On Iraq

It’s very strange to me how difficult it has been to write on this topic. I don’t quite know why, although I am fairly certain I will venture to guess more than once before I’m done writing.

I read a headline in HuffingtonPost.com which said that network evening news broadcasts are down to averaging about two minutes a week on coverage of whatever it is that is happening in Iraq. But this is not the reason.

Even though it seems every poll taken on what Americans list as the top issue in the November elections seems to separate the economy and the Iraq war, I cannot. They are inextricably linked.

And this is where I get embarrassed to write because my mind fills with quick allusions to just the type of historical references that get made fun of when they are mentioned because of their distance in the past and obscurity.

For instance; most people remember Richard I of England, if he is remembered at all, as the “Lionheart”, the hero king who returns in triumph at the end of Robin Hood or Ivanhoe. I think of him as the son of a bitch who spent all of six months of his nine year reign in England because he was busy fighting a Crusade of choice and being ransomed by a fellow Christian ruler. Both events bankrupted his country and led to making his successor, King John, vilified for finding it very difficult to refill the treasuries depleted by his action star brother.

More history flashes in my mind: My favorite Shakespeare play is Julius Caesar. Coriolanus is also high up there. At the suggestion of one of my acting teachers, I began reading Roman history to help me better portray the characters in those plays. I happened to stumble on to how Rome went from hopeful Republic to despotic empire.

Put simply, after the overthrow of the kings, the Romans first fought wars to defend their borders. They then realized that, if attacked by neighbors, it was better to simply conquer those neighbors and create a wider buffer between themselves and the outside world. Then they realized it was better to be proactive and, if a threat was perceived, it was best to just take the land of the perceived threat. Finally, by the time of Julius Caesar, the Roman form of government was recognized—by Romans—as being the most efficient and civilized way of doing things so why not conquer everybody?

Tada!

Empire.

Blessedly and somewhat annoyingly, a bit of comic relief pops into my mind when I think of the above Roman evolution and the “what did the Romans ever do for us scene from the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian” comes to mind:



What annoys me about the scene is the clearly stated argument of the other side—those in power in America who are wholeheartedly and unabashedly in support of this country being an empire. In fact, they will say that we already are one and should be acting like it.

If you think this is silly, I direct your attention to the following quote from “Newsweek”:

“Let's face it: Americans have always made crummy imperialists. A century ago Teddy Roosevelt complained that "America lacked the stomach for empire." A senior White House official echoed that lament early in the Iraq occupation, noting that America has the power of a true empire, like Rome or like Britain in the 19th century, but not the taste for acting like one. "Look at us in Iraq—how much difficulty we have in saying we will anoint people to run the country. Does anyone think the Romans or the Brits would have been deterred?" he grumbled.”

June 25 Newseek, 2007
Michael Hirsh
The Gaza effect

The quote contains both the hope I have for this country coupled with the dread I feel for the future of this country. History has taught that once a country whole-heartedly goes down the road of empire, there is no turning back. It also goes on to teach that “that way madness lies”; decadence, hubris, and self destruction.

The hope lies in that first sentence. Up to the present, Americans seem to have a natural revulsion to imperialism. The Neo-Cons tactic has been to sneak it by us by using Frank Luntz inspired, nice-sounding synonyms to describe what our government is doing. The only problem is, as the above quote shows, they know full well that they are trying to build the next Roman Empire behind the synonym façade.

These are very smart, devious people who ultimately believe that Americans will just accept that they live in an empire someday. At that time, they can dispose of the nice words and say, “See. It’s not so bad is it? Yeah, it will lead to our ultimate destruction but at least we’ll all be famous”

Thus you have statements like McCain saying that we could stay in Iraq for 10,000 years. If nobody’s getting shot, why not? It’s what empires do.

In the weeks since I began writing this piece, Barack Obama has attempted to clarify his stance on pulling out of Iraq. Conditions on the ground play a part in the timeline. Sixteen months is the goal. Unforeseen circumstances may alter it.

Critics on both sides have been attacking him for this. Seeing it as an opportunity to accuse him of “flip-flopping.” It’s not. It is however, in text, similar to what McCain has said. So it becomes necessary to think in terms of nuance and the question to ask is which one of these candidates has a mind to empire and which has a mind to world community?

The recent responses of both candidates to Russia’s invasion of Georgia can also be used in this assessment.

Make no mistake about it. After years, even centuries, of playing with the idea, it must be accepted that this particular election is as far as foreign policy is concerned, a referendum as to whether we will consciously pursue the path of empire.

The Neo-Cons will maintain a more serious version of the Monty Python clip-- That empires have always brought great advancement to the world. They will leave out the torture, oppression, and moral decay.

World community types—the direction in which I lean—maintain that it might be time to consciously pursue a new path.

The fact is the United States MUST NOT and CAN NOT become an empire. To willingly pursue that path is to finally and completely abandon what the most venerated Founders of this country first intended: a country that would be a shining example of freedom to the world.

The reason why we can not is simple: China. I could include others, like the European Union and Russia, India, and the Middle East, but really, one need say no more than China. When we talk about how America is the “Greatest country in the world”, China giggles a little bit. We may be further along on the humane scale, but greatness is kind of an all-encompassing statement.

Make no mistake about it. The invasion of Iraq was a long hoped for first step in a grand scheme by the Neo-Cons to force the U.S. into the role of empire. The claim being that we were the lone World Power. It is only logical that we should now rule the place. It’s all a game of influence to them. And it drives them crazy when Obama and others speak about being citizens of the world. So they will do anything to distort that sincere and hopeful sentiment.

The United States has a great deal to offer the world, but other nations of the world have a great deal to offer us as well. We have a great deal to offer, but not as supreme ruler.

If one traces the McCain campaign’s comments on Iraq and foreign relations in general, you will find jokes about bombing Iran, as well as killing them with cigarettes. You will find comments about staying in Iraq for 50, 100, or even 10,000 years. You will find him comfortably drawing a parallel between the Iraq situation and the permanent bases we have in places like Japan and South Korea. In recent weeks, he has responded to every crisis with sabre-rattling and the belittling of other nations who would stand against us. I don’t think it would be a stretch when all this is considered that his intention would be to eventually set up a permanent U.S. military base in the nation of Georgia as well as Ukraine. It seems pretty clear that this is what he has a mind to.

I have had conversations with Germans, South Koreans, Japanese and other nationalities who live in countries with U.S. military bases. Some, especially the Koreans, are very appreciative of the protection. Some are as annoyed by the presence of U.S. troops in their country as I would be at the thought of a Saudi Arabian base in Skokie. Either way, I am neither comfortable with countries who are encouraged to be complacent with our presence nor unsettled by it.

Although I have not heard Obama’s campaign pushing for vacating bases that are already established, I do have every reason to believe that he nor his administration would have a mind to establishing more bases reminiscent of despotic empires of the past.

There are certainly historical arguments in favor of what the Neo-cons, who now seem to be in complete control of McCain and his campaign, want.

There are also arguments against which point out the destructive price, both outward and inward, that such a bent demands.

It is up to each voter to take this into consideration when placing their vote. But let it not be mistaken that each vote in large part is a vote for or against the boldfaced quest for empire.

J.A.L.