses.
[Example from this week: Bush promises that all wiretaps require a court order then later admits to secret wiretaps for which a court order was never issued. How do you justify this discrepancy? Bush “misspoke.” You say, “We didn’t elect him for his speaking skills” !?!?!?!]
If you are really serious about a truly liberated Iraq in which the Iraqi people are empowered and allowed to control their oil supply, now is the time to step to the left. Who do you think will keep big oil and Haliburton from exploiting these people? W?!?
If your priorities are really homeland security followed by the liberation of oppressed peoples in the world, then your vision has more in common with ours than the true intentions of this administration.
Bob: The reason I can't go left right now and the reason why I voted for Bush is because I make decisions so as to mitigate the worst case scenario. My view of the worst case scenario in the world right now is if Howard Dean's and John Murtha's calls for immediate withdrawal are heeded. At this point in time, I think that the worst that the American right has to offer is a threat far easier contained by our legal system than global terrorist networks (i.e. the danger presented if the worst the American left had their way w/r/t Iraq and the use of U.S. power.)
You do raise an interesting question, "do they conceive or do they realize?" I think in order for something to be realized it has to be true, so I must call it a misconception on the part of leaders in the Middle East when they conceive that their power depends on choking off the freedoms of the people that they have power over because that is a direct abuse of that power that undermines the legitimacy of that power. History has shown us repeatedly that power once abused tends to dissipate over the long term.
The same applies to the United States in a global setting and I believe that those in power do understand that, fundamentally, if our country abuses other parts of the world, it will hurt us in the long term. You acknowledge that the war, if successful, will have beneficial effects, but you attribute the worst possible motives to the administration for engaging in the war. However, you have zero evidence for what I have to call your conspiracy theories regarding profiteering and there is so much evidence of the probable benefit. Correlation does not equal causation.
Regarding your Eisenhower story. I don't know anything about this, but you MUST be omitting very important parts of the story. If Eisenhower murdered a foreign head of state for profit he would be a convicted war criminal. Are you suggesting that there was a global conspiracy involving the entire international legal community such that such a crime would go unpunished? That's wild stuff. Please, tell us the rest of the story.
Chuck: You're right, Afghanistan has proven to be one of the most ungovernable countries in world history. The chances that democracy takes hold in Iraq, with their vast oil resources that Afghanistan lacks, are much greater.
Pete,
This is the same line you spun back in 2003, and you were unable to convince me then. Trust me, it won't work now! Here is, again, the main reason your argument, while impassioned and well-written, does not apply to the Iraq War:
For the one millionth time, we went to war to "find weapons of mass destruction." I don't know why card carrying "independents" such as yourself simply don't find this relevant, other than the fact it would be extremely inconvenient to do so. Even if I believed all your arguments about it being good for the Middle East that there be a stable democracy there, it doesn't apply here! That's not why they wen't to war! If you asked me, that wouldn't even by why they "really" went to war! It wouldn't be to facilitate "mutually beneficial transactions" amongst the world's people with the world's oil, it would be to facilitate getting oil for us, the country that uses most of it! But that doesn't even matter anymore. That's all conjecture, and you can guess and I can guess why we went to war and that won't change that it had nothing to do, outwardly, with regime change for the sake of the world's people. You write that "Iraq was a logical place to begin this necessary redistribution campaign." That wasn't the campaign! You've never found this important, and I've never understood why. You think the ends justify the means, but the chances of your ends being met are weak, at best, and the means are getting more and more desperate. Fuck John Murtha and Howard Dean: they're wrong. We have to stay and fix this, because we can't leave Iraq worse than we found it, which is what we'd be doing. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make the eventually completed war a succesful one, either. There are many successful outcomes that involve the U.S. leaving Iraq that don't produce your shining city on a hill, and they're all more probably than your dream scenario, where Iraq is the great inspiration to the rest of the Middle East. And that has always been a longshot. But, like Republicans accuse liberals of doing, you're thinking with your heart, not with your brain. It's admirable, but it's wrong, and it's terrible foreign policy.
