The US policy of liberty, liberation and freedom
The current Administration is following Wolfowitz and Feith’s very bold agenda to “liberate” the middle-east from corrupt and tyrannical regimes. The agenda seems reasonable. The rhetoric from the White House has regurgitated the concepts of liberation, freedom and peace but what do they really mean? Unfortunately most Americans have little interest in understanding the realities of the path towards the implementation of this policy. I randomly asked 10 Republicans I know why it was “just” to overthrow Saddam’s regime. All of them included the concept of liberation in their response. It’s interesting that not one mentioned WMD, but let’s not digress.
Liberation is an easy term to throw around. Hitler used it in his year end speech in 1939 stating that Germany was fighting a "war of liberation". Bush has used it once or twice too. Before invading Iraq he said, “The day of your liberation is near.” But what is liberation if it is chosen for the people not by the people? Musharraf who now baths in the glory of a strong US relationship does not draw unilateral support for his leadership. He is ruthless. His military has been accused of atrocities. So then by this standard Pakistan should be candidate for regime change. I’m sure the average Bangladeshi would agree. This is where the problem starts. The US habitually follows a policy of fostering relationships with whoever it determines to be the least threatening; funds their military, drives their agenda, ignores their deficiencies then seems dumbfounded when these regimes become a destabilizing force.
How many times do we need to go around in circles before someone realizes the policy is fundamentally flawed?
When western democracies speak about peace in the middle-east they invariably neglect the innate patriotism that every individual feels for their country. Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians aren’t going to view the US as liberators they will perceive them to be attackers and occupiers. Ironically it’s the insurgency against the occupation that may be labeled as a liberation.
In his recent inaugural speech Bush made the following ominous statement “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”
This means don’t expect any freedom at home until the US achieves global freedom. Considering the establishment of non-friendly regimes is cyclical, we shouldn’t hold our breath for any change in the rate of civil liberty degradation. Richard Clarke in his 10 year anniversary of 9/11 (forecasted retrospective) piece in this months Atlantic is probably correct in his assumption that Patriot Acts II and III will follow in the aftermath of future terrorist attacks. The new Al Qaida recruits will be fostered in Iraq and potentially South-East Asia (although we are yet to understand whether our Tsunami aid benevolence will equate to a better US perception).
In a time when we have chosen to fight a war with an ideology, it is the war that feeds that ideology.
Liberty like most facets of life is a relative concept that is open to a multitude of interpretations. The lines are fuzzy and our global beliefs are deeply divided. I can’t imagine a man living in Baghdad shares my definitions of liberty, liberation and freedom. The Administration would have me believe otherwise. Until any administration, Democratic or Republican, can admit to or learn from past mistakes we are destined to a revolving perpetuity of battles that will never be won. All in the name of freedom.
Liberation is an easy term to throw around. Hitler used it in his year end speech in 1939 stating that Germany was fighting a "war of liberation". Bush has used it once or twice too. Before invading Iraq he said, “The day of your liberation is near.” But what is liberation if it is chosen for the people not by the people? Musharraf who now baths in the glory of a strong US relationship does not draw unilateral support for his leadership. He is ruthless. His military has been accused of atrocities. So then by this standard Pakistan should be candidate for regime change. I’m sure the average Bangladeshi would agree. This is where the problem starts. The US habitually follows a policy of fostering relationships with whoever it determines to be the least threatening; funds their military, drives their agenda, ignores their deficiencies then seems dumbfounded when these regimes become a destabilizing force.
How many times do we need to go around in circles before someone realizes the policy is fundamentally flawed?
When western democracies speak about peace in the middle-east they invariably neglect the innate patriotism that every individual feels for their country. Iraqis, Syrians and Iranians aren’t going to view the US as liberators they will perceive them to be attackers and occupiers. Ironically it’s the insurgency against the occupation that may be labeled as a liberation.
In his recent inaugural speech Bush made the following ominous statement “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.”
