Iraq and Moral Corruption (link) by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. For years people will debate the real reasons the US invaded Iraq. Was it an honest mistake, based on the belief that the Hussein regime was hiding weapons? Was it revenge for political disobedience? Was it about oil or regional control, Bush’s place in history, or bolstering the US military budget? Maybe it was only to satisfy the post-9-11 blood lust. Given the mixed-up world of half-truths, lies, and duplicity that inhere in all war ambitions, these tantalizing questions may never be finally resolved, even by the most objective observers, of which there are few. But this much we do know with apodictic certainty: virtually nothing in Iraq has gone as the US envisioned it. It is a calamity that might not quantitatively equal Vietnam in terms of the loss of life, but it is qualitatively equal to any of the great war failures in world history. The Bush administration fanaticized about using shock and awe to "decapitate" the Iraqi regime, and then – King Midas-like – touching the country to make it prosperous, civil, and – most importantly, compliant. The Iraqi government fell quickly, but 27 months later, a complicated and bloody chaos reigns. What we have in Iraq today is the very definition of barbarism: martial law, puppet government, civil war, daily bloodshed, spreading poverty and disease, and no end in sight. Economic conditions are miserable. The numbers showing GPD growth are a hoax, propped up by reconstruction aid that lands in the pockets of American contractors. Despite the promise of privatization, the economy remains controlled and largely nationalized, and the legal regime is arbitrary and changing. This environment attracts no productive capital investment. A business that moves to Iraq today is on the take, looking for loot. Meanwhile, the country’s oil exports are spotty and unpredictable due to bad management and unrelenting sabotage. The war is sowing and reaping hatred throughout the region, drawing recruits into terrorist armies, and expanding anti-Americanism. Whatever regime in Iraq earns the imprimatur of the US will be ipso facto loathed by the Iraqi resistance. Whatever regime is supported by the Sunnis will be opposed by the Shiites and vice versa, with further complications added by the Kurds and gradations among religious and ethnic attachments that Americans can’t hope to understand. Details aside, the existence of the resistance is not hard to explain. That comes with invasion and occupation. The success of the resistance is not a mystery either. A private army using guerilla tactics can succeed over the long term where conventional government armies fail. Incredibly, the Bush administration doesn’t seem to comprehend any of this. From the beginning, it has placed all its hopes on the glorious results that flow from the application of power and violence. This represents a deep form of intellectual corruption that has afflicted the American right wing since the early days of the Cold War, when an entire movement put its love for liberty on the shelf and acculturated itself to the merits of bombs and military socialism. One might have hoped that the end of the Cold War would have reversed the tendency, but it did not. Never have Republicans been more slavishly devoted to their Party and its partisan (not principled) agenda. The right has shown itself willing to sell what remains of its soul to keep the opposition out of power. Thus does it back the egregious Iraq War, along with all its debt, demolition, and death. The homefront has suffered too: some $200 billion in taxpayers’ money spent, 1,700 dead Americans, as many as 38,000 wounded, along with the high cultural costs of missing dads, skyrocketing divorce rates among the enlisted, and another generation trained in the idea that mass killing by the state is good and moral. The Iraqi dead approach 100,000. I mentioned earlier that the Iraq failure has many precedents. Consider the Soviet failure in Afghanistan. The ostensible goal of the Russian government – which invaded the country by citing security concerns – was to replace a backward religious regime with an enlightened one that brought rights to all, guaranteed a higher standard of living, and put the country on the path to progress. Of course we all saw through these lies. To us, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was a transparent and brutal exercise of empire. It was evidence of the moral rot in the Kremlin. In the end, the Soviets controlled only the ground underneath their tank treads. It was the last hurrah of an evil empire. Americans need to face the reality that most of the world sees our nation as the new evil empire, and many people in the Gulf region are dedicated to making sure that the Iraq War is the last hurrah for American militarism. How tragic to admit that the analogy is not entirely implausible. "For what shall it profit a man," asked the first century philosopher whom Bush calls his favorite, "if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" Isn’t this also true of a country? June 11, 2005
war Wars are never moral. No nation ever goes to war with the intention of going on a crusade of goodness, with no wrong comitted or no innocent lives lost. What we see in the middle east now is a land of terrible conflict. In the middle east, before we went to war with Iraq, car bombs, mass killings and terrorism were common occurences. Most of what was going on in the middle east was immoral. As the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world, George W. Bush and his administration decided that in order to better the freedom, equality and peace of the world, action in the middle east needed to be taken. He also realized that diplomacy with madmen and lunatic terrorists was simply not going to work. He decided to take action in one of the greatest perpetrators of injustice in the region, Iraq. Yes, the war has been a disaster. Yes, Bush was wrong when he proclaimed Iraq had WMDs (did he know, I am not sure.) But in my mind, there is no doubt, regardless of how 'moral' it might be, that action needed to be taken in Iraq. I think in 20 years time Americans will look back on the Iraq War as an event that shifted the tides towards a more peaceful and free middle east.
It is too bad, because I think if Bush said that that was the reason we were going to war he would have been given a lot more credibility, now that WMDs have not been found. Did Bush know there were no WMDs? I honestly think that he believed Iraq had WMDs. But regardless of whether there were WMDs or not, action was needed.
If the resistance groups outlast the US effort? It would be cause much more problem for both the US and the world than Vietnam war ever could.
I think in 20 years time Americans will look back on the Iraq War as one of the most serious instances of the federal government lying to the American people in US History.
Trouble is, he never would have had the support of the American people if he would have told us the real reason we were going to attack Iraq.
Agreed. But in Vietnam there was a whole governing body supporting the resistance, along of course, with help from a superpower in the world, the USSR. The US, in my mind, will outlast the insurgency, but even if they dont I do not believe the insurgency have the communication ability and resources at hand to overthrow any government in Iraq, nor do I think that they are good at anything other than fighting. In the grand scope of things, the insurgency will be considered a hostile and difficult force that the US had to deal with, but nothing that halts progress in the middle east.
I respectfully disagree. If he would have used that excuse. Americans would have never agreed to go to war. He had to scare the **** out of people to get them to go along with his little adventure. I agree! Action was needed. And we were doing an excellent job in Afghanistan.
Exactly, so its a catch-22 type situation. Lets assume that Bush knew there were no WMDs, which is what most liberals liberally assume. (and not what I believe.) Bush knows action must be taken in the middle east and he also knows that he has a duty to uphold the rights of people, regardless of their nationality, race or origin. (in this case, arabs in Iraq) Does he: a) come clean with the American people and not receive enough support to go to war. In turn, freedom and equality is risked in a region that is growing ever more hostile. or b) lie to the American people to uphold justice in the middle east. Again, we are assuming that Bush knew there were no WMDs, but in my opinion, American justification is far less important than a world that is more free and peaceful. Would you not agree?
Which is why I said "now that WMDs have not been found" I also respectfully disagree about Bush wanting to take a little adventure.
As the jesus like leader of the most powerful and wonderful and perfect nation in the whole wide world our beloved George W. Bush and his heaven-bound and selfless administration decided that in order to better the freedom and equality and peace and joy and love in the world, action in the dirty and filthy and bad middle east needed to be taken and he also realized that diplomacy with those really bad madmen and non bible reading lunatic terrorists was simply not going to work unless we bomb them a whole bunch until they like us. Amen
