The Pentagon ushered in the New Year with seemingly welcome news: IraqÂs security is improving. Attacks across the country fell 62% and, according to aid organization Iraqi Red Crescent, 20,000 Iraqi refugees returned home from Syria in December alone. The U.S. troop surge must be working. Even the Democratic opponents of President George BushÂs agenda in Iraq are befuddled by the news, unclear how to proceed.
Noam Chomsky is a noted linguist, author, and foreign policy expert. On January 15, Michael Shank interviewed him on the latest developments in U.S. policy toward Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan. In the first part of this two-part interview, Chomsky also discussed how the U.S. government’s belief in its ownership of the world shapes its foreign policy.
Michael Shank: Is the leading Democrats’ policy vis-à-vis Iraq at all different from the Bush administration’s policy?
For many Democrat voters, John McCain represents the least bad Republican presidential candidate on the ballot. Democrats not wanting the Bible in the White House are disinclined toward southern Baptist Mike Huckabee, and those not wanting a doubled-in-size Guantanamo or an immigrant-free America find Mitt Romney completely unlikable. McCain seems to be the most willing to build bipartisan coalitions, the most willing to give detainees legal representation, and the most willing to tackle global warming  all of which makes many Democrat voters fonder of McCain than any other Republican candidate.
As the saying goes, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The Bush administration has embraced this adage in Iraq, which has suffered
one of the worst humanitarian crises to strike the Middle East since the Mongols
sacked Baghdad.
If al-Qaida in Iraq loses–we win. If the insurgents in Iraq lose–we win. If the Iranian influence in Iraq loses–we win. If we just can sell the occupation to the Iraqis–we win. And in order to “win”, we need to sell the invasion and occupation to the Iraqis.
Editors Note: The following is an excerpt from the introduction to Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007).
If a surgeon botches an operation, few patients would ask him to stick around and try again. This is especially true if the operation was elective and the surgeon insisted on performing it. Yet this is exactly how the Bush administration is trying to justify the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq. This time, the administration’s latest addition to the reasons to stay in Iraq is that we have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to prevent them from having a blood bath.
“We have to decide, as a nation, whether our need for Middle Eastern oil is more important to our future than our conduct as a moral and ethical people.” Which brave presidential candidate would lay it on the line so clearly? None yet. And that’s the problem with the national debate on the war in Iraq, and possibly, our foray into Iran as well.