The election of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestine's new President
signifies the installation (tentatively, at least) of democracy in Iraq...
perhaps the foundation of a glorious new age.
Praise Allah.
While this is all well and good, and I hope it is only the beginning of a
process that continues to flourish in that country— regardless of how it
occurred, let’s not forget why Bush actually became involved with Iraq in
the first place. The Bush Administration would have us believe that
liberating Iraq... bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq... was the ultimate
intention from the start. Indirectly and subsequently, that is true
enough--- by the consequential removal of oppressive terrorist influences
there.
It has also been suggested that the motives for the American incursion into Iraq
was oil, or establishing an American presence in that region, or the
conquest by American Imperialism.
However, I do recall something about retribution and vengeance— er, I mean
justice-- against Al Qaeda for their heinous acts of terror against The United States
on 9/11. We “invaded” Iraq to capture or kill Bin Laden & the Al Qaeda evil-doers, right?
Maybe there was a connection between former dictator Saddam and Al Qaeda.
Or was it just that Sadam Hussein is a very bad man, brutally and
indiscriminately killing and maiming his own people. No, wait... it was
because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (allegedly), which he had
every intention and means of using against America and/or its allies. Oh,
and by the way, they’re still really looking for Bin Laden.
Aha! Freedom. We can create a democracy for Iraq!
Yeah, that’s it! Let’s go with that one. The American people, if they
generally accepted every other explanation the government provided, will
certainly buy that. Mmm… gives me a warm fuzzy all over. And Bush accused John Kerry of flip-flopping. The irony!
Remember, Bush never could make up his mind about why he was involving
The United States in Iraqi affairs. He never expressed publicly a definite and clear
objective for the mission, changing his mind to suit the situation and
justify his decisions to the American people, and the world. Whatever the
reason, it was not initially freedom, nor democracy.
Typically, the American government does not act— domestically or abroad—
without a self-interest of some kind. Even though America is very much an egotistic and
self-centered nation, she is often idealized and turned into a cliché that borders on fiction. Through a kind of guilt by association, Americans are presumed special by virtue or vice of being American or so they frequently like to believe. They’ve largely become comfortable and comforted in their magnanimous magnificence. They commonly wear their citizenship like a badge of courage, a status symbol denoting pompous and arrogant self-importance.
It’s in all the U.S. propaganda, which many non-Americans also usually accept as a truism. Even if people in other countries dislike and distrust American government,
they more often than not seem to have a favorable opinion of Americans as individuals; as well as supporting American ideals.
It is the right and responsibility of free individuals of a free nation to
question the motivations of their government, not to be lulled into a false
sense of security. Please, do not fool yourself (or allow yourself to be fooled) into thinking that the contemporary American government is fundamentally altruistic or philanthropic, helping Iraq merely out of a sense of compassion or sympathy. The American government “helped” Iraq because doing so serves, or is meant to serve American interests.
Sure, there are many individuals— American citizens-- who are glad and eager
for aid and assistance to be given to those in need; but that is only a
secondary, incidental concern for the government. First and foremost, the
government of the United States of America is an institution focused on the
pragmatic and practical. As a capitalist society, America expects to get something in exchange for what it gives. It is a nation that has been built on debt and ownership and possession. Historically, the primary goal of government (and its politicians) is to secure and protect its own political interests, doing nothing that deliberately compromises its own security and power (if that can be avoided). If we’re very lucky, this will coincide with ensuring and maintaining the interests and security of the governed.
Considering Iraq, it’s one thing to infiltrate foreign territory to remove a threat; it’s something completely different to then occupy that territory and construct, essentially, a U.S. satellite that will probably tend to serve American interests (out of gratitude for all our help, of course). In his recent state of the union address, Bush said that he has no desire or intention to make other nations be like America, preferring to respect and foster their individuality. Although I can believe he may not have any explicit intentions, I suspect he does want every nation to be like America. Inadvertently or not, by guiding Iraq to form a democracy modeled on and overseen by America, is he not doing exactly that? I’m just saying. America is Great, as we all know; there’s no denying that. Why wouldn’t other countries (want to) be like U.S.? Why shouldn’t they, if America is truly the greatest nation ever conceived? It only makes sense, right? We’d be doing the world a favor! Everyone can be saved! It’s our manifest destiny… providence, ordained by God.
But the way the POTUS George W. Bush talks about freedom, I’m not convinced he really knows what it is.
It seems to me that, for Bush, freedom and democracy are little more than buzzwords, abstract concepts and vague political notions. Which would be, I suppose, consistent with most of the Americans he represents as leader of the so-called free world. He speaks of these terms like a child recites the Pledge of Allegiance… not appearing to truly comprehend what he says. I get the same impression when he speaks of terror and evildoers. This habit of simplification is potentially quite dangerous, especially in a President (of the only remaining super power) operating under a self appointed mandate for a war on terror that is (he claims) approved and authorized by God Himself. I question Bush (just as I questioned Clinton when he was in office) because, as a nation that at least touts itself as the guardian of freedom, we must be vigilant against all threats, foreign and domestic, potential and actual.
So we have to ask ourselves, and government agents, whether or not the intentions were honorable. And if we are going to live up to and fulfill the ideals America is (supposed to be) based on, then we should also need to look beyond only our own interests and welfare, as so many people in so many nations voluntarily did for those who suffered the devastation of the Tsunami in China. We should choose to do good for others, as well as ourselves, because it is good… not because it is a photo op, or might look impressive on a resume. The point being: did Bush free Iraq for their sake or for America’s? Oh, well. All’s well that ends well? Well…?
I guess history will be the judge, and only time will tell.
So who’s next on the agenda, Mr. President? North Korea? Africa? The schools
and Inner-cities of America?
And while we’re on the topic, is all terrorism necessarily and absolutely bad? Think about it. One man’s freedom fighter, they say, is another man’s terrorist. Not that I’m condoning Al Qaeda, or their policies. Certainly not. Not just NO, but HELL NO.
Their beliefs and attitudes of oppression are appalling, reprehensible, even if those who support their cause may have a legitimate grievance against America. I am an advocate of war on any terrorism (but not on terror, which is an idea) that promotes a defense of subjugation— whether by the State or from religion, against one’s own people or someone else’s. As long as it isn’t used as an excuse or a tool for political expediency and convenience, a war on terror has my endorsement.
Or maybe I have no idea what I’m talking about.
Hey, it could happen.
