As
Iraq seethes, the Bush team rationalizes
Robert Jensen
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
copyright Robert Jensen and Rahul Mahajan 2003
Newsday, September 1, 2003, p. A-23.
by Robert Jensen and Rahul
Mahajan
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.