Friday, June 20, 2014
The 'Debate' over Iraq: Insanity vs. Reason
by Tom Kando
As predicted, Iraq is collapsing. The country was never viable. Its borders were established artificially by the colonial powers during the first half of the 20th century, in documents like the Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France in 1916 and the British Balfour Declaration in 1917. Artificial multi-ethnic countries can be held together by dictators (Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Tito in Yugoslavia, etc.), but otherwise they often break apart.
Vice President Biden was right all along: partitioning could be the best solution. Let the Kurds go. Biden, by the way, has long been wise and knowledgeable, both in domestic and foreign policy. The fact that he is often derided as a buffoon by the media is ridiculous and contrary to fact.
The real buffoons are the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz neo-con gang that got us into the Iraq war. This should not be open to discussion. Yet there IS a discussion and that is preposterous. There is “DEBATE” about (1)whether or not the US should go back into Iraq, and (2) who was right - the neo-cons or those opposed to the Iraq war, like President Obama!
The problem is NOT the neo-cons. Obviously they were utterly wrong, and they are totally discredited. The problem is that they are invited to the debate NOW! The problem is that the media and a sizable segment (perhaps a plurality) of the American public feels that “there are two sides to this issue”!
That makes some of you the problem, my friends! Do you have any memory? Do you remember the weapons-of-mass-destruction charade in 2003 and the lies that were obvious even then?
There was France’s vehement effort at the United Nations to convince us not to invade Iraq. Do you remember the gross insults that country got from American politicians and comedians like Jay Leno, with idiocies like “freedom fries”? Colin Powell, at least, warned us of the Pottery Barn principle: If you break it, you own it. But the Bushies insisted on breaking Iraq. And some of you DARE blame Obama for what is happening now? Pottery Barn, alright: Bush broke it, and now Obama owns it.
The mouthpieces of the military-plutocratic complex - nauseating Fox characters like Sean Hannity, Charles Krauthammer and George Will - are predictable. Nothing new there.
But what is truly aggravating is the disorientation of even presumably “liberal” media and the allegedly “independent” public.
National Public Radio just held a “table discussion” about Iraq: It concluded with the following “question”: Would it be better today if the current occupant of the White House were someone who had originally supported the invasion of Iraq, or opposed it (as President Obama did)? What sort of imbecile question is this?
How cowardly and conservative have the media become? Must they always equivocate, in the name of “balance”? Do we need to discuss the pros and cons of the Holocaust or AIDS?
In a recent article in the left-leaning news service Reader Supported News, Robert Parry writes that Obama is “At the Crossroad of War or Peace:” The President should “get off his moral high horse” and become more of a “tough guy.” To be sure, Parry does not advocate war for America, just more assertive diplomatic engagement, and a re-alignment based on more cooperation with Putin and Iran, and less kowtowing to Israel and to Saudi Arabia. Whatever.
What is flabbergasting is that so many are blaming Obama for current foreign debacles - in Iraq, in Ukraine, in Libya and everywhere else. A recent poll shows him to be at an all-time low popularity in terms of his foreign policies.
When will Americans learn that sometimes doing LESS is better than doing more? Remember the Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm!
Have people no memory? What about the 5,000 dead American soldiers, the 100,000 maimed American veterans, the quarter million dead Iraqis, the $2 trillion spent, the destruction of an entire country...for zero gain to America!
And the US should go back in and start indiscriminate bombing?
While we are at it, we might as well start military actions in Yemen, Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine, Libya and a dozen other hot spots. Why not.
Here are some countries that “do less” (saber rattling): China, Europe, Japan, Australia, Canada. Is it a coincidence that they all thrive? While the American middle class disappears, our infrastructure and schools rot, our industry vanishes, the dollar declines, public health struggles, our balance of trade remains as bad as ever, our federal budget deficit grows.
Madness.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
9 comments:
As a former reporter, I am amazed that the media are giving Chaney a platform. The man has been demonstrably, disastrously wrong about everything, but there he is today, owlishly spouting nonsense to attentive reporters. You can write a straight news story and still point out the numerous occasions when Chaney didn't know what he was talking about. That's not being unfair. Indeed, it is merely being fair to the reader.
Chuck McFadden
Chuck is right.
Remember when ex-president George W. Bush said:
"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...hmm...well, you shouldn't fool me..."
or, as Rick Perry would say: Dick Cheney is wrong for three reasons: (1) Iraq was not Al Qaeda's home base, (2) Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction and (3)...well, there must a third reason...
why is it that Americans disregard the history of the middle East. Sectarian wars have been going on forever. The ONLY reason middle Eastern wars (ie. sectarian and tribal wars) abate is because a dictator rules.
I am with you Tom. Well said.