Let me also say this: generalizing your attacks to a "nebulous" group of people could lend itself to charges of ignorance, could it not? Since all these people live in the same area and look the same, can we draw a one-to-one connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Of course not, and you say as much. But you say there is a "nebulous" connection. You're going to draw your conclusions based on a "nebulous" connection between these people? Well, that's extremely convenient for you for linking 9/11 to the Iraq War, which was wrong when you first did it and wrong now, but if you admit the connections are "nebulous," you're undermining your own argument, which is fine with me. I just want to you figure out why you're making these connections in the first.
Check what I wrote. The group of people is nebulous, not the connection between Saddam and terror.
Also check what your elected representatives in Congress signed off on. Here are excerpts from the resolution authorizing the war...read them and tell me that WMD were the only reason we went to war:
"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region...
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'...
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
I'm 100% behind this Congress too, Pete.
(that was sarcastic)
Pete,
After this entire debate the issue that separates us seems clear to me. Neither of us wants an immediate withdrawal and both of us want to see an empowered Iraqi population. The difference is evident in this statement:
“I believe that those in power do understand that, fundamentally, IF our country abuses other parts of the world, it will hurt us in the long term.”
Are you f*cking kidding?!? Am I debating with a Boy Scout born with the memory of a goldfish?
The fundamental difference between us is that I understand (as our forefathers did) that people in power tend to abuse it (check History) and that checks-and-balances and transparency and accountability and constitutionally defined limits of power are of paramount importance.
You say:
“You have zero evidence for what I have to call your conspiracy theories regarding profiteering.”
Isn't our President awarding no-bid contracts to Haliburton already?
And about the Eisenhower story: I give you a specific, confirmable example of big business lobbying Washington to commit crimes and what is your response…
“You MUST be omitting very important parts of the story. If Eisenhower murdered a foreign head of state for profit he would be a convicted war criminal.”
News flash Pete: U.S. Presidents (with their Security Council veto) are not held accountable for war crimes. As I pointed out this month in the case ‘Nicaragua v. United States’ the International Court of Justice DID convict the Reagan administration of war crimes. But we just declared the ruling ‘erred’ stating that the WORLD Court didn’t have ‘jurisdiction’ to hear the case!!!
Pete, I could give you 101 examples of our country abusing other parts of the world, but it is clear that you refuse to look into any of them. You only counter like an automaton that I MUST be wrong, end of story.
"The fundamental difference between us is that I understand (as our forefathers did) that people in power tend to abuse it (check History) and that checks-and-balances and transparency and accountability and constitutionally defined limits of power are of paramount importance."
Nowhere in anything I wrote above did I argue against the importance of checks, balances, transparency, accountability and limited power, and in fact, the above can be considered an argument for these things to spread across the globe, i.e., Iraq.
Further, I don't deny that those in power tend to abuse it, but I believe that they know when they are doing this if they do it, but I believe that checks and balances work to mitigate this. In addition to these checks I also think that as humanity evolves and the global situation improves, actions of leaders can and will conform more and more to their intentions and history has borne this out as well. (See our Framer's views on slavery and women, their decisions at the time, and the improved situation now for one such example.)
As for your evidence of conspiracy in Iraq, no-bid contracts to Halliburton. I suppose, technically speaking, this is some evidence, so I should not have said you have zero evidence and I apologize for that, but this is why I pointed out the difference between correlation and causation. To establish a conspiracy you need to show that the fact that the government's legal determination that Halliburton is so far ahead of all other candidates for these certain jobs CAUSED the President and Congress to go to war. Correlation doesn't cut it. Not even close.
I no little to nothing about International Law, and I did say that I had never heard of the Eisenhower issue, but if an American President really murdered a foreign head of state purely for profit, and wasn't brought to justice because of some type of blanket immunity, then there is likely something very wrong with the international legal system or some other very complex considerations at play here. I'm still not sure how relevant that seemingly entirely unrelated acts of Eisenhower undertaken 50 years ago are to the topic of this post, but can you please direct me to your source on this matter?
Who is the International Court of Justice anyway? Are China and Syria on their Human Rights Committee? (Really, I don't know. I'm just a Boy Scout automoton born with a memory of a goldfish, so how could I be expected to, really?)
Here's a piece from the History News Network about the US withdrawal from the "World Court."
http://hnn.us/articles/1465.html
Interesting, but it's not related to this post unless you want to indict Bush for War Crimes.
using 20/20 vision, i guess we should have never even bothered going to Afghanistan, right? because we didn't get Bin Laden and haven't even destroyed the Taliban (it still controls many areas of the country).
and consider: afghanistan is where the people that did 9/11 were. You just admitted they are hopeless, so we just ignored them (essentially, by only committing limited resources).....but we are then going to win their "hearts and minds" when they see Democracy in Iraq?????
