The airwaves and the headlines are full of talk of a U.S. military strike against Iran. That is as it should be–the danger of such a reckless move is real, and rising, and we should be talking about it. The Bush administration claims that negotiations are their first choice. But they have gone to war based on lies before, and there is no reason to believe that they are telling the truth this time.
Last February, former President Jimmy Carter said on the Larry King show, “Some of our top leaders never intend to withdraw military forces from Iraq and they are looking for [staying] ten, 20, 50 years.” He continued, “I have never heard our leaders say that …ten years from now there will be no military bases of the United States in Iraq.”
The United States is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons. This is only the most recent of its seemingly endless series of battles over the past 60 years to control which other countries have access to these weapons. In this time it has failed to understand that as a nuclear-armed superpower it is as much part of the problem as part of the solution. As the Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca explained almost 2000 years ago, “Power over life and death—don’t be proud of it. Whatever they fear from you, you’ll be threatened with.”
The origins of the March 14 Israeli raid of a Palestinian prison in Jericho are rooted in another Israeli raid on a Palestinian city in 2001.
Congressional Democrats, who proved themselves to be so timid in challenging the Bush administration in its invasion and occupation of Iraq, the initial passage of the Patriot Act, the bombing of Afghanistan, the detention without due process and torture of thousands of detainees worldwide, and other horrendous policies finally found the courage to challenge the Bush administration on a post-9/11 security issue and won. Unfortunately, they chose an issue of little real importance and decided to appeal to popular racist and jingoistic sentiments by raising exaggerated fears over the implications of a routine transfer of ownership of a company which operates facilities at some terminals in six U.S. ports.
Since the bombing of the golden-domed Askariya Shi’a mosque in Samarra on February 22, Iraq has been close to the outbreak of open civil war. While Iraqi leaders tried to bring calm it was clear that the masses behind them were not marching in step. As in the case of the nationalist Shi’ite leader Moqtadah al-Sadr’s movement, elites and militants pulled in opposite directions: while some of the most violent reprisals were apparently undertaken by his followers, al-Sadr and his top leaders sought to defuse tensions with the Sunnis throughout the conflict. Similarly, the legal political parties of the Sunnis and Shi’ites tried to limit the conflict while their followers were in the streets. The only thing common on all sides was placing blame on the American occupiers.
The sectarian violence which has swept across Iraq following last month’s terrorist bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara is yet another example of the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Until the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation, Iraq had maintained a longstanding history of secularism and a strong national identity among its Arab population despite its sectarian differences.
Amid all the talk of training Iraqi soldiers, heading off a civil war, and protecting a fledging democracy, one overriding agenda has been ignored in the debate over the timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. President George W. Bush will not withdraw our forces until U.S. oil companies have secure access to Iraq’s resources.
Dear Friends,
It is customary early in the New Year to recommend good books to read. And the Tao Te Ching should be at the top of President Bush’s list. Careening from crisis to crisis with approval ratings drooping, the president should consider the opening lines of chapter 80. “If a country is governed wisely, its inhabitants will be content.”