Why We Must Leave Iraq ASAPIt’s the Only Way to Fight Our Real Enemy

The first awful, horrendous truth is we don’t know our own real enemy. It’s not Al Qaeda, it’s not Saddam Hussein, and it’s not terror. None of these pose a threat to the existence of our democracy. Properly managed, Al Qaeda has far less ability to inflict physical injury on Americans than do Americans who misuse hand guns and automatic weapons. In 2005, handguns killed over 30,000 people in America. Even with these deaths, we do not feel our democracy is in danger.

The second awful, horrendous truth is that almost all our elected Democratic and Republican leaders incorrectly believe there is no enemy. They do correctly understand that we are not fighting the war in Iraq against an enemy, but rather for a reason-a strategic objective: the control of Middle Eastern oil. But our elected leaders are wrong in thinking there is no enemy.

The third awful, horrendous truth is that almost all our elected Democratic and Republican leaders secretly agree that the control of Middle Eastern oil is a valid reason for going to war. In 1999, Bill Clinton’s defense department secretly identified oil as a valid rationale for war. In 2003, George Bush told the nation he was taking our country into war to protect us against weapons of mass destruction and to fight Al Qaeda, but we now know that the administration knew that neither rationale was supported by fact. The real rationale, the secret the Bush administration engineered false intelligence to cover up, was oil.

Everyone knows we went to war for oil, but no one acknowledges this fact because our elected leaders on both sides of the aisle agree that taking control of Iraqi oil is good for America.

That’s why presently the Iraqi parliament is contemplating legislation that will open 80% of Iraqi oil reserves to the market under terms that almost guarantee the largest American-based oil companies will control them for decades to come. That’s why the U.S. congress makes no comment on this oil-theft arrangement, stays stone silent on the obvious need for complete nationalization of Iraqi oil in order to fund the reconstruction that the Bush administration has bungled, and pushes instead for “milestones” that require the Iraqi government to accept an all but wholesale privatization of its largest natural resource.

Because our elected leaders all think taking control of Iraqi oil is good for America, none of them understand why we really do have an enemy and just who that enemy is.

Trading Principle for Mistaken Self-Interest: The reason taking control of Iraqi oil is bad for America is that it is bad for American democracy. Democratic principles do not allow our government to take by unprovoked force a people’s natural resources just because we find it in our “vital self-interest” to do so. The war for oil rationale argues that it is ok to put self-interest ahead of democratic principle when it is necessary for our survival.

First off, war for oil is not in the least necessary for our survival. Second, even if it were, the idea that survival is more important than retaining the integrity of one’s principles is highly controversial and ought to be subject to considerable debate before being acted upon.

Consider the Trade of the Classroom of Children: If a gun was pointed at your head in a class room of children and you were given a gun and told to kill them or die, what would you do? Murder of children is against your principles. Is survival worth it to you if you must become a mass-child-murderer to do so?

I would venture to say that at least 50% of the people would say that under such circumstances they would cling to the integrity of their principles in death rather than kill to survive.

So if oil is really necessary to the survival of America as a nation, we should all be aware that we are killing tens and tens of thousands of children to survive. This is what we are choosing to do, without a doubt, because, the rationale goes, we think it is necessary to our survival. If we survive, however, we will no longer be a democratic nation. We will be a child murdering one, instead. So long as we fail to retract our troops, this is what we have become.

Although our elected leaders all believe that taking control of oil is good for America, none dare say so because they know it is an indefensible violation of our democratic principles. Our elected leaders simply think that the integrity of our democratic principles is not really that important where the amount of killing done and the amount of oil stolen can be covered up with false political rhetoric. No other rationale explains their silence on the theft of Iraqi oil.

Sadly, these politicians not only sin against democracy in trading principle for self-interest, they gravely mistake whose interest the oil will really serve.

The fourth awful, horrendous truth is that the control of oil achieved by the war in Iraq will not be American-it will be private, corporate control by a tiny, elite, incredibly rich portion of our population who are themselves an enemy to American democracy.

The time has come for the American voter to recognize that what’s good for Big Oil has nothing to do with what’s good for America.

The time has come for the American voter to recognize that Big Oil is a declared enemy of American democracy, creating false and monopolistic market pressures to drive up prices, funding the campaigns and election thefts of our government leaders, bankrolling billions of dollars of pseudo-science to mislead the public on global warming, and using the Cheney Energy Task Force and the National Security Agency to plot post-war control of Iraqi oil.

Big Oil has record profits and the world’s biggest corporations, but what have we got? We have over three thousand dead soldiers, tens of thousands of American wounded, the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on our hands, an unprecedented budget deficit, a twice un-elected and incompetent president, and the highest gas prices our nation has ever seen.

All this boils down to why we have to get out of Iraq, ASAP.

Every day we are in Iraq is a day we are enabling the global aspirations of Big Oil. Al Qaeda is not a stable or sizeable entity, Saddam is dead, Terror is an empty threat compared to the annual toll of breast cancer. What on earth has the capacity and the conscious motive to present itself as a realistic enemy to American Democracy? Only the world’s largest oil corporations hungry for ever greater concentration of wealth and power and possessed of a long history of corrupting government for personal profit at the expense of the public health, safety and welfare.

