There were probably as many reasons for the 2003 invasion of Iraq as there were cooks to spoil the broth. Just a few of these were oil, Israel, the enrichment of a few favored (by the Cheney/Bush administration) U.S. corporations and by no means least, the 2004 presidential election. Had there been no invasion, it would very likely be President Kerry today.
I will come back to these explanations in a upcoming post. But today I want to talk about a fundamental necessity for the "justification" of any war: the demonization of the enemy. Remember the "weapons of mass destruction." Without that PR ploy the invasion would have been far less easy to sell. But with the congressional and media puppet brigades it might not have been impossible.
Now that there is a push for a new invasion (referred to by politicians and the media as a "surge."), the enemy has to be demonized again - in case we have forgotten how dangerous they are.
Amy Goodman reported this morning (Wed.) on
Democracy Now that
"...a Republican Congress- member is under fire for saying
he fears an influx of Muslim immigration in the United States. In a letter sent to constituents this month, the Congressmember, Virgil Goode of Virginia, writes: 'I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States' if we do not adopt 'strict immigration policies.' Goode also warns over the recent election of Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress. Goode writes '...If American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration
there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.'"
The extremely dangerous abandonment of any concept of religious freedom that once led a group of colonists to abandon England and set up shop here should be obvious in Goode's remarks. And I would assume that he will soon propose that we wrap the Statue of Liberty - which he clearly abhors - and send it back to France, because we obviously can no longer live up to its invitation to the world's "huddled masses yearning to breathe free." Clearly those like Goode no longer want "...these, the homeless, tempest-tost [sent]to me."
But in this new era of the Bush surge in Iraq, Goode isn't the only demonizer.
USA Today & N.Y. Post columnist Ralph Peters trumps Goode. In pre-election November he wrote:
"...for all our errors, we did give the Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy.
They preferred to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry and a culture of corruption. It appears that the cynics were right:
Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it. And people get the government they deserve.
"For us, Iraq's impending failure is an embarrassment. For the Iraqis — and other Arabs — it's a disaster the dimensions of which they do not yet comprehend.
They're gleeful at the prospect of America's humiliation. But it's their tragedy, not ours."Iraq was the Arab world's last chance to board the train to modernity, to give the region a future, not just a bitter past. The violence staining Baghdad's streets with gore isn't only a symptom of the Iraqi government's incompetence, but of
the comprehensive inability of the Arab world to progress in any sphere of organized human endeavor. We are witnessing the collapse of a civilization. All those who rooted for Iraq to fail are going to be chastened by what follows.
"Iraq still deserves one last chance — as long as we don't confuse deadly stubbornness and perseverance. If, at this late hour, Iraqis in decisive numbers prove willing to fight for their own freedom and a constitutional government, we should be willing to remain for a generation. If they continue to revel in fratricidal slaughter, we must leave.
"And contrary to the prophets of doom, the United States wouldn't be weakened by our withdrawal, should it come to that. Iraq was never our Vietnam. It's al-Qaeda's Vietnam. They're the ones who can't leave and who can't win."
But Goode and Peters are only the tip of the demonization iceberg. Neo liberal Peter Beinert posted on the
the New Republic online onDec. 11:
"Across ideological lines, American politicians and pundits are finally coming to a consensus on Iraq: It's the Iraqis' fault. 'We gave the Iraqis their freedom,' pronounced liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer on November 16. 'What are they doing with this freedom? They're killing each other.' The next day, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer heartily concurred, writing: 'We have given the Iraqis a republic, and they do not appear able to keep it.'"
There is much more to be said on this question of demonization (and I will come back to it) but for the moment suffice it to say that since the reinvasion ("surge") of Iraq will require a much more heavy handed occupation - no more making believe the Iraqis are in charge of their own nation. Here are just a few of the suggestions Peters makes in his 12/18
N.Y. Post column:
"* Temporary movement restrictions, with passes required for any person desiring to leave his neighborhood and enter another. Identify who belongs where.
"* Simultaneous crackdowns on Shia militia and Sunni insurgent strongholds. Establish the principle that we go where we want, when we want - and stay as long as we want.
"* Thorough searches of every building in Baghdad. No safe havens - not even mosques (trusted Iraqis can help). Structures used as weapons-storage facilities or safe houses for armed factions to be leveled.
"* Disarmament of all private security elements in Baghdad not vetted by U.S. authorities. Foreign security contractors subject to Iraqi law."
In other words, no more nice guy for us. Once we have demonized and infantalized the Iraqis (and more broadly Muslims) we can move in and take over.
