Implications of a Pointless War

What
does it mean that the New York Times, upon the occasion of President
Obama's announced drawdown of forces in Iraq last week, called our seven
and a half years of invasion and occupation of the country "a pointless war"?

The
editorial proceeded to do what Obama himself seemed to be under
enormous political pressure to avoid: It skewered his predecessor,
mildly perhaps, but repeatedly throughout the 645-word editorial: "the
war made America less safe," "it is important not to forget how much
damage Mr. Bush caused by misleading Americans," etc. The editorial even
acknowledged an Iraqi death toll: "at least 100,000."

Why
am I underwhelmed - disturbed, even - by this evidence of mainstream
disavowal of the disastrous war that had such overwhelming support at
its bloody, shock-and-awe onset? While Obama said it was time to "turn
the page" on Iraq, the Times and the constituency it represents
apparently feel compelled to wad it up as well and toss it into the
dustbin of history. And thus, even though 50,000 U.S. troops, a.k.a.,
"advisers," remain in the shattered country and our commitment there,
let alone our responsibility, is far from over, the Iraq war has
officially become a consensus mistake, right alongside Vietnam.

Considering
that I agree with the editorial, I marvel at how agitated it makes me.
Maybe what troubles me is the unappreciated enormity of the phrase
"pointless war" and the easy, consequence-free blame for it assigned to
George Bush and his inner circle. Between the lines, I feel the rush to
move on, to learn nothing, to throw berms around the insidious spread of
responsibility (my God, what if it reaches us?). Better to cut our
losses than to cut the Defense budget.

But
this was $3 trillion worth of pointless war, which left in its wake a
wrecked and polluted country with millions of displaced people, soaring
cancer and birth defect rates, "at least" 100,000 dead Iraqis and by
some measures more than a million. If we're actually at the point of
acknowledging that the war was a "mistake," that all this carnage, all
this wasted blood and treasure, were "pointless," isn't an accounting of
some sort required - a pause in governmental operations, a national
soul-searching, an inquiry? How in God's name does the largest military
machine in human history get mobilized into a pointless war?

And
beyond that, where does our atonement lie? If we have just waged a war
of pointless aggression and in the process killed between 100,000 and a
million people, who are we? Are we capable of doing it again?
Somehow, laying the whole blame on one lying president, who managed to
deceive an entire industry of investigative journalists and an innocent,
trusting public, doesn't wash.

Indeed,
if that's the explanation, I would call it criminal naivete on the part
of every facet of American society, beginning with the media, that let
itself be suckered into supporting, and continuing to support, a
pointless war. And I don't see anything much changing, despite our
dishonorable drawdown in Iraq. We still have implicit faith in the
military as the protectors of our safety and look toward the next war
being shopped around and focus-grouped with a helpless credulity that
would give P.T. Barnum pause.

Tom Engelhardt,
writing the other day at TomDispatch.com about "the nonstop growth of
the Pentagon and its influence," notes the irony of the fact that "even
as the U.S. military has failed repeatedly to win wars, its budgets have
grown ever more gargantuan, its sway in Washington ever greater, and
its power at home ever more obvious."

He
adds: "In Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, you can see that Pentagon
version of an American foreign policy straining to be born. In the end,
of course, it could be stillborn, but it could also become an
all-enveloping system offering Americans a strange, skewed vision of a
world constantly at war and of the importance of planning for more of
the same."

Military-industrial
capitalism, with its arrogant disregard for the human and environmental
consequences of its activities, can have only a limited run on Planet
Earth, but it doesn't know this and has no inner, self-restraining
mechanism. If we wait for its natural collapse, we'll all go down with
it. I would call this security code red, ladies and gentlemen.

But
perhaps a door is opening. I repeat the question I asked at the
beginning of this column. What does it mean that the New York Times is
calling the Iraq disaster a pointless war? I know what it should
mean: that such an awareness triggers an outbreak of responsible
journalism throughout the corporate media, beginning with a curbing of
military and disgraced neocon influence over what is proclaimed news.

Even
this is too much to expect, of course, but we must demand it anyway, as
we limp toward the ninth anniversary of 9/11, amid the screaming forces
of fear and hate that would militarize this day of reverence and turn
it into a grand occasion to make more enemies and celebrate our
ignorance and isolation.

Join the Movement: Become Part of the Solution Today

We're optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place.

We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter counts.

Your contribution supports this new media model—free, independent, and dedicated to uncovering the truth. Stand with us in the fight for social justice, human rights, and equality. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today!

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.