Our democracy is already on life-support. The more powerful Big Oil becomes, the more our democratic government is in danger. Little else has the size, sophistication, and means to overthrow are hard won government by the people. Big Oil is our real enemy.

Every day in Iraq is another day this enemy like a tick grows fatter on the blood and oil of Iraq. If we want to fight our real enemy, we will pull out of Iraq and keep our young men and women from serving as Big Oil’s henchmen for keeping the Iraqi people and government in line. Big Oil cannot pump oil from Iraqi oilfields where there is no security, infrastructure or stability. If Iraqis provide this security, infrastructure and stability on their own, they will quickly decide to kick Big Oil out of their precious oil fields.

For the Sake of the Iraqi People: Although chaos and violence will exist after America withdraws until the Iraqi people find a common purpose in rebuilding their society, all this chaos and violence has a cure so long as the soul of Iraq remains free. The oppression and poverty that will result from Big Oil control of the Iraqi economy, by contrast, has no cure but the end of Big Oil control over the Iraqi economy and the release of the Iraqi soul from Big Oil’s imperial army-ours. Therefore, for the sake of the Iraqi people as well as for the sake of American democracy, we need to pull our troops out of Iraq ASAP.

You can judge your politician by his or her willingness to: (1) defend Iraqi’s right to national control of oil, (2) to identify the need to remove Big Oil from the disastrous formula that is the

U.S. occupation of Iraq, and (3) to explain how the U.S. occupation serves to enable Big Oil to cheat the Iraqi people under the false cover of trying to “protect them.”

I propose that American voters form a voting coalition that will apply this standard as a test. Every U.S. congressperson and every U.S. senator should be given one month to issue a statement that unambiguously meets this standard. All members of the coalition should promise in the next election to vote against any member of congress who fails to issue an adequate statement within that one month period.

The time has come for voters to demand democratic principles be defended with integrity rather than traded for mistaken and corrupt conceptions of “American” self-interest. The time has come for voters to demand candor from our elected officials. The time has come for the people to unite against one of the only real threats to American democracy: Big Oil. And the time has come to leave Iraq-one more time-ASAP.

Hank Edson is an author, activist, and attorney based in San Francisco. His blog, “MP3-My Politics and Progressive Perspective,” can be found at: http://hankedson.squarespace.com .

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

17 Comments so far

voicefromSF July 23rd, 2007 12:24 pm

Thank you for stating the truth! I’m utterly sick of politicians (and the media) giving us the same blurb over and over again and ignoring this blatant reality. By not stating and standing up to the truth, these “leaders” of our society are partaking in a premediatated, and actually quite pathological, attempt to mislead the American people and make a mockery of us and our intelligence.

whatever4 July 23rd, 2007 12:30 pm

About leaving Iraq. I had a crazy thought. Just out of the blue. I would like to hear some ideas about how the feelings and attitudes of the Iraqi people (the people we’re worried will die in a civil war) might impact what happens in Iraq if we leave. How do they, their people, feel about US leaving?

I want to ask, might they be happy about it? It’s just a thought, forgive me if they won’t, I just know how I’d feel. If I were born there. If that had been MY country. I might be a little happy to see the occupiers leave, I might be overjoyed if they actually meant what they said and did what they promised.

If we left, truly left, to include the bases and the horrible Green Zone, and every facility they hate, would it be a huge relief? To them? And don’t we care? A relief to, you know, the people that live there, not the millions in the US so terrified that “they’ll follow us here.” Might it be something THEY pray for?

Would it be so terrible if we turned over these facilities and equipment to them? It might be expensive. I’m quite sure continuing our present course will be MUCH more expensive, and personally I have no idea how we’ll pay off what we’ve already incured. Add to this the potential for us to show real good will, and the dollar costs we can’t count, in terrorism.

Maybe it wouldn’t just be a “cut and run”. Maybe there would be a relieved, positive upswing to counter the “of course they’ll be killing each other!” civil war that EVERY one I read or see on tv says will occur.

To me, it’s just another case of asking ourselves…what if we’re wrong? Again?

Bernice July 23rd, 2007 12:53 pm

Before we made Iraq’s leaders emasculate their plan for peace and reconciliation of Thursday, June 22, 2006 it called for coalition forces to STOP killing civilians by raiding Iraqi homes in search of terrorists that may or may not be there; to set a firm schedule for withdrawal of all troops; to offer broad amnesty to former Baathists who were not supporters of Saddam just because they worked for the government and to re-employ them; to offer broad amnesty to insurgents who had not killed other Iraqis. This version was released only to The Times of London and was described in an article of June 23.

Needless to say, the US killed or weakened the above measures and some we don’t even know about because the total number of provisions shrank between Thursday and Sunday from 28 to 24 (The Times was not allowed to print the entire document). Only after the changes were made was the document released to the US media.

Iraq immediately became more violent as those Sunnis who expected reconciliation after months of negotiation were surprised by the document as released.
How many people have died because we made Iraq change what was probably a wise and workable plan for peace and for internal reconciliation among it various groups?

The Bush administration now blames the “weak” government of Iraq for its failure to achieve the benchmarks of reconciliation and the control of militias, etc. Nothing is ever their fault, you see, so in this case Al-Maliki must take the fall.

