SACRIFICING OUR CHILDREN ON THE ALTAR OF CORPORATE GREED

By

David E. Washburn

The Free Press

Departments

War Against Iraq

March 15, 2007

Our children are being sacrificed on the altar of corporate greed in Iraq. As the purported rationale for the war has metamorphosed from protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction and the specter of a ''mushroom shaped cloud,'' to regime change, to fighting terrorists, to spreading democracy at the point of a gun, two constants remain. The children of the poor, the working class, and the lower half of what is left of the shrinking middle class return to us in coffins, or limbless, or brain damaged, and emotionally scarred. The children of the power elite, for whom they fight the war, secure in their corporate boardrooms or on their yachts, reap unconscionable profits as the nation''s treasure and blood is being stuffed down the rat-hole that is the Iraq war.

The children of the privileged, who fashioned this war, had their mentalities honed in prep schools and elite colleges from which the neo-conservative theories on which the Iraq war is based were conceived. From the elitist liberal arts portions of the halls of academe, through think tanks like the Project for the New American Century, and in clandestine gatherings of select individuals such as the National Energy Policy Development Group and the Defense Policy Board, policies were established. Their hegemonic designs, both internationally by force and domestically by sleight of hand and psychological manipulation, were put into place by the political establishment, and, in Iraq, carried out by the military.

The image one can derive from the media of a Stalinesque brute of a vice-president lumbering about the White House, pulling the strings of a chowder-headed puppet of a president at the behest of a corporate elite is, undoubtedly, a simplistic caricature of reality. But, the facts, as they emerge, are scary enough.

The myth of the neo-conservative belief in a free market global economy is belied by the facts of billions of dollars in no-bid contracts going to selected corporations for work in Iraq and oligopolies controlling markets and fashioning policy in their, rather than the peoples,'' interests. Halliburton, Parsons, Flour, Washington Group International, and Bechtel are among the corporations making billions off the war. Pentagon no-bid contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman represent part of the 1 percent of defense contractors who won 80 percent of all defense contracting dollars from 1998 through 2003. And, now, the Iraqi cabinet has created the legal framework for turning over the country''s oil wealth to American corporations. If the law is passed by the Iraqi parliament, individual regions of the country will be able to contract with foreign companies who will control oil production and policy. It has become crystal clear why, of all the brutal dictators in the world, our government chose Saddam Hussein as the one to topple. He was vulnerable and sitting on top of one of the world''s largest oil reserves.

The people who blundered us into the morass that is the Iraq war come from a narrow spectrum of our society. Viewing the world through the constricted prism of their ethnocentric reality, the cultural complexities of Iraq eluded them. Secure in the values they were taught, and consider universal, transcendent, and enduring, their arrogance is palpable. However, their ignorance is dangerous for, though they are powerful, they are culturally myopic and naïve, failing to understand that the values they wish to impose on others are despised by the majority of humanity.

They have had more success in convincing those who do their bidding in our society to accept their social assumptions. Through control of the flow of information and subterfuge, they have convinced people who are warehoused and forgotten after their return from fighting in Iraq that participating in the war is a patriotic endeavor.

At its base the war in Iraq is economic in nature. The benefits derived from the effort accrue to the privileged few. The rest of us will be paying for generations to come.

---
David E. Washburn, author of Multicultural Education in the United States among other works, is a Honolulu based writer. Reach him at david@davidewashburn.com.

NO, SERIOUSLY, WHY DID WE INVADE IRAQ?

By

David E. Washburn

The Free Press

Departments

War Against Iraq

February 22, 2007

The old cliche, 'if you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging,' is pertinent when it comes to the war in Iraq. George Bush and his corporate sponsors who fashioned this war keep digging. Of course they are digging for oil so are unlikely to stop.

By now almost every citizen recognizes that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States even if it had had weapons of mass destruction. We toppled a brutal dictator, but of all the brutal dictators in the world why did we choose this one? We are certainly not rushing into Africa to depose their brutal dictators, stop the genocide, and thrust democracies upon their nations at the point of a gun. Although the war has created terrorists, they were not present in substantial numbers in Iraq at its onset. And now, George Bush threatens to widen the war to include Iran and Syria.

If we did not make this 'pre-emptive' strike against Iraq primarily over weapons of mass destruction, or to unseat Saddam, or to fight terrorists, or to create a democracy, why are we shedding American blood there?

It is about oil, 'black gold.'

At the onset of our occupation of Iraq our soldiers were not tasked to protect Iraqi antiquities, many of which were looted, but did guard the Oil Ministry. The Bush administration was willing to go to war over oil and to protect the interests of their corporate sponsors in big oil, big energy, and the automotive industry rather than fully commit our nation to energy independence. We are trying to maintain a controlling presence in the Middle East as we continue to rely on oil.