(despite the fact that we dismissed their chance of rebuilding and self-governance)
Screwy logic.
Pete,
You are right. This debate is not about what Eisenhower did 50 years ago.
However, I believe the first step to looking objectively at U.S. foreign policy, the first step towards considering that the current administration is capable of abuses, is demonstrating how former administrations have committed similar abuses under similar circumstances.
I am try to get you to reevaluate your ‘America-is-always-the-good-guy’ line using the most overt and confirmable examples of abuse...like the Iran-Contra Affair.
The only reason that we must look at atrocities from 50 years ago is because it takes that long for the truth to come out! It wasn’t until 1997 (through the Freedom of Information Act) that the CIA was forced to declassify some 1400 pages in regards to the Guatemalan destabilization program of the 1950s.
I wrote a post in August "Killing 3 birds with one stone" which gives a brief overview of the motives and the criminality of the destabilization program. All of my points in the post link to official CIA documents now open to the public at The National Security Archive, in the Gelman Library of George Washington University in D.C., including a DIY manual for assassination!
Once you can admit that U.S. Presidents are capable of unjustifiable atrocities we can move forward with this debate.
...specifically atrocities at the behest of big business.
Bob: You say that:
"I am try(ing) to get you to reevaluate your ‘America-is-always-the-good-guy’ line using the most overt and confirmable examples of abuse...like the Iran-Contra Affair."
In response I can only say that I NEVER stated or implied that America is ALWAYS 'the good guy.' What I have stated and implied repeatedly is that America is 'the good guy' with respect to the decision to go to War in Iraq, which, politically, is, by far, the most important issue to be reconciled by the American electorate as soon as possible.
It is telling that no one has directly responded to this:
"I make decisions so as to mitigate the worst case scenario. My view of the worst case scenario in the world right now is if Howard Dean's and John Murtha's calls for immediate withdrawal are heeded. At this point in time, I think that the worst that the American right has to offer is a threat far easier contained by our legal system than global terrorist networks (i.e. the danger presented if the worst the American left had their way w/r/t Iraq and the use of U.S. power.)"
Perhaps a topic for a fresh post?
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Oh, and Chuck...yes. That's exactly what I'm saying: I'm confident that we will win their hearts and minds in Iraq. Eventually.
Way to go Pete, you have inspired me to, for the first the time, participate in political banter here on the Chief Source. I will take a few moments to respond to your ideas about democracy in the Middle East and its corollary healing powers for the world. Democracy in Iraq will not necessarily improve national security here in the United States, nor will it necessarily improve stability in the region. Democracy in Iraq as the remedy for our national security problems is a hollow concept and fails to identify other important variables which contribute to our state of national insecurity. I will leave it to you to surmise what our true goals are in destroying Saddam Hussein’s regime and formulating a new Iraqi government if it is not democracy.
Your argument as I have read it is this: the United States must involve itself guaranteeing a working democracy in Iraq, which will serve as the springboard for stability in the region generally. This, in the end, means increased security here at home. As you see it, where democracy does not exist in the world, certain negative externalities result (e.g., political and economic oppression, political instability, violence and hatred). You believe that democracy in Iraq will provide a means for Iraqi self-determinism (and that the Iraqis will then choose a more stable and less hateful future); that democracy will facilitate the redistribution of wealth in Iraq; and democracy will provide Iraqis with a vehicle to dismantle oppressive, terrorist power. I disagree with your contention that democracy is necessarily the facilitator of the ends you seek. Perhaps these ends can be achieved within democracy, but I do not believe that they are necessarily related.
