By
David E. Washburn
I believe that Barack Obama represents our last chance to redeem ourselves as a nation and realize the promise of our birth as a country “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” In his person he epitomizes the dream of a multicultural democracy in which none are left behind nor shut out; a country in which all people unite for a common purpose: justice for all; a country which, once again, becomes a beacon of hope for all the world. He offers us the opportunity to expiate the sins which have hindered our progress toward the possibilities embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; the mistakes we have made, from slavery to the war in Iraq; the movement away from “we the people” to corporate dominance of the policy making process which blocks too many of us from realization of the American Dream.
In a way, the privilege of voting for Barack Obama is an act of purification. It fills us with the “audacity of hope.” Through his veins course the bloodlines of the peoples of the world. His DNA represents us all. We can all achieve our dreams. We can save the world from the disasters that we glimpse upon the horizon. Our plight does not have to mirror that of all the great nations that have come before us. They all failed as a result of military over-expansion and the quest for empire, which resulted in economic catastrophe. We, as a nation, are well along that road.
We can foresee a modest foreign policy as extolled by George Washington, in which we are one among many nations, leading the way by providing an example of what can be achieved through cooperation and love of humankind, through liberty, justice and equality, rather than the subjugation of peoples to our whims by force. We can visualize saving America by blunting the power of the overlapping circles of influence: corporate, political, and military. We citizens can envision other politicians like Barack Obama, more concerned with solving problems than with positioning themselves for the next election. This is a daunting task in a political system awash in corporate money. We can entertain the notion that our leaders will take on the special interests and end the war in Iraq through diplomacy, focus on international cooperation in the war on terror, solve the illegal immigration crisis, restore the peoples’ constitutional freedoms, establish a health-care system, available to all, which is geared toward serving the needs of the public rather than the profits of the corporations, work toward energy independence, fight global warming, restore the decaying national infrastructure while creating jobs, revitalize public education, and avert the upcoming financial crisis.
Barack Obama has exhibited the capacity to guide us through the sacrifices necessary to solve these problems by appealing to our hopes rather than our fears. He can articulate our possibilities. He can inspire us to greatness. He can move us to action.
To give in to the obfuscaters, the fear merchants, the haters, the trivializers, the selfish interests of the power elite, all those who wish to confuse and manipulate the American people to the end of maintaining the status quo will damn us as a nation. We are now on the precipice. We can move toward a realization of the American Dream by electing our first multicultural president who has the special talents and background to lead us up that mountain to higher ground, or we can succumb to “business as usual” and continue on the path to perdition.
May 3, 2008
March 3, 2008
ONE NATION UNDERGUARD, INDEFENSIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR SOME
by David E. Washburn
The very character of our nation is more seriously in question now than at any time since the Civil War. Our founders, with a keen understanding of human nature and the experience of despotic rule, fashioned a Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. These elegant documents were designed to free us from autocracy and protect us, through a balance of powers, against tyranny, whether that tyranny be of the few or the many. Alexis deTocqueville, in his mighty “Democracy in America” rightly warned us of a possible tyranny of the majority. Over the years, however, we have devolved into a thoroughly corporatist society. We are tyrannized by a corporate elite who control markets and shape national policy in their, rather than the peoples’ interests with the assistance of their minions, both Republican and Democrat, in the political sphere.
We go to war in Iraq over oil and to protect the interests of big oil, big energy, and the automotive industry rather than fully commit our nation to energy independence. We stay there, against the wishes of the majority of our population, to maintain a controlling presence in the Middle East as we continue to rely on oil and to fill the coffers of oligopolistic multinational corporations. Hunt Oil, whose chief executive and president, Ray Hunt, is a close political ally of President Bush and serves on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, signed the first American oil contract in Iraq, a production-sharing agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Halliburton, Parsons, Flour, Washington Group International, and Bechtel are among the corporations making billions off the war. Pentagon no-bid defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman grow fat while 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. Private armies, beyond the control of the American people, like Blackwater and DynCorp International, protect the interests of the corporate and political elite.
