November 18, 2004
War for Oil or Rape Rooms?
from - smijer
In the comments of the last post, Buck made a couple of comments that really boiled down the essence of the "debate" over Iraq, but that bear some further discussion.
Part One: The Bush administration did make a lot of noise about "rape rooms" and "human shredders" in Saddam's Iraq. Buck asks, how can we be sure, reminding us of the existence of propaganda. Unfortunately, while this is a good point, the atrocities in question were documented fairly well by human rights groups before they became part of the Bush propaganda machine, and there is very likely some truth to them. More unfortunately still, the real question isn't whether these things happened in Saddam's Iraq. The real question is does anybody really care?
As I and others have pointed out many times before, the Bush administration has excellent relationships with dictators who have similar records of atrocities.
The U.S. has an unofficial policy of hiring out its own torture work to places like Syria.
Are these kinds of atrocities a legitimate cassus belli? If so, will we have civil war over Abu Ghraib, Camp X-Ray, or Passaic County Jail? No. We won't even vote out the ruling party under whose watch these things took place, much less take up arms against them. We will smile and nod while the person is promoted to Attorney General who helped create a legal framework where suspects (including American citizens) could be held indefinitely without charges, without contact with the outside world, and without the protections of the Geneva convention. We will celebrate that the people will remain in power who created an atmosphere where jailers of Prisoners of War were only accountable in one instance because of the courage of a low-ranking whistle-blower. (Four more years!)
So, no. Nobody really thinks that war is the first, best response to that kind of violation of human rights - even the people who so want to love and admire the president that they are willing to accept the rumored rape rooms and human shredders as justification for this war.
Part two: Is the Iraq war about blood for oil? To a lot of my friends in the center and on the right, the idea seems ridiculous. To me, it seems somewhat unlikely. But, I remember reading an extremely popular novel written in the Cold War. It was written by Tom Clancy, and called "Red Storm Rising". Maybe you've heard of it, or read it. In it, the author lays out a very plausible-seeming scenario where the Soviets start World War Three for one reason and one reason only: to secure middle eastern oil for their own economy. Now, the Soviets were very famous for their propaganda, but we aren't so bad at it ourselves, and to my friends in the center or on the right, I say this: how plausible war-for-oil will seem depends partly on how willing you are to believe bad things about the people who start the war.
To my friends on the left, and anti-war conservatives who share their view that this war was fought for oil: it's worth remembering that our inability to think of a plausible alternative is not, by itself, evidence that "war for oil" is true. And, in fact, stability of the Middle East for American oil companies was only one of the goals of the PNAC, the architects of the war. They really did believe that planting a western style government in the Middle East (at the point of a gun) would produce a "Domino Effect" on the rest of the region and help make the world more secure and improve the lives of people in that region. Yes, it was a stupid theory, and no - it wasn't worth the blood that has been spilt in order to test it. But there is reason to believe that might have been part of the motivation for this war as well.
To sum up, I think it damages our credibility, and isn't being as careful with the facts as we should be, to make the blanket assertion that the war is being fought for oil and only for oil.
::Posted by smijer at November 18, 2004 07:37 AM
I am still scratching my head and wondering why YOU think we are there. And I understand that there can be more than ONE given reason for war. Hell, there are people who think we are fighting so that Iraqi women won’t have to wear burka’s anymore.
Oil, by far and away, makes the most sense to me because it is the gold standard of our times. In order to rule the world you must have control of the natural resources. No country would spend (and certainly no capitalist country would spend) over a billion dollars per week in order to be sure that women have equal access to education. And the guys that “started this war” do not see having somebody else fight and die for oil as a bad thing. It is very important to them and will provide retirement benefits and education for their children. They will reap the "benefits" of this war for countless generations. Nothing is all bad.
And the last thing in the world we want in Iraq is a democracy. How many cities do you think we would flatten if the people of Iraq voted to bring Hussein back? Hell, if you want to know who will be the next leader of Iraq just keep your eyes on the guy that is backed by the United States. He ain’t gonna lose no stinkin’ “election”. He will magically win the overwhelming support of the very people that want us to get the hell out of their country.
As far as “human shredders” and “rape rooms” go I put them in the same category as the “they took babies from incubators and let them die on the floor” story that circulated back in 1990 before Gulf War One (a google search of Nayirah will familiarize you with that story if by chance you are not familiar.) Painting the “enemy” as inhuman and not deserving the treatment given to normal human beings is an important part of waging a successful war.
IMHO war is the ultimate human rights violation and all others pale in comparison.
In order to lose credibility you must first have credibility. I do not think that the United States has any credibility in the Middle East to lose.
The best part is that all of us can sit here 7,000 miles away from the nearest shot being fired in anger and watch it all unfold before us.
To try and sum up a very disjointed reply, yes there are many reasons for war but there can only be one primary reason. Oil and the control of oil in the Middle East makes the most sense to me. I do not contend that this is a “bad” thing. I try to avoid “good” and “bad”. I only say that I would not die nor would I expect any of my children to die for this reason. For that matter I would not expect them to die for Iraqi freedom either.
|
Posted by Buck on November 18, 2004 11:36 AM Link to comment |
I can appreciate that oil makes sense to you as the number one priority there. However, there is no way to prove it, and people that are less cynical about Bush are apt to ignore everything you have to say with the excuse that you believe something that seems so preposterous to them, based on their pro-Bush point of view.
I think the domino-theory is the more probable reason (as I mentioned in the post), and it matches up with at least part of their ostensible justification. But that is just what I believe. Unless we learn to read minds or give Dick Cheney truth serum, we'll never know for sure....
That doesn't mean we should let off showing that most of the Bush's words and war justifications don't match up well with their actions.
|
|
Posted by smijer on November 18, 2004 02:36 PM Link to comment |
"the atrocities in question were documented fairly well by human rights groups before they became part of the Bush propaganda machine, and there is very likely some truth to them." Thank you for writing this. It is true and as I just posted in another comment there have been at least two lengthy documentaries shown. One was on A & E's Biography and the other on CNN depicting the life of Saddam and his sons including the atrocities committed by this family. We all tend to want to think that whatever we hear from the political party that we do not agree with is propaganda and whatever comes from our own party is truth.
|
|
Posted by Jan on November 18, 2004 04:44 PM Link to comment |
We all tend to want to think that whatever we hear from the political party that we do not agree with is propaganda and whatever comes from our own party is truth.Amen sister! But since I have no political allegiance or preference I am not sure where that leaves me.
I appreciate that oil makes sense to you as the number one priority there. However, there is no way to prove itLet's just call it a theory.
I think the domino-theory is the more probable reasonThat is one of the reasons I like you Smijer. You give everybody the benefit of the doubt. You are more interested in politics while I am more interested in realpolitik. (not that there is anything wrong with that)
|
|
Posted by Buck on November 18, 2004 09:30 PM Link to comment |