Following WWII and the coming of the Cold War, the establishment of the National Security State, and the Military Industrial Complex taking root, the American press, as well as Congress, fell under a historically unprecedented spell, to coin a phrase. After the fall of the Soviet Union, whatever opening there was for a return to pre-World War II civil society ended with 9/11, when the National Security State morphed into a Homeland Security State and gave rise to what Andrew Bacevich calls the new American militarism. Given these transforming givens, it's not just the Middle East that policy makers and the press routinely get wrong. A good and timely post, Tom.
Tom, I want to modify your statement by saying " Artificial multi-ethnic countries can be held together by force, but otherwise they often break apart.
There can be systems of governance that have the force of a dictator, for example the U.S. government, that employ force but are not dictatorial. This system prevented Southern secession by force, and later the secession of Texas, and would fight off violence perpetrated by a sectarian revolt of any type.
The difference between the U.S. and Iraqi regime is the degree to which it can muster its force. Citizens in the U.S. still consider the regime legitimate (although this legitimacy is eroding) and, as a result, soldiers will not drop their weapons and go home.
Of course, the US began with a voluntary assent by all states but even if the system had been imposed and remained impartial, it would have earned legitimacy.
The problem today, for the US, is the two political parties that are becoming new factions with ideological loyalties ever as schismatic as Sunni and Shia allegiances in Iraq. This type of factionalism, which Madison and other warned against, could plunge the US into violence if one party gets its way at the expense of the members of the other party and the regime does not serve the well-being of all.
I don’t know why you are upset Tom, Obama has done LESS: LESS border control, LESS VA benefits, LESS integrity and impartiality in the IRS, LESS compromise with the House, LESS employment, LESS respect in the world, LESS security in the world, LESS armed forces morale, LESS medical choice, LESS transparency, LESS freedom of speech, LESS privacy, LESS media independence, LESS family values, etc.
Thank you, Sylvia and anonymous #1.
Gordon: I agree with you that “force” can take many forms.
Regarding the US, and the extent to which our regime is still accepted as legitimate by the American people: I see the problem as essentially the growing and largely successful power grab by the plutocracy. The theft of the 2000 presidential election, the stacking of the Supreme Court, the erosion of voting rights through poll-tax-like legislation under the guise of combating voting fraud (a pseudo-problem), the destruction of the labor movement and the public sector, etc...
Others feel that the problem is the rise of the “gimme” state, everyone wanting free rides and government handouts... Either way, I agree with you that our problems in this regard are mounting.
Second anonymous: I love the many things which Obama is doing less: less war, less torture in Guantanamo, less squandering money on boondoggles, less environmental pollution, less lying (biggest lie of the century: weapons of mass destruction), less medically uninsured people, less Wall Street fraud and theft, less racism, less unemployment.
As far as your other “lesses” are concerned, obviously you don’t know what you are talking about. Obviously you don’t dare go overseas. Respect in the world for the US? Far more now. At no time in memory was there as much loathing for us as during Bush. Transparency, security, freedom of speech, media independence, etc: you are wrong on all counts. All these were at a nadir during Bush.
For 6 years, Obama has had to clean up the mess created by his predecessor, the worst president we ever had.
“Less family values” is also Obama’s fault? Right. And so are Hurricane Katrina, World War Two,the Miami Heat’s loss of the NBA championship, my bicycle accident, your friend’s divorce..
National Public Radio just held a “table discussion” about Iraq: It concluded with the following “question”: Would it be better today if the current occupant of the White House were someone who had originally supported the invasion of Iraq, or opposed it (as President Obama did)? What sort of imbecile question is this?
NPR feels threatened by Republicans who have discussed eliminating or reducing funding to NPR because NPR is too liberal. I suppose this is NPR’s idea of trying to show both sides of the issue and keep the fundamentalists out of their pocketbook.
I almost never watch or listen to newscasters because so many of them seem to be teleprompter readers with attractive upper bodies, but have never spent a day of their lives either digging up the news or simply sitting back and taking a look at what they are saying on the air.
On the humorous side. I did watch the NPR television coverage of the last national election. The vote count was stuck on about 210 to 210 with about 270 needed. The commentators continued to discuss a number of smaller states and how they would go and really worked hard to keep the contest alive. Gwenn Eiffel kept asking the analysts who was likely to win. I could see one of the commentators looking sheepish and squirming in front of the camera, because he must have been told to hold the audience until the last possible moment.
Finally, about 7 PM, I looked and Jane and said, “Can’t they do simple math? California is sitting there with about 60 electoral votes. It has been over for hours.”
How many people were sucked in by that charade?
Makes one wonder about the effects of innumeracy in the general population. I don’t have to wonder about the state of TV and radio news. Ugh
I agree with Dennis.
His example of how lame the media can be is good.
I do find NPR valuable,though, particularly when considering the alternative(s). I sure hope it doesn't get defunded altogether.The government contribution to its budget has already been whittled down a lot.
When driving around town on errands, I prefer to listen to NPR than to KFBK, where the grotesque Rush Limbaugh holds court.
Not only is NPR one of the few remaining civilized channels as far as political commentary is concerned, but its musical programming is wonderful - classical, jazz and otherwise...
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!