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.
January 7, 2007
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)