While the bulk of our nation wishes to stem the tide of illegal immigration rushing across our borders, corporations profit from the cheap labor they provide and the wealthy maintain a supply of inexpensive domestic servants. If the people controlled our government, employers of undocumented workers would be heavily fined and/or jailed. Since the primary motivation for illegal immigration is economic, as jobs dried up illegal immigration would greatly diminish. It is not complicated. Neither is the reason it is not happening.
The president has gone to great lengths to protect the communications corporations complicit in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Protection of the constitutional rights of the American people is seemingly, much lower on his priority list.
As that “great sucking sound” of manufacturing jobs leaving our shores that Ross Perot warned us about grows to a crescendo, communities crumble. The value of a corporations’ stock trumps the national interest. Maximizing profits by moving a company’s manufacturing interests overseas is more important than maintaining a middle class in the United States.
Although, the United States, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, has signed the unratified Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases that cause climate change, no national legislation has occurred to force the large corporate polluters, big energy, big oil, and the automotive industry to curb their deleterious practices because it “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Evidently the corporate elite would rather die rich than save the world.
The constitutional government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” so brilliantly crafted by our founding fathers has slowly eroded over the two hundred and twenty years since its inception. In a March 15, 1789 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.” That period has come in the Bush/Cheney administration, and it is fully allied with the corporate elite.
The only way to save America is to blunt the power of the overlapping circles of influence: corporate, political, and military. We citizens need to find politicians more concerned with solving problems than positioning themselves for the next election. This is a daunting task in a political system awash in corporate money. There are candidates abroad in the land who tell us that they will take on the special interests and end the war in Iraq through diplomacy, focus on international cooperation in the war on terror, solve the immigration crisis, restore the peoples’ constitutional freedoms, establish a healthcare system, available to all, which is geared toward serving the needs of the public rather than the profits of the corporations, work towards energy independence, fight global warming, restore the decaying national infrastructure while creating jobs, revitalize public education, and avert the upcoming financial crisis. Would that it would be so. The American citizenry must do its homework to select leaders who are willing to guide us through the sacrifices necessary to solve these problems. And then, as a human community of judges, we must apply the old logical rule of accountability, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
David E. Washburn is a Honolulu-based author and lecturer. Reach him at david@davidewashburn.com
The very character of our nation is more seriously in question now than at any time since the Civil War. Our founders, with a keen understanding of human nature and the experience of despotic rule, fashioned a Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. These elegant documents were designed to free us from autocracy and protect us, through a balance of powers, against tyranny, whether that tyranny be of the few or the many. Alexis deTocqueville, in his mighty “Democracy in America” rightly warned us of a possible tyranny of the majority. Over the years, however, we have devolved into a thoroughly corporatist society. We are tyrannized by a corporate elite who control markets and shape national policy in their, rather than the peoples’ interests with the assistance of their minions, both Republican and Democrat, in the political sphere.
We go to war in Iraq over oil and to protect the interests of big oil, big energy, and the automotive industry rather than fully commit our nation to energy independence. We stay there, against the wishes of the majority of our population, to maintain a controlling presence in the Middle East as we continue to rely on oil and to fill the coffers of oligopolistic multinational corporations. Hunt Oil, whose chief executive and president, Ray Hunt, is a close political ally of President Bush and serves on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, signed the first American oil contract in Iraq, a production-sharing agreement with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Halliburton, Parsons, Flour, Washington Group International, and Bechtel are among the corporations making billions off the war. Pentagon no-bid defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman grow fat while 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. Private armies, beyond the control of the American people, like Blackwater and DynCorp International, protect the interests of the corporate and political elite.