Which all leads up to the fact that the oil agreements the Iraqis are being pressured to sign were designed by the US State Dept (with the aid of “consultants”) prior to the 2003 invasion. The “surge” will keep us there, no doubt, until they sign. And the permanent bases will hold US soldiers on duty to protect the oil companies for the 25-30 years the agreements will run.

Impeach. Impeach. Impeach these violent, sleazy, truly stupid people who seem not to mind destroying the whole world while impoverishing the US and destroying our democracy.

gin July 23rd, 2007 1:32 pm

the prez should use that exec. order of last thursday to freeze and confiscate the oil companies assets. it’s perfect! nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. big oil off our backs and forced to pay for their corporate hostile takeover of a sovereign state using and abusing the taxpayer’s military. we can then beg forgiveness from the victims in iraq and begin reparations-big time.

Jeff Moehring July 23rd, 2007 1:45 pm

Well Said!!!

I invite everyone to check out the link I have provided.
There you will read the words of one of my TRUE HEROES
Gen. Smedley Butler.
He said it first and I think the best.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

All the best

Sir Melvin Cleophus July 23rd, 2007 2:03 pm

Finding out the real reason why the initial invasion of Iraq, aside from the poor war strategy that evidently is so crucial for “victory,” was for the USA to steal their natural resources I feel beyond disgust! Already beyond financially secure, a tiny few Americans want to create misery to make more money at the REAL expense of Iraqi lives and poverty stricken Americans? How Christian! Pathetic also.

To the next President of the United States - provided that the USA does not go under martial law while Bush Jr. is in office (which will not surprise me in the least unless Bush is kicked out of office or a revolt takes place in the USA. Yeah the stakes are that high for everyone all over the world including Americans): Stand for integrity and the majority of Americans. Put THEM first. Make sure AMERICANS, as a whole, are taking care of before you go around and ummmm…shall we say, commit genocides all over the world and give your citizens tax-money away to countries that do neither need nor deserve it. That sound good? Tax-money is better put to use when you spend it on the care of the majority of citizens in your nation as the first priority. What do you think future President of the United States of America? Besides, this choice just might make people less mad at you. This may sound a bit off topic but weren’t the settlers who landed at Jamestown (present-day USA) in 1607 “illegal?” How about the people who migrated to the 1849 Gold Rush of California to settle there? What was their “legal status” a that time. Did they ask the indigenous there permission or fill out lengthy forms only responding at THEIR convenience, which may take several years today?

To the Americans who put down continental Europe (particularly the nations of Germany and France) for believing nations here do not take care of their own citizens “fairly.” These nations take care of their own much better than your nation does! Yet, some Americans believe that people living anywhere that is not the USA is something very terrible. It’s not! In fact, several nations in Europe, but not all, grant more freedom and liberty to its people than the USA does to their people. Sleep on that thought.

kivals July 23rd, 2007 4:58 pm

Good article. I have argued the same points for years. It does not benefit us that Big Oil gets more money with which to bully us and further corrupt our government. So it was always a false choice presented to the semi-sophisticates between doing the right thing with regard to the Iraqi people and protecting our own self interest by stealing the oil (the totally unsophisticated bought into Bush’s prekindergarten explanations).

Evelyn Smith July 23rd, 2007 5:07 pm

Well, hate to tell you this, the author of this treasonable act and all of you guys and gals who agreed with the author, are guilty of supporting the enemy__ and according to the latest king’s edict, you are subject to being tossed out into the street and all of your property, including monies seized. In addition, if anyone should then offer any assistance to you, they will be subject to suffer the same punishment.

So, don’t mess with King George and all of his Counts and Noa-counts. The war in Iraq is just and is being sucessfully waged to protect America.__ You are all dirt-bag, mealy mouth, stinking traitors, who don’t love Jesus.

That is actually true. Incredible and tragic.

Evelyn Smith July 23rd, 2007 5:19 pm

The edict is true, not the last paragraph.

Dr. Zimmerman Robert July 23rd, 2007 7:56 pm

Impeachment now, then beginning the trial.

However, the trial will take time that is true.

It will be interesting for the American public to see the evidence presented in the prosecution and again in the defense during the trial.

Perhaps we will get to see the US government more clearly.

We have all the time in the world to advance the principles of democracy and work on practicing them.

One thing that ought to keep the Democrats from pursuing impeachment is that we may find that they were very willing collaborators in the crimes of the administration. It thus will make it just as hard to vote for a Democrat as a Republican

So let’s have an impeachment and a trial and then let’s clean house and find human beings to represent Americans in the Congress and Executive Branch

kalia July 24th, 2007 12:22 am

“The first awful, horrendous truth is we don’t know our own real enemy.” - it is not that hard. Just stand in front of a mirror.

dahni July 24th, 2007 1:39 am

I think that everyone must understand that war is-every war is and has been about taking something from someone else by force.

The Truth is always simple. Untruth is always made to seem complex in order to hide the fact that it is a lie.

iyamwutiam July 24th, 2007 1:49 am

I am not sure why more people are not discussing this- but it seems to me what is at stake is the very financial underpinnings of the United States.

