Now that American-British lies and distortions about Saddam Hussein's
weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida links have been thoroughly
exposed, Bush administration officials have had to create new
rationalizations for the Iraq war.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in late July that "military and rehabilitation efforts
now under way in Iraq are an essential part of the war on terror. In fact,
the battle to secure the peace in Iraq is now the central battle in the war
on terror."
Last Tuesday, George W. Bush told the American Legion, "a democratic Iraq
in the heart of the Middle East would be a further defeat for [the
terrorist networks'] ideology of terror."
And in early August, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice compared
the U.S. mission in Iraq with the civil rights movement: "[W]e must never,
ever indulge in the condescending voices who allege that some people in
Africa or in the Middle East are just not interested in freedom ... or they
just aren't ready for freedom's responsibilities. ... [That] view was wrong
in 1963 in Birmingham, and it is wrong in 2003 in Baghdad." Rice implied
that those opposing the U.S. occupation are the moral equivalent of white
supremacists who thought black Americans incapable of citizenship. To
critique the Iraq occupation is to stand in the schoolhouse door.
The Bush strategy is clear: If WMD and terrorist links fail as
rationalizations for war, don't worry; let us now praise the liberation of
Iraq. It turns out that all along the invasion was about creating democracy
in Iraq so that Americans will be more secure.
The brutality of Hussein's regime had long been known, not least to U.S.
planners during the decade the United States supported him through the
worst of his atrocities.
But liberation rhetoric is designed to divert people from questioning U.S.
intentions. For the sake of discussion, however, let's take Bush's claim at
face value and ask, How serious is the United States about establishing a
meaningful democracy in Iraq? How liberated are Iraqis?
Rebuilding a country devastated by three wars (the eight-year Iran-Iraq
War, the 1991 Gulf War, and this year's invasion) and 13 years of punishing
economic sanctions is no small task. But, as Wolfowitz has admitted, U.S.
planners gave little thought to those problems. The United States is
spending $3.9 billion a month on military operations but has allocated only
$2.5 billion over two years for reconstruction.
Liberation, most would assume, also means allowing people to decide their
own fate. Yet the crucial decision to privatize as much of the Iraqi
economy as possible has been effectively made by American officials to be
ratified by a handpicked Iraqi council.
U.S. officials also have eliminated most import tariffs, which has resulted
in a flood of goods into the country - and hundreds of factory closings and
increased unemployment. Iraqi companies dealing with 13 years of economic
crisis and progressive decay under sanctions can't compete with foreign goods.
One also might assume basic freedoms are part of liberation. Yet the
Coalition Provisional Authority chief, Paul Bremer, gave himself the power
to squelch Iraqi media engaged in "incitement," which in practice means
clamping down on those who oppose the occupation. Under the headline
"Bremer is a Baathist," one paper editorialized, "We've waited a long time
to be free. Now you want us to be slaves."
Meanwhile, the U.S. military has fired on crowds of peaceful demonstrators.
The worst instance, which was condemned by Human Rights Watch, was in
Falluja in April when 17 were killed. In a botched raid on a Baghdad house
in July, troops fired on Iraqi civilians in a crowded street and killed up
to 11, including two children. In one night in August, six Iraqi civilians
were killed at unannounced U.S. checkpoints. All of this seems to suggest
that, in the minds of occupation authorities, Iraqi life is cheap.
Most Iraqis are happy to be free of the regime of Saddam Hussein. But it's
increasingly clear that the well-being of Iraqis was not the reason for
regime change.
Officials are quick to deny it had anything to do with increasing U.S.
military control over that strategically crucial energy-rich region, or
with control of the flow of oil and oil profits -- even while they
acknowledge plans to create permanent military bases, use their new
leverage against other countries in the region, and privatize Iraq's oil.
We're supposed to trust them, though all the signs point in the opposite
direction. After all, they haven't led us wrong on Iraq before, have they?
Robert Jensen, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at
Austin, is the author of the forthcoming "Citizens of the Empire: The
Struggle to Claim Our Humanity" (City Lights Books). He can be reached at
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
Rahul Mahajan is the author of "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq
and Beyond" (Seven Stories). He can be reached at rahul@tao.ca.
###
