The Leveller: A modern day regulator

Democracy, American Style!

Originally Posted 19 December 2004

Would a just war have support from all constituents in America? Perhaps it may not. It may be important to note that a minority in fact accomplished the American Revolution. One third of the population were essentially British loyalists, another third of the people wanted to continue living in the climate of the day, and the last third promoted the revolution.

Pre-emptive Foreign Policy?

What support is there for Democracy in Iraq? Although Democracy is something generally accepted as a good thing for civilization, and a debatable subject on its own, lets label the American aggression in Iraq, whatever the government desires, and debate what is “Democracy” and how it can be achieved another time. Support for this action is in reality not popular. Civilized people around the globe deem it as an objectionable action not congruent with philosophical principles inherent in a free society. Support can be found but it is generally among few people and mostly confined to people who have pledged some allegiance to the Republican Party or some misguided Wilsonian path to the high ground of humanitarian types endorsing the ultimate sacrifice made by others.

As this war in Iraq continues and considering the political struggles over it at home, its apparent that this vague war on terror has problems that suggest the nation state is in a conflict it is not fit to fight or even capable of winning. Israel has been fighting this type of war on their own soil for years and knows very well their state of affairs is something they must live with forever. How can people in the American government expect to win a similar war several thousand miles away?

The plan for preemptive engagement, specifically a war in Iraq, was drafted years before during the Clinton administration by people that now occupy and influence the white house. Also, consider that in 2000, Bush ran on the platform that decried nation building and endorsed a more “humble” foreign policy meanwhile the very plan for preemption was sitting idle. After the disastrous 9-11, the people elected to government who were also the architects of the preemption plan, put it into action. This is a war they wanted even without the 9-11 events. This is a war, an occupation, a liberation of Iraq, which Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, William Krystol, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld considered legitimate and supported prior to 9-11. The support from the American public for Iraqi liberation intent primarily on finding WMD’s being more substantive in its tacitness was amalgamated post 9-11. When pressed for details or confirmation of the necessity for this war on what was originally communicated to the public the administration and pro-war supporters have trouble providing evidence other than Saddam Hussein was a very bad man. Even his complicity with UBL was refuted by Cheney when he stated “its easy to see how people could have made that connection” as he declared there never was any evidence of any connection between Hussein and Bin Laden. So the pro-war supporters are left claiming a moral and ethical obligation to save the Iraqi people as their defense, which is hard to refute since Americans have relied on a “relative” moral foundation that is usually associated with Liberals by American “Conservatives” but now serves ironically as a Republican pro-war defensive posture.

The occupation in Iraq must have its merits and conclusions evaluated on just what it is and what the Bush administration adopted and where they are trying nudge foreign policy into that plan written during the Clinton years called PNAC, which Clinton rejected as too costly given the current political climate of the day. The little chicken Hawks are merely test-driving their foreign policy at American expense.

Meanwhile serving as a distraction, the domestic political debate mired in the details such as WMD and other arguments take center stage giving the dialog in America a political safety blanket of “politics as usual” that falls in typical ideological politically-based lines.

Another less noted distraction is reported here
click me

There is so much American taxpayer money flowing that no one can keep an accurate account of who is getting what. One question among many others is why does an American company, one of the many contractors in Iraq, receive several hundred million in reconstruction aid when that company subcontracts the work out to a local Iraqi company to do the work? That American company then claims they are helping out the Iraqi’s by giving them work and paying them for it. Shouldn’t the Army Corp of Engineers dole out the work to Iraqis instead of the money to American companies?