What I mean is - that many economists recognize:
1. Debt has replaced collateral (gold/assets) as the engine of money creation. This is why debt burden has skyrocketed in the past few decades and so has money supply. The fact is that the treasury has STOPPED giving out the M3 money supply numbers because it is furiously printing up money to buy back bonds –so that everyone will continue to think there is confidence in the US economy.
2. This debt need never be repaid - if the most important commodity in the world (OIL) continues to be pegged to US dollars. This peg is essentially all that’s holding the US economy together. If it were not for the fact that many countries ‘need’ US dollars to pay for Oil –why would countries like Japan, India and China buy US treasuries or hold US dollars.
3. The price of oil will continue to go up probably to 100 dollars a barrel –to continue to force central banks to ‘hold’ US dollars and thereby give ‘value’ to a scrip that has no backing and is grossly inflated- since China and Japan hold the largest amount of US debt. Think the black and white pictures of Post Weimar Germany with people using wheel barrows to transport money to buy bread!!
4. The price of gold has gone from $250 and ounce to $670 despite the central banks of Spain and England dumping tons (yes literally) of gold on the market to depress the price of gold and preventing a stampede out of the dollar.

The enormity of the US debt burden is the reason for the frenetic and crazed adherence to the war in Iraq (essentially controlling the oil) . If Iran were included in the picture – which it will be – then the US would control close to 80 percent of the world’s oil. Only this much would be enough to prevent other oil producing nations such as Russia and Venezuela from being able to start the snowballing of the deterioration of value of the US dollar- think the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union. Even if Iraq’s oil never comes on the market – it is fine –since the US still essentially controls 60 percent of the world’s oil now! However- it should be noted that Iran, Venezuela and Russia have started demanding payments for their oil in yen and euros. This is also why China, India and Russia are investing heaviy in Iran and Russia will (it seems) back IRan if the US extends the war to Iran which it must. If Iraq and Iran are ‘lost’ then the 40-50 of the world’s oil which does not need to be paid for in dollars will trigger the beginning of the end. BTw - it is a researchable fact that Saddam Hussein moved oil sales to the Euro six months before the invasion of Iraq.

At present – it is too early to tell if this gambit will play out successfully for the economic survival of the US. But in my view what is at stake here is the ability of the United States to continue to foist it’s debt and inflation to the world until the time the oil runs out.

What is needed is urgent and focussed interventions. Bail outs to private equity corporations must NOT be allowed - such as long term capital alliance. Taxes MUST be promptly raised on these corporations and their subsudies revoked immediately, savings must be emphasized. The money supply must stop printing dollars in the dead of night. Congress must be made accountable. Thousands of empty governent jobs must be cut. Tens of thousands of over filled positions like police, FI, health departments must be trimmed and held accountable. Healthcare fraud must be prosecuted - it literally costs 20-50 billion a year.

In short - the ‘people’ must realize the government is bankrupt and demand fiscal responsibility. Although we may get an extension - with victory in Iraq/Iran -controlling the oil - that is NOT the problem. At some point - maybe our children(?) or grandchildren will live through a devastating financial crisis - if the debt burden is not relieved. Financial chicanery like ‘borrowing’ from Social Security funds, etc is ineffect a self-deception which will be extremely painful when it ends.

mirf59 July 24th, 2007 12:26 pm

Yes, sir. Very well constructed.

Now we are talking about something real.

Kucinich meets your criteria. Judging from the Dem debate last night, I think it is pretty clear the frontrunner Dems, however, fit smugly into the existing Big Oil plan — as expressed by the discussion about the need to keep troops in Iraq to “protect our vital national interests” in Iraq. I don’t think they’re talking about lamb chops there.

What can’t be emphasized enough is that currently our political system offers voters no choice on this issue at the polls, and in fact does not even allow it to be discussed as a relevant issue. It’s taken for granted that it is a “vital national interest” by all leading candidates always.

We must refuse to vote for candidates that insist that controlling oil is essential.

But, there is a flip side to the coin. If I am Barack Obama, for example, I might think to myself: “Any politician whose actions lead to a radical increase in gas prices, to heights far in excess of what we’ve seen, is likely to have no political clout remaining with the public to accomplish anything else.”

A major part of this problem is the public backlash from rising energy costs. “Vital national interests” might really mean “indispensible re-election interests”.

That’s the take a look in the mirror part of this thing.

hankedson July 24th, 2007 1:04 pm

I think you raise a good point mirf59! Indeed, aren’t gas prices the doorway to possibly even larger shaddows in the soul of the American people. We are a gas guzzling nation and it simply is not consistent with our views about global warming. Long term we have to muster the moral courage to understand that our transportation system does not come with a discount price just because. There are real world costs we have to pay if we want to live in the real world.

With respect to Iraq and politics, there is a correct position for candidates like Barack Obama in my opinion. It is to say, “We are faced with a different enemy than the false, external one that has been projected by the Bush administration. One real concentration of anti-democratic power that is of such vast scope that it does represent a threat and an enemy to our democratic nation is big oil. We must prepare ourselves to challenge that enemy. We must be prepared that that enemy will not cooperate, but will fight and fight with all the resources at its disposal, as it has done throughout the Bush presidency. When we challenge the power of big oil, we will, with a certainty, be faced with higher gas prices so long as big oil remains the power that it is. If we blame our government for high gas prices, we will defeat our own nation. High gas prices are due to two things: the wealth concentration of Big Oil and the over-dependency of our nation on an expensive commodity. Americans need to think long and hard about who is to bear the responsibility of high gas prices. We can address the corruption and excessive power of Big Oil and we can own up to the responsibility that comes with being an oil dependent nation. We are a nation faced with an enemy and we cannot succeed in challenging this enemy if we adopt the short-sighted self-interest that puts the blame for high gas prices on the government. This is a moment of truth for the voter. The voter must decide if he or she will stand with a government that will challenge big oil and re-evaluate the cost of the way we structure our transportation system. If the voter will not stand with such a government, but stands instead for a short-term reprieve for his or her pocketbook, he or she is not interested in the advance of democracy, but only in the advance of their own personal wealth. With such an attitude, the voter may as well go to work for Big Oil rather than challenge it. It is a moment of truth.”

