|
|
|
|
|
Mary Shepard, W A M M
|
A May 1, 2003 headline in the St. Paul Pioneer Press says, “Bush to Mark End of Combat.” Thus ends “our” war with Iraq, which began with a Bush announcement on March 19, 2003. In those 44 days we are told 2,350 Iraqis died, most of them civilians. The U.S. deaths were in the hundreds. One wonders how much such figures can be believed in the face of all the lies told to us to justify this illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional use of our military.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, but Bush abrogated this power, and the media assured us there was no way to stop him. Our two-party system had morphed into a one-war party. This was not the first time our representative government failed us. There had been many precedents, some of which were hardly noticed.
A case in point was the U.S. attack on tiny Grenada, which we were told was a threat to U.S. interests because the island nation built an airport to facilitate trade of nutmeg without requiring the use of airports on neighboring islands. Once Grenada had an airport, we were told, it would be a launching point for a military invasion of Central America. It seems that the stronger the U.S. becomes militarily and economically, the more this nation fears for our security. We are like residents of a gated community who are afraid to venture beyond the safety of our walls.
It was Vietnam that should have alerted us to what this paranoia was doing to our democracy. Vietnam was also an unprovoked war, but at least we were given a reason for it: the ever present threat of part of the world becoming communist. Communism, over the years, had been demonized, discredited, and used successfully by many of our leaders to justify all sorts of crimes carried out in our name.
Donald Rumsfeld is still groping for an excuse for our attack on Iraq. At first we were told we were “liberating Iraq,” but from whom were we liberating Iraq? Was it Saddam Hussein? No one disputes the horror of his tyranny, which the Iraqis had to endure for more than a decade. But where did he get his support? Where did he get his weapons? For many years, he got both from the U.S. Our government armed him via other client states and encouraged him to attack Iran as a means to free our hostages.
It was then reported to us that Saddam (having outlived his usefulness to the U.S.) possessed weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to the U.S. But we can’t find them. Other nations have threatened us with such weapons but we do not respond with an invasion. Could it be that our policy makers expect this miniwar will be forgotten before they will be required to answer for it? Has anything changed since Saddam left the stage?
To sort out the sordid truth about this new shameful chapter of U.S. duplicity, take a look at those who are reaping the benefits of the war and those who are its victims. The major victims are the Iraqis—not just those killed in the war, but also those who have died from starvation and lack of health care due to our embargo. Other victims include our own poor, who are now told they must forego child care, employment opportunities, and a quality education. Funding for our infrastructure, our schools, and all the amenities we have traditionally provided as citizens’ rights is disappearing into the defense budget and tax breaks for the wealthy elite. The members of the military have also been cruelly victimized. They are called upon for the unpleasant task of serving as an occupying army and many of them have been or will be exposed to depleted uranium in Iraq.
The winners are the members of the military-industrial complex: the oil companies, the weapons manufacturers, and “consultants” who will advise Iraq’s leaders (handpicked by the Bush Administration) on how they can change from their dream of socialism to a market economy like ours. By now it is clear that a market economy has winners and losers. It divides, not unites, factions within nations—especially when the populations of those nations have been torn apart by religious and ethnic intolerance and external powers who took advantage of these divisions.
The Bush Administration was looking for a foothold in Europe from which to challenge or co-opt the United Nations. They want to carve out spheres of influence and Iraq will be the base from which they will control Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Oil is only a piece of the prize. The U.S. has many other sources with which to power our economy, and, anyway, there is a glut of oil on the market. The Administration is more interested in bases from which the U.S. can put down any conceivable rebellion against their vision of dominating the whole world and the skies above it.
We are seeing the result of the last election, which was not an election at all, but a coup by the very people who are now determining our foreign policy. To get our democracy back we need a huge, sustained protest by all levels of our society. Nations such as Chile, whose budding democracy was strangled in the cradle by some of these same policy makers, will tell us, if we will listen, that it will not be easy. It will not be enough to oppose the policy makers. We will have to create a new value system that rewards conservation and equitable sharing instead of rewarding the winners in the competition to exploit weak nations and the world’s resources.
This runs counter to the unregulated competitive market economy we were told would “lift all boats” to ever higher productivity and prosperity. Beware of hawkers of a “free market.” There never was such a thing and never will be. All markets are controlled one way or another for the benefit of those who have the power to make the rules.
We can only have a democratic economy if our elections are fair and honest. Are we ready for the next one? |
|
|
© 2003 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete June 2003 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