It is important to note that what constitutes “democracy” is an essentially contested concept – it is a relatively hollow term. There are many forms of democracy. Models of democracy include: classical democracy, republicanism, liberal democracy, direct democracy, competitive elitism and pluralism. Some scholars, though, do not describe democracy in a normative sense, as is done when describing a particular model of democracy, but, rather, describes democracy as a fluid, adapting concept characterized by meaningful conversation, under which the citizenry is engaged by ongoing public conversation about public policy. Depending on one’s particular vision of democracy, she may pick and choose among theories to support her vision. Some argue for a strain of direct democracy, supported by theories of pluralism, self-government, public choice, majoritarian rule, self-determinism and equality. Others argue for a form of representative democracy, supported by theories of populism, republicanism and deliberation. Still others argue for a blend of both, mixing and matching the various underlying theories. Depending on one’s conception of democracy, all relevant positions make government simultaneously more and less democratic. So depending on your particular world view (or political objective), democracy, can be formulated in a variety of ways, all of which have consequences for the society over which it operates. First, those who argue that democracy in Iraq is the solution to U.S. national insecurity fail to adequately describe what they mean by “democracy.” Second, they fail to identify how their conception of democracy, as it operates in Iraq, will dismantle the circumstances which contribute to hatred for the United States. It is critical to identify democracy as it has been formulated in Iraq and explain how it will produce the ends which you seek. To say that democracy is the answer is simply too simplistic.
Moreover, history teaches us that democracies, just as dictatorships, can produce tyranny and are often at odds with individual liberty. Democracy was used as a tool to protect the property rights of the aristocracy in Rome (which led to public support for would-be dictator Julius Caesar); democracy put Hitler in power in Germany; and democracy allowed for the forcible internment of 120,000 Japanese people in our country following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Just as James Madison understood the problems associated with consolidated wealth in a society, he also understood “democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have generally been short in their lives as violent in their deaths.” Madison feared that “factions” would form in democratic societies and would wield their power unjustly over minority groups. Democracy does not magically alleviate problems faced by societies; it simply shifts power away from the individual and puts it in the hands of the majority. Just as a dictator can be righteous, a democratic government can be tyrannical.
I think it too simplistic to argue that democracy should be our goal in Iraq and presume that it will further our security interests. Perhaps progress can be made within Iraqi democracy, but it is also as likely that the problems could be exacerbated. Surely, I agree that the world is better of without Saddam Hussein in power, but there are deep-seeded and underlying issues which must be identified, assessed and addressed in order to ensure our national security in the future. I get riled up (and motivated to write lengthy responses such as this) when I see justification for wartime activity resting on buzz words that evoke emotional responses of what is right and wrong in the world (i.e., democracy = good; fascism = bad). These words are used over and over by governments justifying their wartime activities. I view such descriptions of our foreign policy as devices for public support, rather than real articulation of our goals. They serve to disguise our true objectives in Iraq. I am not saying that is what you are doing here, but I suspect you may be falling prey to power of buzz word.
Michael, If I could I would shake your hand - Thank you kindly for the most detailed and clear and honest summation of the whole mess in Iraq.
I only wish that our righty friends would listen to someone as you who is clearly a learned and objective student of history- and a scholar and probably a gentleman also.
I must add in support of your essay : DEMOCRACY FOR IRAQ IS THE BIG LIE!
The perpetrators of this war could not care less what form of government (fascist, democratic, communist, etc, etc) emerges in Iraq.....just as long as that Govt. butters THEIR bread!
So just as Michael is politely trying to inform you on this score, would you please wake up and stop swallowing all the buzz-phrases and propaganda that is omnipresent in our Nation?
& Finally, we would undoubtedly be much , much, safer from the Al Quida terrorist network - HAD WE NEVER INVADED IRAQ AND KEPT FOCUSED ON FIGHTING THE REAL WAR ON TERROR (Covertly and by many other means)
Catching Osama Bin Laden would have beeen a good sign also.
Thank You Michael and may you always think so clear
Mike,
You quite eloquently restated the thrust my argument in your second paragraph but then only go on to say that sometimes democracy doesn't work. While I wasn't specific, I think it's well known that the democracy in Iraq that is emerging is a Constitutional Democracy much like ours, but no matter. I don't see how pointing out that certain types of democracy have failed and even ours remains imperfect addresses my argument, which is based on the simple premise that people who know self determination and have more to live for are less likely to become terrorists, and less likely to tolerate terrorism. Also, we are safer with the great resources of Iraq out of the hands of Saddam.
I'm surprised by your statement that I'm somehow caught up in "buzzwords" when I have asserted logical connections between democracy and terror. If you don't find them logical, please point out where they are illogical.
Post a Comment
<< Home