I see many points made in the discussion above with which I agree, but will limit myself here for time sake and for the sake of hopefully hearing what others have to say.

mirf59 July 24th, 2007 2:33 pm

Exactly, Hank, thank you for chiming in the discussion and for all the work you put into your superbly-written essay. This problem is at the core of why America has lost its way.

Personally, I would happily trade my car in and smile at $8 per gallon if it means 250,000 more Iraqi babies around. But, I fear many people would not, when it comes down to it. I would love to have the opportunity to be proven wrong.

I wonder if Barack or Hillary or John, each one of whom seems to be a good person or maybe a great person, could possibly get away with declaring war publicly against big oil. It would be necessary to be very frank about the sacrifices we would have to make in that case.

Of course, imagine if instead of spending $500 billion, or $750 billion, or whatever it is now, on Iraq — the federal governmnent hired qualified but underemployed people to build public transit infrastructure where it is most needed with that same sum. A recent article in USA today says LA was contemplating a 15 mile expansion of the subway at a cost of $5 billion.

Though LA is an energy city and I don’t trust LA cost estimates, if we accept that figure of roughly $300 million per mile, the war in Iraq is equivalent to about 1,700 miles of subway lines. That strikes me as a large figure, enough to fully rig many major urban areas — for example in Texas where I live and where there is not a single foot of subway line but 3 or 4 of the nations largest cities.

Perhaps coincidentally, the law firm of Baker-Botts is headquartered in Houston.

hankedson July 24th, 2007 4:12 pm

Mirf59,great points. We are such a wealthy society and we do not have to waste it on the wrong societal campaign. 1700 miles of subway sounds much better than 3600 dead GIs and 650,000 Iraqis by one count.

In my mind I make a distinction between “challenging the enemy Big Oil” and “declaring war against big oil” although I might not have done it well in my note above. Both the challenge and the declaration are worthy strategies but involve different things that it is helpful to consider separately.

With respect to declaring war against Big Oil, the great thing to me is that “grand strategies” like this have to be discussed. The political process is not healthy if we do not allow ourselves to creatively brainstorm from several points of view. If we don’t include the “what I’d really like to do” point of view, we give up the idealism in which all true principles must be defined. So we have to engage in idealistic, big idea discussion if we hope to achieve a principled politics. Once the discussion is started, it may be a long and winding road to achieving those principles, but the process will help us identify our next steps.

With respect to challenging our enemy Big Oil, this is our immediate task if you ask me. We need our presidential candidates to own up to the reason why we are in Iraq and the reason the Democrats have failed to take action. We need them to declare themselves in fundamental opposition to that reason, to declare that reason an irreconcilable violation of our democratic principles, and to say, at least as it concerns our presence in Iraq and all the killing it has caused, it is serving a power that has interests that directly conflict with those of the American people, a power so strong it is actually a serious threat to our democracy. I guess I said all this above. It’s a fine distinction, perhaps, but I think a competent politician could elevate the Big Oil enemy rhetoric in the Iraq context without declaring all out war. This first step might then help us take another…

voicefromSF July 23rd, 2007 12:24 pm

Thank you for stating the truth! I’m utterly sick of politicians (and the media) giving us the same blurb over and over again and ignoring this blatant reality. By not stating and standing up to the truth, these “leaders” of our society are partaking in a premediatated, and actually quite pathological, attempt to mislead the American people and make a mockery of us and our intelligence.
whatever4 July 23rd, 2007 12:30 pm

About leaving Iraq. I had a crazy thought. Just out of the blue. I would like to hear some ideas about how the feelings and attitudes of the Iraqi people (the people we’re worried will die in a civil war) might impact what happens in Iraq if we leave. How do they, their people, feel about US leaving?

I want to ask, might they be happy about it? It’s just a thought, forgive me if they won’t, I just know how I’d feel. If I were born there. If that had been MY country. I might be a little happy to see the occupiers leave, I might be overjoyed if they actually meant what they said and did what they promised.

If we left, truly left, to include the bases and the horrible Green Zone, and every facility they hate, would it be a huge relief? To them? And don’t we care? A relief to, you know, the people that live there, not the millions in the US so terrified that “they’ll follow us here.” Might it be something THEY pray for?

Would it be so terrible if we turned over these facilities and equipment to them? It might be expensive. I’m quite sure continuing our present course will be MUCH more expensive, and personally I have no idea how we’ll pay off what we’ve already incured. Add to this the potential for us to show real good will, and the dollar costs we can’t count, in terrorism.