This means don’t expect any freedom at home until the US achieves global freedom. Considering the establishment of non-friendly regimes is cyclical, we shouldn’t hold our breath for any change in the rate of civil liberty degradation. Richard Clarke in his 10 year anniversary of 9/11 (forecasted retrospective) piece in this months Atlantic is probably correct in his assumption that Patriot Acts II and III will follow in the aftermath of future terrorist attacks. The new Al Qaida recruits will be fostered in Iraq and potentially South-East Asia (although we are yet to understand whether our Tsunami aid benevolence will equate to a better US perception).
In a time when we have chosen to fight a war with an ideology, it is the war that feeds that ideology.
Liberty like most facets of life is a relative concept that is open to a multitude of interpretations. The lines are fuzzy and our global beliefs are deeply divided. I can’t imagine a man living in Baghdad shares my definitions of liberty, liberation and freedom. The Administration would have me believe otherwise. Until any administration, Democratic or Republican, can admit to or learn from past mistakes we are destined to a revolving perpetuity of battles that will never be won. All in the name of freedom.
posted by mochi at 7:22 AM
7 Comments:
It is nice to come across a liberal willing to engage in an intellectual discussion rather than angry emotional name calling. You make some valid points and it is good to question how we can deal with Musharraf in Pakistan and an even more oppressive regime in Saudi Arabia. I do not speak for the administration but I will say that an all or nothing approach to the issue will only yield us nothing. In other words Iraq is what is before us now and liberating Iraq is better than liberating nothing. Of course, we are not out there only to do a good deed. The reason we are in Iraq is the same reason that we supported people like an early Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran in the past. In the past it was the practice of both Republican and Democratic administrations to prop up evil dictators because we thought it to be in our best interest. President Bush not only believes that old policy to be immoral, but he feels that it actually was not in our best interest. In fact, he believes the policy essentially created the problem we are in now. I used the Shah and Saddam as an example on purpose. You see by allowing these types of dictators to survive because we felt it to be in our best interest, we created an environment ripe for the growth and popularity of hatred. Since we supported the leaders who oppressed them, selling their citizens on hating America was easy. When people are oppressed and live under tyranny, they are more susceptible to be swayed into an ideology of hatred. How many republics can you name in the last hundred years that invaded other countries and started major wars? Bush believes that by giving people freedom, they will no longer be easily recruited into terrorism and hatred. You may again say, “Why Iraq and not Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.?” You see if people in those countries see freedom taking roots in Iraq, the belief of George Bush is that liberty will spread like wildfire. Bush believes, and so do I, that freedom is the longing of every man on earth. I realize that this thinking is radical idealism but it is the belief of a good and descent man. Bush’s statement about the survival of freedom in our land increasingly depending on the success of liberty in other lands does not mean that we are not free until they are. What that statement means is that if our republic is to survive, we must bring freedom to the Middle East because freedom limits the ability of our attackers to recruit. I do not agree that Iraq will be a breeding ground for terrorism in the future. Also, I do not believe that a person in Baghdad has a different idea of liberty than I have. I believe that all human beings are made in the image of their creator and are endowed by him with certain inalienable rights and among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There was a more optimistic time when all Americans believed that.
By the way, please visit my blog. Thanks
I agree that the statement “The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands” is indeed ominous. It is an obvious declaration of policy to make perpetual war a function of our government... the phrase "the American way of life" will mean, "always waging war."
tennesseejed: I understand what you're saying about people in the middle east having feeling the same about freedom as you, but are you considering the cultural differences, and how those are expressed in the psychology of the citizens? What you might see as freedom, another might see as the opposite. For example, many Musims are religiously offended by things that you consider reasonable freedoms. Womens' rights, for example, are practically non-existent in some cultures, and when people are asked about it, they say they want it that way because it is what they believe God wants. Books have been burned and banned in the name of religious freedom. And one of the best observations made of the conflict in Afghanistan following 9/11 was that, if the Afghans were given the opportunity to vote in free elections tomorrow, they would probably vote for an Iran-style theocracy.
In my opinion, Bush has no desire to bring freedom or democracy to Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else. That notion is merely a smokescreen to pacify his constituents; he tells them what they want to hear and they believe it. His real goal is simply to gain control of the oil resources in the region, by conquering the nations which currently control them. The energy industry is the culture from which he came and in which he thrives. It represents almost limitless power. He also is part of the corporate plutocracy which would turn those countries into one giant super wal-mart, to put it flippantly.
You cannot bring democracy to people by blowing them to bits. It remains to be seen whether the recent elections in Iraq result in a "western" style government, a puppet regime, or an Islamic theocracy.
SheaNC, a higher percentage of people braved the threats and voted in yesterdays Iraq election than voted in our own election in November. Also, we had elections in Afghanistan and they did not put in a religios govt. Remember. How can you still say that Bush went over there for oil. That argument has about as much substance as saying LBJ had Kennedy killed. You don't have to show any proof. You just say it and it is true. At first you sounded like a principled intellectual, but when you started talking about this "steal their oil theory" you showed yourself to be just another liberal wacko. Did you guys not see those people dancing at the polling places? Anyway, good luck with getting Howard Dean to lead the DNC. I hope he wins.
Labeling someone a "liberal wacko" when they offer a dissenting opinion reveals your own inability to argue constructively. Maybe you could have taken the time to explain what drives the Administration's agenda since, according to you, it has nothing to do with oil. Are we really going to settle on the "bad guy" argument as the reason for losing 1600 soldiers and spending a billion dollars a week? If so, that's fine, but where to next, because the world is full of bad guys and they all don't all live in the Middle East.
The election in Iraq was itself a unprecendented success, but explain to me how a Sistani lead theocracy is a result that benefits the US.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
tennesseejed, I'm glad you brought up issue that Bush "went over there for oil." When I said "His real goal is simply to gain control of the oil resources in the region," I should not have said "simply," because it is really more complex and I was referring to more than just oil. I was referring to oil, geography, etc.
Besides the fact that Iraq is said to have the second largest reserves of crude oil in the world after Saudi Arabia, there is also all that natural gas to be pumped from the Caspian sea. For that, the Bush-Cheney regime was planning to take out Iraq before 9/11 and were looking for a reason. Bush and his cabinet have connections to the energy industry; it is how they make a lot of their money. They are also involved with the defense industry, what Eisenhower called "the military industrial complex," and they make a tremendous amount of money off of war (this will be referenced in another paragraph). As one example, just look at the millions, or billions, that Halliburton alone has made by getting no-bid sweetheart contracts to perform services that could be performed by troops, as they always were in the past, and by billing the taxpayers $45 a case for soda, $100 a bag to do soldiers' laundry, or torching trucks at $80,000 a pop because they have a flat tire.
Iraq was not a threat to the United States. Were you afraid of them? We beat them in a war in short order in the early 1990's. That was before they were crippled by sanctions, and frequent bombing raids during the Clinton administration (by the way, Clinton had a better record fighting the war on terror by arresting and jailing terrorists, and containing Saddam Hussein). They should have been even easier to defeat now. But (and here I remind you of the money that the neocons make off of war), the Bush regime does not want this war to end: they are parasites living off of it. They make money off of it, they gain "political capital" from it as Bush so heartlessly said; unending warfare is their business, the world is their slaughterhouse, and people like you and me are considered their cattle.
Bush's reasons for the war have all been proven false: Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist acts, they had no weapons of mass destruction (a vague term that has yet to be defined), they were not involved with al qaeda, they were not building nukes, they were not a threat to anyone outside walking distance of their borders, and the only weapons they had were the ones that were handed to them by Reagan and Bush Sr. The only thing the world had to worry about from Iraq was Saddam Hussein's sons, and we both know a CIA sniper could have taken them out quicker than you can say "grassy knoll."
Liberal wacko? I'll wear that title as a badge of honor, because I'd rather be a liberal wacko than a poor gullible sap who believes Carl Rove's fascist propaganda without question.
Post a Comment
<< Home