Our largest competitor for the world's diminishing oil reserves is China. They are willing to pay top prices to secure the oil necessary to fuel their rapidly expanding industrial base as well as the automobiles of that increasing portion of their population who are gaining affluence. Our citizens, who are used to relatively inexpensive gasoline, would punish the politicians in power if prices were to skyrocket. If oil simply went to the highest bidder, China would corner the market. So the political and corporate will to maintain access to oil reserves and leverage over the people who control them is strong.

If our goal were to limit bloodshed and give the Iraqi nation their best chance to establish stability, we would support an international diplomatic effort. But, the Bush administration wants to maintain an ascendant position in the Middle East, dominate not negotiate. Bomb Iran and Syria rather than attempt a dialogue with them.

Furthermore, corporations like Halliburton, Parsons, Fluor, Washington Group International, Shaw Group, and Bechtel have made billions off this war and have a large stake in our continued presence in Iraq. Therefore, George Bush, their representative in office, is unlikely to accept a diplomatic solution to this fiasco which might decrease our influence. In his speech to the nation he indicated that his idea of diplomacy was to get other nations in the region to support his policy. Real diplomacy, which involves a give and take, will have to be forced on the president by the congress. Unfortunately, many in congress depend on corporations to fund their reelection campaigns. When it comes to choosing between retaining power or solving problems their track record is not benign.

So the president continues his risky, and, for four years, unsuccessful military strategy and the congress postures and jostles for political gain. Our soldiers remain in harms way in the middle of an ages old sectarian struggle. And, daily we make new enemies who will hate our blood for generations to come. It would be better to get back to the war on terror. Use our troops to rid Iraq of the foreign terrorists, who have entered the country since we arrived, and secure Afghanistan where the Taliban have returned and poppy production, which supports terror, is at an all time high.

America really needs to be rid of the cabal who blundered into the war in Iraq without foreseeing its consequences. We need politicians more concerned with solving problems than positioning themselves for the next election. And, we need a political class willing to blunt the power of oligopolistic multinational corporations who control markets and shape national policy in their, rather than the peoples', interests.

---
David E. Washburn is the author of Multicultural Education in the United States among other works. Reach him at david@davidewashburn.com.

Why George Bush Will Not Opt For A Diplomatic Solution To The Iraq Crisis

By David E. Washburn

The old cliche, “if you’ve dug yourself into a hole, stop digging,” is pertinent when it comes to the war in Iraq. Power hungry politicians and their corporate sponsors who fashioned this war keep digging. Of course they are digging for oil so are unlikely to stop.

By now almost every citizen recognizes that Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States even if it had had weapons of mass destruction. We toppled a brutal dictator, but of all the brutal dictators in the world why did we choose this one? The recent death of Augusto Pinochet who rose to power in Chile as the result of a military coup reminds us that he had thousands of his citizens killed to retain control of his country. He overthrew the democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende who the military claimed committed suicide by shooting himself thirty-six times with an automatic weapon. Other reports indicated that it was an assisted suicide with the complicity of the CIA and the ITT Corporation. The difference between Pinochet and Saddam Hussein was that Pinochet was OUR brutal dictator. He made Chile safe for the ITT Corporation and other United States’ companies which Allende would have nationalized. We are certainly not rushing into Africa to depose their brutal dictators, stop the genocide, and thrust democracies upon their nations at the point of a gun. Although the war has created terrorists, they were not present in substantial numbers in Iraq at its onset.

If we did not make this “pre-emptive” strike against Iraq primarily over weapons of mass destruction, or to unseat Saddam, or to fight terrorists, or to create a democracy, why are we shedding American blood there? It is about oil, “black gold.”

At the onset of our occupation of Iraq our soldiers were not tasked to protect Iraqi antiquities, many of which were looted, but did guard the Oil Ministry. The Bush administration was willing to go to war over oil and to protect the interests of their corporate sponsors in big oil, big energy, and the automotive industry rather than fully commit our nation to energy independence. We are trying to maintain a controlling presence in the Middle East as we continue to rely on oil.

Our largest competitor for the world’s diminishing oil reserves is China. They are willing to pay top prices to secure the oil necessary to fuel their rapidly expanding industrial base as well as the automobiles of that increasing portion of their population who are gaining affluence. Our citizens, who are used to relatively inexpensive gasoline, would punish the politicians in power if prices were to skyrocket. If oil simply went to the highest bidder, China would corner the market. So the political and corporate will to maintain access to oil reserves and leverage over the people who control them is strong.

If our goal were to limit bloodshed and give the Iraqi nation their best chance to establish stability, we would support an international diplomatic effort. But, the Bush administration wants to maintain an ascendant position in the Middle East, dominate not negotiate.
Furthermore, corporations like Halliburton, Parsons, Fluor, Washington Group International, Shaw Group, and Bechtel have made billions off this war and have a large stake in our continued presence in Iraq. Therefore, George Bush, their representative in office, is unlikely to accept a diplomatic solution to this fiasco which might decrease our influence. Diplomacy will have to be forced on the president by the congress. Unfortunately, many in congress depend on corporations to fund their reelection campaigns. When it comes to choosing between retaining power or solving problems their track record is not benign.