Maybe it wouldn’t just be a “cut and run”. Maybe there would be a relieved, positive upswing to counter the “of course they’ll be killing each other!” civil war that EVERY one I read or see on tv says will occur.

To me, it’s just another case of asking ourselves…what if we’re wrong? Again?
Bernice July 23rd, 2007 12:53 pm

Before we made Iraq’s leaders emasculate their plan for peace and reconciliation of Thursday, June 22, 2006 it called for coalition forces to STOP killing civilians by raiding Iraqi homes in search of terrorists that may or may not be there; to set a firm schedule for withdrawal of all troops; to offer broad amnesty to former Baathists who were not supporters of Saddam just because they worked for the government and to re-employ them; to offer broad amnesty to insurgents who had not killed other Iraqis. This version was released only to The Times of London and was described in an article of June 23.

Needless to say, the US killed or weakened the above measures and some we don’t even know about because the total number of provisions shrank between Thursday and Sunday from 28 to 24 (The Times was not allowed to print the entire document). Only after the changes were made was the document released to the US media.

Iraq immediately became more violent as those Sunnis who expected reconciliation after months of negotiation were surprised by the document as released.
How many people have died because we made Iraq change what was probably a wise and workable plan for peace and for internal reconciliation among it various groups?

The Bush administration now blames the “weak” government of Iraq for its failure to achieve the benchmarks of reconciliation and the control of militias, etc. Nothing is ever their fault, you see, so in this case Al-Maliki must take the fall.

Which all leads up to the fact that the oil agreements the Iraqis are being pressured to sign were designed by the US State Dept (with the aid of “consultants”) prior to the 2003 invasion. The “surge” will keep us there, no doubt, until they sign. And the permanent bases will hold US soldiers on duty to protect the oil companies for the 25-30 years the agreements will run.

Impeach. Impeach. Impeach these violent, sleazy, truly stupid people who seem not to mind destroying the whole world while impoverishing the US and destroying our democracy.
gin July 23rd, 2007 1:32 pm

the prez should use that exec. order of last thursday to freeze and confiscate the oil companies assets. it’s perfect! nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. big oil off our backs and forced to pay for their corporate hostile takeover of a sovereign state using and abusing the taxpayer’s military. we can then beg forgiveness from the victims in iraq and begin reparations-big time.
Jeff Moehring July 23rd, 2007 1:45 pm

Well Said!!!

I invite everyone to check out the link I have provided.
There you will read the words of one of my TRUE HEROES
Gen. Smedley Butler.
He said it first and I think the best.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

All the best
Sir Melvin Cleophus July 23rd, 2007 2:03 pm

Finding out the real reason why the initial invasion of Iraq, aside from the poor war strategy that evidently is so crucial for “victory,” was for the USA to steal their natural resources I feel beyond disgust! Already beyond financially secure, a tiny few Americans want to create misery to make more money at the REAL expense of Iraqi lives and poverty stricken Americans? How Christian! Pathetic also.

To the next President of the United States - provided that the USA does not go under martial law while Bush Jr. is in office (which will not surprise me in the least unless Bush is kicked out of office or a revolt takes place in the USA. Yeah the stakes are that high for everyone all over the world including Americans): Stand for integrity and the majority of Americans. Put THEM first. Make sure AMERICANS, as a whole, are taking care of before you go around and ummmm…shall we say, commit genocides all over the world and give your citizens tax-money away to countries that do neither need nor deserve it. That sound good? Tax-money is better put to use when you spend it on the care of the majority of citizens in your nation as the first priority. What do you think future President of the United States of America? Besides, this choice just might make people less mad at you. This may sound a bit off topic but weren’t the settlers who landed at Jamestown (present-day USA) in 1607 “illegal?” How about the people who migrated to the 1849 Gold Rush of California to settle there? What was their “legal status” a that time. Did they ask the indigenous there permission or fill out lengthy forms only responding at THEIR convenience, which may take several years today?

To the Americans who put down continental Europe (particularly the nations of Germany and France) for believing nations here do not take care of their own citizens “fairly.” These nations take care of their own much better than your nation does! Yet, some Americans believe that people living anywhere that is not the USA is something very terrible. It’s not! In fact, several nations in Europe, but not all, grant more freedom and liberty to its people than the USA does to their people. Sleep on that thought.
kivals July 23rd, 2007 4:58 pm

Good article. I have argued the same points for years. It does not benefit us that Big Oil gets more money with which to bully us and further corrupt our government. So it was always a false choice presented to the semi-sophisticates between doing the right thing with regard to the Iraqi people and protecting our own self interest by stealing the oil (the totally unsophisticated bought into Bush’s prekindergarten explanations).
Evelyn Smith July 23rd, 2007 5:07 pm

Well, hate to tell you this, the author of this treasonable act and all of you guys and gals who agreed with the author, are guilty of supporting the enemy__ and according to the latest king’s edict, you are subject to being tossed out into the street and all of your property, including monies seized. In addition, if anyone should then offer any assistance to you, they will be subject to suffer the same punishment.

So, don’t mess with King George and all of his Counts and Noa-counts. The war in Iraq is just and is being sucessfully waged to protect America.__ You are all dirt-bag, mealy mouth, stinking traitors, who don’t love Jesus.