While the bulk of our nation wishes to stem the tide of illegal immigration rushing across our borders, corporations profit from the cheap labor they provide and the wealthy maintain a supply of inexpensive domestic servants. If the people controlled our government, employers of undocumented workers would be heavily fined and/or jailed. Since the primary motivation for illegal immigration is economic, as jobs dried up illegal immigration would greatly diminish. It is not complicated. Neither is the reason it is not happening.
The president has gone to great lengths to protect the communications corporations complicit in the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Protection of the constitutional rights of the American people is seemingly, much lower on his priority list.
As that “great sucking sound” of manufacturing jobs leaving our shores that Ross Perot warned us about grows to a crescendo, communities crumble. The value of a corporations’ stock trumps the national interest. Maximizing profits by moving a company’s manufacturing interests overseas is more important than maintaining a middle class in the United States.
Although, the United States, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, has signed the unratified Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases that cause climate change, no national legislation has occurred to force the large corporate polluters, big energy, big oil, and the automotive industry to curb their deleterious practices because it “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.” Evidently the corporate elite would rather die rich than save the world.
The constitutional government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” so brilliantly crafted by our founding fathers has slowly eroded over the two hundred and twenty years since its inception. In a March 15, 1789 letter to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period.” That period has come in the Bush/Cheney administration, and it is fully allied with the corporate elite.
The only way to save America is to blunt the power of the overlapping circles of influence: corporate, political, and military. We citizens need to find politicians more concerned with solving problems than positioning themselves for the next election. This is a daunting task in a political system awash in corporate money. There are candidates abroad in the land who tell us that they will take on the special interests and end the war in Iraq through diplomacy, focus on international cooperation in the war on terror, solve the immigration crisis, restore the peoples’ constitutional freedoms, establish a healthcare system, available to all, which is geared toward serving the needs of the public rather than the profits of the corporations, work towards energy independence, fight global warming, restore the decaying national infrastructure while creating jobs, revitalize public education, and avert the upcoming financial crisis. Would that it would be so. The American citizenry must do its homework to select leaders who are willing to guide us through the sacrifices necessary to solve these problems. And then, as a human community of judges, we must apply the old logical rule of accountability, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
David E. Washburn is a Honolulu-based author and lecturer. Reach him at david@davidewashburn.com
March 18, 2007
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
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.
January 7, 2007
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.
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.
December 31, 2006
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.
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.
The Peoples of Pennsylvania: An Annotated Bibliography of Resource Materials (Hardcover)
by David E. Washburn
Hardcover: 231 pages
Publisher: Distributed by the University of Pittsburgh Press (1981)
ISBN: 0822942062
Read reviews of this book
Buy at Amazon
Buy at Froogle
Multicultural Education in the United States (Paperback)
by David E. Washburn
Paperback: 139 pages
Publisher: Inquiry International (December 1996)
ISBN: 0963552120
From the Journal of Negro Education (Fall 1997):
To reach students, it is critical that teachers be aware of their experiential backgrounds and that they employ materials and methods culturally relevant to the lives of their students. This book discusses the role of schools in providing solutions to issues of education and culture and in making multicultural education a major element in teacher education programs. Its five chapters highlight the decline in the practice of multicultural education in the U.S. and reinforce the need to reconceptualize it. ...
This book's organizational features contribute to the enhanced presentation of the material. These include a glossary section that serves as a convenient guide to the professional terminology of multicultural education and a list of references that provides readers with names of experts in the field of multicultural education. The tables in chapter three and throughout the book lend validity to the information presented. Washburn also has included as appendices copies of correspondence associated with the school survey, as well as a copy of the actual survey instrument.
Although Multicultural Education in the United States does not contain any specific predictions for the future, the information it presents is likely to make readers reflect and ask themselves: What more do educators want to accomplish in the field of multicultural education as the nation moves toward the new millennium? How could a stronger focus on multiculturalism be incorporated into teacher education programs? Or, more simply put, where do we go from here?
Read another review from The Bookwatch
Buy at Amazon
Buy at Froogle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)