An Open Mind on Iraq

I think in conversation you would find that my political sentiments are more complex than one category would encompass. I have been reading articles/postings by people who identify themselves as conservatives to better appreciate their points of view, most notably Winds of Change.

I’m happy to see the Iraqis celebrating in Baghdad. They deserve all that and more. Tom Friedman, while speaking with Tom Brokaw, just compared the American military action in Iraq to Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt. I pray it does have a truly liberating impact in the long run. I have always known that this invasion would be good for the Iraqi people, bless them. Does that sound strange to some of you? I don’t know of anyone who would deny the Ba’ath Party’s bloodthirsty domination of the country (please, I would be interested if there is someone besides its members who are defending its actions). My brother’s ex-girlfriend was Iraqi (they were engaged during the first Gulf War) and her family knew the reality of the situation. But isn’t this a war of American self-preservation?

America has a right to defend itself. We do not need permission for this, but realistically we do need to work with other nations. My concerns have more to do with our relationship with other nations as we act autonomously. What other nations (China or North Korea, for example) might take this as a cue to act autonomously for what they present as the higher moral good or simply for (their) national security? That is why the United Nations could not support the true intentions of the United States, that is, to remove Saddam Hussein and his clan from power. Who would be next? And where does it stop?

Also, and I know some are already saying they haven’t seen this, but the invasion of Iraq still could encourage greater resistance by those radical conservatives (depends on which way you are facing — to them, we are the liberals, which shares the same root as liberation, incidentally) opposed to American actions. American-style freedom and Wahabist purity are not partners, no matter how many people dance in Baghdad. Hell, Bush-style Christianity and Islam cannot co-exist peacefully! Rumsfeld in press conference just admitted that our intelligence reports movement of Iraqi forces into, and also through, Syria. So our struggle to quell the fires of anti-American terrorism will continue. But you knew that, I hope.

Tim Russert, also speaking with Tom Brokaw (Hey, I get 2 ½ channels — give me a break. I prefer ABC, but it doesn’t always tune in.) just estimated that we will have a 500 to 600 trillion dollar deficit next year. Why? We must pay for this war, and not just the war, but the rebuilding of Iraq in our own image (well, be honest — that’s the plan).

And talk about a forgotten war — we still haven’t finished the job in Afghanistan! Right now we have troops stationed there who are still fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The president of Afghanistan came begging to Congress for aid and was turned down. The capital is free, but the countryside is, once again, under control by independent chieftans (okay, warlords, if you need the emotionally charged derogatory term).

Our media filters us. And the majority of Americans support the war. But I wish we were better informed as a people about our complicity in creating the current situation in the Middle East. Does anyone remember America selling weapons to Iran? To Iraq? It’s still relevant. Our sanctions hurt the Iraqi people more than it did the dictatorship. The Middle East yet has its own media with a different picture of the world. The problem is not one of factual inaccuracies but cultural biases.

The original American conservatives discouraged foreign entanglements. Some of you might read this as, “F**k the United Nations, we’ll do as we please,” but I do not. It means we exemplify the virtues we hold dear without unnecessarily generating ill-will (Mr. Washington was speaking against supporting the nascent French Revolution. Was he wrong?). Eisenhower, also a conservative, warned against the collusion of the military-industrial complex (notably, this observation was made on his way out of the White House). Yes, the Iraqis will benefit, but who else will benefit? And, no, this war is not just about oil, but it also isn’t not about oil (i.e. power).

But there is a bigger question — can Israel and Iraq hold hands? Can Muslims and Jews live in peace? Even more — can the Americans and British live in peace in a post-war Iraq? The complexity has not been reduced by taking Baghdad.

Americans tend to be short-sighted. Our media encourage, if not foster, this. Let’s follow through on our promises this time. But keep your eye on the money trail. Hmm, how much should the Iraqis pay for their freedom?

Posted by Mike at April 9, 2003 02:01 PM | TrackBack