That is actually true. Incredible and tragic.
Evelyn Smith July 23rd, 2007 5:19 pm

The edict is true, not the last paragraph.
Dr. Zimmerman Robert July 23rd, 2007 7:56 pm

Impeachment now, then beginning the trial.

However, the trial will take time that is true.

It will be interesting for the American public to see the evidence presented in the prosecution and again in the defense during the trial.

Perhaps we will get to see the US government more clearly.

We have all the time in the world to advance the principles of democracy and work on practicing them.

One thing that ought to keep the Democrats from pursuing impeachment is that we may find that they were very willing collaborators in the crimes of the administration. It thus will make it just as hard to vote for a Democrat as a Republican

So let’s have an impeachment and a trial and then let’s clean house and find human beings to represent Americans in the Congress and Executive Branch
kalia July 24th, 2007 12:22 am

“The first awful, horrendous truth is we don’t know our own real enemy.” - it is not that hard. Just stand in front of a mirror.
dahni July 24th, 2007 1:39 am

I think that everyone must understand that war is-every war is and has been about taking something from someone else by force.

The Truth is always simple. Untruth is always made to seem complex in order to hide the fact that it is a lie.
iyamwutiam July 24th, 2007 1:49 am

I am not sure why more people are not discussing this- but it seems to me what is at stake is the very financial underpinnings of the United States.

What I mean is - that many economists recognize:
1. Debt has replaced collateral (gold/assets) as the engine of money creation. This is why debt burden has skyrocketed in the past few decades and so has money supply. The fact is that the treasury has STOPPED giving out the M3 money supply numbers because it is furiously printing up money to buy back bonds –so that everyone will continue to think there is confidence in the US economy.
2. This debt need never be repaid - if the most important commodity in the world (OIL) continues to be pegged to US dollars. This peg is essentially all that’s holding the US economy together. If it were not for the fact that many countries ‘need’ US dollars to pay for Oil –why would countries like Japan, India and China buy US treasuries or hold US dollars.
3. The price of oil will continue to go up probably to 100 dollars a barrel –to continue to force central banks to ‘hold’ US dollars and thereby give ‘value’ to a scrip that has no backing and is grossly inflated- since China and Japan hold the largest amount of US debt. Think the black and white pictures of Post Weimar Germany with people using wheel barrows to transport money to buy bread!!
4. The price of gold has gone from $250 and ounce to $670 despite the central banks of Spain and England dumping tons (yes literally) of gold on the market to depress the price of gold and preventing a stampede out of the dollar.

The enormity of the US debt burden is the reason for the frenetic and crazed adherence to the war in Iraq (essentially controlling the oil) . If Iran were included in the picture – which it will be – then the US would control close to 80 percent of the world’s oil. Only this much would be enough to prevent other oil producing nations such as Russia and Venezuela from being able to start the snowballing of the deterioration of value of the US dollar- think the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union. Even if Iraq’s oil never comes on the market – it is fine –since the US still essentially controls 60 percent of the world’s oil now! However- it should be noted that Iran, Venezuela and Russia have started demanding payments for their oil in yen and euros. This is also why China, India and Russia are investing heaviy in Iran and Russia will (it seems) back IRan if the US extends the war to Iran which it must. If Iraq and Iran are ‘lost’ then the 40-50 of the world’s oil which does not need to be paid for in dollars will trigger the beginning of the end. BTw - it is a researchable fact that Saddam Hussein moved oil sales to the Euro six months before the invasion of Iraq.

At present – it is too early to tell if this gambit will play out successfully for the economic survival of the US. But in my view what is at stake here is the ability of the United States to continue to foist it’s debt and inflation to the world until the time the oil runs out.

What is needed is urgent and focussed interventions. Bail outs to private equity corporations must NOT be allowed - such as long term capital alliance. Taxes MUST be promptly raised on these corporations and their subsudies revoked immediately, savings must be emphasized. The money supply must stop printing dollars in the dead of night. Congress must be made accountable. Thousands of empty governent jobs must be cut. Tens of thousands of over filled positions like police, FI, health departments must be trimmed and held accountable. Healthcare fraud must be prosecuted - it literally costs 20-50 billion a year.

In short - the ‘people’ must realize the government is bankrupt and demand fiscal responsibility. Although we may get an extension - with victory in Iraq/Iran -controlling the oil - that is NOT the problem. At some point - maybe our children(?) or grandchildren will live through a devastating financial crisis - if the debt burden is not relieved. Financial chicanery like ‘borrowing’ from Social Security funds, etc is ineffect a self-deception which will be extremely painful when it ends.
mirf59 July 24th, 2007 12:26 pm

Yes, sir. Very well constructed.

Now we are talking about something real.

Kucinich meets your criteria. Judging from the Dem debate last night, I think it is pretty clear the frontrunner Dems, however, fit smugly into the existing Big Oil plan — as expressed by the discussion about the need to keep troops in Iraq to “protect our vital national interests” in Iraq. I don’t think they’re talking about lamb chops there.

What can’t be emphasized enough is that currently our political system offers voters no choice on this issue at the polls, and in fact does not even allow it to be discussed as a relevant issue. It’s taken for granted that it is a “vital national interest” by all leading candidates always.

We must refuse to vote for candidates that insist that controlling oil is essential.

