In order to figure out a solution to the situation in Iraq and the world in general, we must first understand the events leading up to the actions in Iraq. To understand the full scope of the situation is the first step towards a resolution.
First off, we are dealing with the world political arena and therefore must understand how world politics differs from domestic politics. In domestic politics, there is authority- there are rules, limits, and people or institutions set up to establish and enforce these rules and limits. There is a concern of misuse of power, that those in charge will fail to serve our interests or to serve justice. In world politics, there is no authority; there is anarchy. There are no rules, no government, no legitimate way to enact and enforce laws. There is a security dilemma inherent in world politcs. The UN acts as a measure to create a world community and foster cooperation among nation-states. But the UN is only effective as long as the nation-state chooses to join and cooperate with the UN. There is no world governing body, no way to ensure freedom and justice for all in the world.
That being said, we must then look at the history of the Middle East. Rather than delve deep into the history, we will start with post-World War II, with the notion of Panarabism. In the aftermath of situations in which Nasser, colonel who threw out the king in Egypt, asserted power over the Suez Canal, Egypt was attacked by Israel. The U.S. was concerned with the public mood in the Middle East, and along with the Soviet Union, pressured Israel, Britain, and France to stop the war. Nasser became increasingly popular in the Middle East and Egypt and Syria united, forming the United Arab Republic. Panarabism asserted that all Arab people should be united in one big and powerful state. This appeal for Arab unity is apparent in today's time as well, and it is for this reason that bin Laden's popularity is hightened by the notion of one Arab state, needing a leader.
The implications of the attacks of 9/11 include a return of politics, history, and government. There had been a clash of ideologies in the 20th century- liberal democracies against fascism and communism. Fascism more or less disentegrated, and communism was contained in the early '90s. This resulted in the end of history because only liberal democracies were left. With these attacks, it is evident that history has returned- there are again fundamental clashes.
The New world order in the '90s meant that the world was run by economics and technology. Arab Elites did not want to change because it would weaken their power- globalization was not in their best interest. This demonstrates a return of politics.
As a result of the attacks of 9/11, government returned in a big way. The top priority shifted to security. Government intervention in individual affairs can now be justified as a means of national security measures. Civil liberties are reduced when national security becomes the main focus of the government.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban was able to take over control. Afghan arabs, such as bin Laden, were able to raise money for schools in refugee camps- schools which taught strict fundamentalism, strict Muslim faith, and foster a commitment to the Islamic revolution. The Taliban was made up of "students" educated in these schools.
The motives for the September 11 attacks include hate, punishment, a desire for the removal of American forces, personal gain, and a desired big response by the US. In the Middle East, the West, and the US in particular, is viewed as evil and Imperialistic. Since 1991, the US has had military forces in Saudi Arabia enforcing a no fly zone. Bin Laden's political motives would be enhanced by uniting the Arab world. A big reaction by the US would seem to be indiscriminate violence against Arabs, thus contributing to the idea of a holy war and furthering bin Laden's cause and appeal.
In the aftermath of these attacks, it was imperative that President Bush was able to reassure the American public and reassert American dominance in the world. Bush announced a "War on Terror," an initiative to fight terrorism and keep America and the rest of the world safe. However, the situation in Afghanistan looked bleak, Osama could not be captured. Too much of a focus on the failure to immediately secure America by stopping bin Laden and his terrorist network would only make the US appear as a weakening power. So the "War on Terror" shifted its focus to Iraq's brutal dictator. Bush relied on false and misleading information to convince the nation that a preemptive war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Capturing Saddam gives a great deal of credibility to President Bush and, to many, makes this war seem justified. However, there is now an American dictator in Iraq, an exorbitant amount of US funds supporting this war, and no definitive plan for rebuilding Iraq. It is important that we do not lose sight of the bad policies and falsities of the Bush Administration involving this war, but we must also recognize that there is nothing we can do to change how we got to where we are. We must now focus on a solution. While I disagree with the war, it would be a massive mistake to withdraw the troops now. I don't know what the solution is; I only know that acting on purely political motives (mostly individual, rather than national) could be disastrous. Bush's motives seem to be motivated in large part by his own political interests, especially as we enter a pivotal election year. Among most current politicians, individual gain is favored over national betterment. Whether a policy is what is truly best for the nation is not as important as the implications of the policy for the politician himself. This needs to change. We need politicians with integrity who will stand up for the country, regardless of what this means for their careers.[LINE] [i]Most of the ideas outlined here are not my original thoughts. Many were taken from various essays in a Public Affairs book entitled How Did This Happen?[/i]
posted by: jimdoney (reply)
post date: 01.11.04 (9:00 pm)
Well at least your not taking credit for this propoganda. The fact that anyone can believe that a war would be waged simply for political gain is ludicrous. Why dont you check out some of the actual resolutions and letters to the UN that got this whole party started.
http://www.un.int/france/documents_anglais/030305_mae_france_irak.htm
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2003/20030307draft.pdf
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
It just so happens that a lot of people thought he violated and breached a lot of referendums a lot of times. Not exactly the unilateral and political grab that you would have us believe eh?
Reply to: jimdoney
I wasn't saying the war was waged solely for political gain- Saddam was a dangerous person. However, it was a war waged based on opportunity, rather than out of necessity. To refer to any war as a "party" is atrocious- perhaps you should join the troops in Iraq.
I've never claimed that Saddam was never a threat, or not dangerous. Though I disagree with the war, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the result of having Saddam ousted is not a good thing- it certainly is. The Bush Administration neglected its official responsibilities by being rather careless when entering this war. You can argue that this war was completely justified, but the reasons detailed by the president did not justify this action.
Yes, most of the world agrees that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous dictator and needed to be dealt with. However, the actions taken by the US were impetuous and without support abroad.
posted by: jimdoney (reply)
post date: 01.12.04 (7:08 pm)
Sorry for the poor selection of grammer I didnt use the word party to in any way take away from the real sacrifices and tasks being undertaken by the Allied Forces.
The word party was meant more to describe the back and forth banter over objectives and reasons and WMDs etc etc etc not the actual war efforts in the ongoing strike.
"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins
