Iraq and Its Aftermath By John Rensenbrink
In these remarkable days, we salute our troops. For their know-how and courage, and drive to victory. We grieve with them for their fallen and wounded comrades. We grieve for the Iraqi dead and wounded, so many of them civilians.
When we shift our attention for a moment to the political dimensions of the Iraq War, I ask: Have you noticed? History has speeded up. The implicit is now explicit. The latent is now blatant. A radical political faction, with George Bush at the head, has taken over the government of the United States and is using its power to make a bid for world dominance. Consequently, the question suddenly before the American people is: do we want the United States to become a world empire, run on principles of might makes right and military supremacy, or do we want the United States to be a leader of nations in pursuit of a global community? This question has been simmering for decades but only now are its true dimensions squarely before us.
The war in Iraq is not only about “weapons of mass destruction”, or about the war on terrorism, or about oil, or about toppling a tyrannical dictator, or about Israel, or about demonstrating massive U.S. power in the Middle East. It has been perceived in all these ways. But there is something that ties them all together and makes them comprehensible -- though not for that reason comforting. The war in Iraq was prepared for and is conducted in a manner (the new “pre-emptive strike” doctrine) to send a message to all governments and peoples everywhere that the United States can and must rule the world. One asks, why? Because, it is claimed, our far-flung security interests demand it; and the world now needs a strong super power capable of providing order to an otherwise chaotic world.
Much of the opposition to the Iraq War does not take this sufficiently into account. It falls back on what it has been doing for decades: arousing people to oppose this particular war and/or to oppose all wars. It is a piecemeal and reactive stance. Yesterday it was Afghanistan; before that Kosovo; today it’s Iraq. Tomorrow it may be Iran or North Korea. What this misses is the fundamental question: What kind of leadership will provide an answer to the conditions that have given rise to this progression of wars?
The conditions are both domestic and global. At home the problem is a distorted political system that is out of touch with the deepening problems faced everyday by ordinary people. The distortion is vastly compounded by a weak and confused Democratic Party – and by the failure of moderates in the Republican Party to be a truly leavening influence in their party. Abroad the problem is the breakdown of nations in the face of globalizing forces, especially economic forces that have exploded far beyond the capability of most national governments to contain and guide them.
What we have, consequently, is constitutional and political disarray at home and a vacuum of political authority in the world as a whole. In these circumstances the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft faction have managed to seize power; they have abrogated civil liberties in the guise of Homeland Security and are making a bid for supremacy abroad.
Clearly, we need to look behind what is happening in Iraq today or in Kosovo yesterday or in Iran or North Korea tomorrow. Bullies have taken over our government. Bullying thinking dominates the corridors of power. It is a political problem. What are we going to do about it? That is the issue.
The Democratic Party and the moderates in the Republican party do not generally buy into bullying thinking. Yet they have put up with it, they have gone along with it, and some have unfortunately indulged in it themselves.
Many moderates in both parties think the solution is just to defeat Bush in the next election. But hold on! To paraphrase Harry Truman, if you give people a choice between a Democrat who sounds like a bully and a candidate who really is a bully and proud of it, they will choose the real thing every time. This is as true for a moderate Repubican as it is for a Democrat. Furthermore, even if the person who adopts a posture of bullying but has his or her heart in the right place, if such a person should somehow manage to beat Bush, that would not change the direction of United States policy. The bullying faction would still be the victors.
This is truly a time for hard choices. History has speeded up. The electorate needs to speed up as well. The Green Party, though small, is the fastest growing political party in the United States. It strongly opposes the bullying; and warns Democrats and moderate Republicans against the temptation to ride with it and put up with it. The Green Party stands for the principles of the American Republic – self-reliance, grass roots democracy, civil liberties, accountable government, and a foreign policy that puts smart diplomacy ahead of force; and that works overtime for a global family of nations.
The Green Party faces an important decision. Should they go all out and make as strong a case as they can in 2004 – running more and more candidates, especially a candidate for President? Or should they put their strongest efforts into helping the Democratic Party and the moderate Republicans? Is there a way of doing both?
Greens are debating this all over the country via email. Special face to face public meetings should be called by Green leaders in every locale to debate the issue. Public announcements of these meetings should call on all concerned citizens, whether members of the Green Party or not, to come and join in the debate.
|