But, there is a flip side to the coin. If I am Barack Obama, for example, I might think to myself: “Any politician whose actions lead to a radical increase in gas prices, to heights far in excess of what we’ve seen, is likely to have no political clout remaining with the public to accomplish anything else.”

A major part of this problem is the public backlash from rising energy costs. “Vital national interests” might really mean “indispensible re-election interests”.

That’s the take a look in the mirror part of this thing.
hankedson July 24th, 2007 1:04 pm

I think you raise a good point mirf59! Indeed, aren’t gas prices the doorway to possibly even larger shaddows in the soul of the American people. We are a gas guzzling nation and it simply is not consistent with our views about global warming. Long term we have to muster the moral courage to understand that our transportation system does not come with a discount price just because. There are real world costs we have to pay if we want to live in the real world.

With respect to Iraq and politics, there is a correct position for candidates like Barack Obama in my opinion. It is to say, “We are faced with a different enemy than the false, external one that has been projected by the Bush administration. One real concentration of anti-democratic power that is of such vast scope that it does represent a threat and an enemy to our democratic nation is big oil. We must prepare ourselves to challenge that enemy. We must be prepared that that enemy will not cooperate, but will fight and fight with all the resources at its disposal, as it has done throughout the Bush presidency. When we challenge the power of big oil, we will, with a certainty, be faced with higher gas prices so long as big oil remains the power that it is. If we blame our government for high gas prices, we will defeat our own nation. High gas prices are due to two things: the wealth concentration of Big Oil and the over-dependency of our nation on an expensive commodity. Americans need to think long and hard about who is to bear the responsibility of high gas prices. We can address the corruption and excessive power of Big Oil and we can own up to the responsibility that comes with being an oil dependent nation. We are a nation faced with an enemy and we cannot succeed in challenging this enemy if we adopt the short-sighted self-interest that puts the blame for high gas prices on the government. This is a moment of truth for the voter. The voter must decide if he or she will stand with a government that will challenge big oil and re-evaluate the cost of the way we structure our transportation system. If the voter will not stand with such a government, but stands instead for a short-term reprieve for his or her pocketbook, he or she is not interested in the advance of democracy, but only in the advance of their own personal wealth. With such an attitude, the voter may as well go to work for Big Oil rather than challenge it. It is a moment of truth.”

I see many points made in the discussion above with which I agree, but will limit myself here for time sake and for the sake of hopefully hearing what others have to say.
mirf59 July 24th, 2007 2:33 pm

Exactly, Hank, thank you for chiming in the discussion and for all the work you put into your superbly-written essay. This problem is at the core of why America has lost its way.

Personally, I would happily trade my car in and smile at $8 per gallon if it means 250,000 more Iraqi babies around. But, I fear many people would not, when it comes down to it. I would love to have the opportunity to be proven wrong.

I wonder if Barack or Hillary or John, each one of whom seems to be a good person or maybe a great person, could possibly get away with declaring war publicly against big oil. It would be necessary to be very frank about the sacrifices we would have to make in that case.

Of course, imagine if instead of spending $500 billion, or $750 billion, or whatever it is now, on Iraq — the federal governmnent hired qualified but underemployed people to build public transit infrastructure where it is most needed with that same sum. A recent article in USA today says LA was contemplating a 15 mile expansion of the subway at a cost of $5 billion.

Though LA is an energy city and I don’t trust LA cost estimates, if we accept that figure of roughly $300 million per mile, the war in Iraq is equivalent to about 1,700 miles of subway lines. That strikes me as a large figure, enough to fully rig many major urban areas — for example in Texas where I live and where there is not a single foot of subway line but 3 or 4 of the nations largest cities.

Perhaps coincidentally, the law firm of Baker-Botts is headquartered in Houston.
hankedson July 24th, 2007 4:12 pm

Mirf59,great points. We are such a wealthy society and we do not have to waste it on the wrong societal campaign. 1700 miles of subway sounds much better than 3600 dead GIs and 650,000 Iraqis by one count.

In my mind I make a distinction between “challenging the enemy Big Oil” and “declaring war against big oil” although I might not have done it well in my note above. Both the challenge and the declaration are worthy strategies but involve different things that it is helpful to consider separately.

With respect to declaring war against Big Oil, the great thing to me is that “grand strategies” like this have to be discussed. The political process is not healthy if we do not allow ourselves to creatively brainstorm from several points of view. If we don’t include the “what I’d really like to do” point of view, we give up the idealism in which all true principles must be defined. So we have to engage in idealistic, big idea discussion if we hope to achieve a principled politics. Once the discussion is started, it may be a long and winding road to achieving those principles, but the process will help us identify our next steps.

With respect to challenging our enemy Big Oil, this is our immediate task if you ask me. We need our presidential candidates to own up to the reason why we are in Iraq and the reason the Democrats have failed to take action. We need them to declare themselves in fundamental opposition to that reason, to declare that reason an irreconcilable violation of our democratic principles, and to say, at least as it concerns our presence in Iraq and all the killing it has caused, it is serving a power that has interests that directly conflict with those of the American people, a power so strong it is actually a serious threat to our democracy. I guess I said all this above. It’s a fine distinction, perhaps, but I think a competent politician could elevate the Big Oil enemy rhetoric in the Iraq context without declaring all out war. This first step might then help us take another…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)