The president is likely to select a combination of the military options presented to him. Some are scary. One involves raising troop levels to secure Baghdad, redeploy others, and embed trainers with Iraqi units throughout the country. Since many Iraqi soldiers, it appears, owe allegiance to sectarian militias rather than the national armed force, the embedded trainers will become a target for hostage takers. The specter of American soldiers being tortured and beheaded on Aljazeera television could become our national nightmare. Better to use our troops to rid Iraq of foreign terrorists and secure Afghanistan where the Taliban have returned and poppy production, which supports terrorism, is at an all time high.

Some neo-conservatives are imploring George Bush to place our troops in support of the Shiite majority in the civil war, so we can be on the winning side and retain influence in the country. They neglect to take into consideration that although 60% of Iraqis are Shiite and 35% are Sunnis, the region is composed of 120 million Shiites and close to one billion Sunnis. Do they imagine that the one billion are going to stand idly by while their brethren are slaughtered?

America really needs to be rid of the cabal who blundered into the war in Iraq without foreseeing its consequences. We need politicians more concerned with solving problems than positioning themselves for the next election. And, we need a political class willing to blunt the power of oligopolistic multinational corporations who control markets and shape national policy in their, rather than the peoples’, interests.

David E. Washburn is the author of Multicultural Education in the United States among other works. Reach him at david@davidewashburn.com.

Diplomacy the best exit from Iraq blunder

U.S. should set an example, not force democracy on others

By David E. Washburn

A small coterie of neoconservative ideologues have led our nation into the worst policy blunder since slavery, the war in Iraq. Their ignorance and arrogance have produced unintended consequences that could haunt the United States for generations to come. There are two courses of action that we can take in an attempt to extricate ourselves from this mess and/or ameliorate the negative impact of this fiasco.

If our goal is to produce a stable, intact, unified, westward leaning nation, we can dramatically increase American troop levels to half a million or more and truly become an occupying force capable of imposing our will on Iraq. This force would root out the 12,000 or so al-Qaida reputed to be in the country, disarm the sectarian militias and bring the insurgency under control. With this done, the next order of business would entail building institutions and infrastructure. Governmental agencies, an educational system, Iraqi armed and police forces, and public works need to be constructed. If public transportation and public utilities are dependable, if children can go to good schools safely, if order comes into their lives, Iraqi citizens can be mollified.

However, this policy would necessitate the reinstitution of a military draft to raise troop levels, presently an unpopular notion among American citizens and their politicians. It would take at least 10 years to build a nation capable of independence before we could begin to withdraw. Enmity toward the United States would likely increase in the region. A wider war is always a possibility. There is the chance that Iraq would revert to form once we left.

A second approach, fraught with even fewer predictable outcomes than the military option, but which could get us out of Iraq more quickly though not precipitously, involves international diplomacy. A conference would be convened and those invited would include nations in the region whose well being would be enhanced by a stable Iraq, the United States, other nations with economic ties or other interests in Iraq and the real leaders in Iraq (those who hold authority over territory and have the allegiance of citizens). The recent Iraq Study Group's findings recognized the importance of dealing with Syria and Iran. Insurgent groups who would be represented in the Iraqi delegation would be asked to observe a cease-fire during the period of the conference. The cease-fire would be monitored by the coalition and Iraqi armed forces and police.

Each participating nation would be asked to present a proposal for ending the conflict and offer a detailed exposition of the kinds of support they would render in accomplishing the rebuilding of the Iraqi nation. These proposals would be submitted to the Iraqi delegation who, in turn, would, after considering all proposals, develop a plan of their own.

Getting all Iraqi parties to agree on the political and economic structure of their nation is a daunting task. In the absence of agreement civil war is an inevitable outcome. The United States cannot allow our troops to be caught in the middle of a full-scale civil conflict. But, diplomacy is our best hope of extricating ourselves from this terrible situation.

This approach would decrease the influence the United States would have in the region. We would be but one of a number of countries with influence and each country's proposal would reflect its own national interests. The neoconservative unilateralists might not like this very much.

The neoconservative brain trust's rationale for our "preemptive" strike against Iraq has metamorphosed from protecting ourselves from weapons of mass destruction and the specter of a "mushroom-shaped cloud," to regime change, to fighting terrorists, to spreading democracy at the point of a gun. Not much mention was made of access to Iraqi oil and oil funds or unconscionable profits to fill the coffers of no-bid contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel.

Exporting democracy by force to cultures we don't understand is ludicrous on its face. In the future, we should engage ourselves in perfecting democracy at home. All the failed nations that were once great nations failed as the result of military overexpansion and its economic consequences. The money pouring into Iraq would be better spent solving problems at home. The spread of democracy is best served by the United States acting as a beacon of freedom, liberty, justice, and good judgment, providing an example to be emulated.

This editorial originally appeared in the December 11, 2006 issue of The Honolulu Advertiser.