Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh’s recent revelations that the Israeli government is encouraging Kurdish separatism in Iraq, Iran, and Syria should ring a bell for anyone who has followed the long history of English imperial ambitions.
Once the U.S. occupation of Iraq began over a year ago, Iraqi workers lost no time in reorganizing their country’s labor movement. Labor activity spread from Baghdad to the Kurdish north, with the center of the storm in the south, in the oil and electrical installations around Basra, and the port of Um Qasr.
More than a year and a half has passed since the U.S.-led coalition’s invasion of Iraq, and yet little progress has been seen in the daily lives of Iraqi people. Not only has reconstruction stalled, but human rights abuses by U.S. soldiers at the Abu-Ghraib prison and the crackdown on political opposition groups have undermined Washington’s efforts to emerge as a champion of democratic and human rights in Iraq.
Increasingly desperate to find a winning formula in Iraq, Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials are promoting Lebanon as a political model for Iraq. Agreed, the situation in Iraq is looking more and more like Lebanon–but not the “Lebanese model” Cheney talks about. The vice president appears to have in mind a pre-1967 Lebanon in which an elite of notables presided over a pluralistic republic, open to foreign capital, and free enterprise. Beirut in those days was known as the Paris of the Orient.
Editor’s note: This is a condensed version of a report prepared by the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) which can be found at http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=262.
President Bush, in his January 2001 inaugural address, described the United States as “a place where personal responsibility is valued and respected,” pledging “to call for responsibility and try to live it as well.” Four years later, in his September 2004 speech accepting the Republican nomination for a second term, the president returned to this theme, telling Americans they would have a choice to make on election day “based on the records we have built.” That said, his acceptance speech was notable, not for what he included but for what he left out–the problems and missteps that have plagued the Bush administration’s foreign policy. It’s time for the president to speak “on the record,” accepting responsibility for his flawed policies and discussing what he would do differently, if anything, in a second term.
If President Bush wins a second term, can the world expect a radically different foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere? Optimists suggest that the answer is yes. As evidence, they argue that the White House has rejected the counsel of neoconservatives and is reaching out to moderate Republicans in search of a more balanced foreign policy. In turn, realists suggest that recent events leave little hope for change. What would a second term foreign policy look like?
For tens of thousands of fans, it was a happy September–the pro-football season resumed, diverting attention from the political campaign and natural disasters.
No wonder it feels so damn frustrating. ItÂs like 1968 all over again.