|
March
5, 2003
I can't watch television news these days
without punching walls. For instance, Fox News pundit Bill O' Reilly
recently snapped that once the war begins, "we expect every
American to support our military, and if you can't do that; just
shut up." He follows up by boasting that any dissenters "will
be considered enemies of the state by me." One of the, um,
"reporters" on CNN Headline News openly heckles Hollywood
celebrities for asking "simple and naïve" questions,
like "what exactly has Iraq done to us?"
The broadcast
and cable networks have long since thrown their lot with the pro-war
hawks of the White House; that's to be expected (war means big ratings).
What I resent is the condescending, sneering nature of it all.
Of course,
one of the main thrusts of the war hawks is the so-called "humanitarian"
cause. Saddam is a bad man. He brutalized his own people. He used
chemical weapons on the Kurds. We're not going to conquer Iraq because
of its oil; we intend to liberate these poor people.
Uh huh.
Sure they will.
There
are many reasons why people oppose this war, and most of them simply
return to the same theme: the Bush Administration is lying. The
public is being sold a lemon and being told it's a Cadillac. Saddam
Hussein is not about to attack America or anyone else. Iraq poses
a threat to no one. This has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism
of Osama Bin Laden.
And the
Bush hawks have no intention of bringing democracy to Iraq. Iraq
is not going to become a beacon of freedom; not now, and not anytime
soon. And anyone who thinks me "unpatriotic" for noticing
has rocks in their heads.
Consider
the case of the Iraqi Kurds. After the 1991 Gulf War, the Kurds
were given semi-autonomous control over the northern third of Iraq
And what
of postwar Iraq? Despite attempts to court and bring together the
different factions of Iraqi opposition groups, the Administration
has grown increasingly impatient and weary. So who will run Iraq?
The White House has decided to impose a US military governor at
the top. Saddam's ruling Baath party would remain largely intact,
with the top two officials in each Iraqi ministry replaced by American
military officers.
Word
of this plan was leaked by the leaders of the Iraqi National Congress,
the main opposition group. Kanan Makiya, an INC advisor, expressed
his frustrations to the British newspaper, The Observer, on February
16:
"This
would be an unmitigated disaster for the long-term relationship
between the US and the Iraqi people. The Iraqi opposition is going
to become anti-American the day after liberation."
Dr. Ahmad
Chalabi also chimed in to The Guardian on February 21. "Their
vision is of US military officers three-deep in every ministry.
It isn't workable."
Of course,
what does he know? He's only the founder and chairman of the INC,
that's all.
The Iraqi
Kurds have not been forgotten by "President" Bush, either,
lest you forget. After all, we're going to save them from a brutal
oppressor hell-bent on occupying their territory, brutally suppressing
their hopes for independence, and stealing their natural resources.
Oh, wait, my mistake, I wasn't thinking of Hussein. I was thinking
of Turkey.
For most
of the last century, Turkey has brutally repressed the Kurds. Their
treatment is arguably worse than Saddam; after all, his deadly business
was mostly in the '80s, under the blessings
of the Reagan Administration. Turkey has murdered, raped, and
pillaged the Kurdish minority for decades. You see, the ancient
homeland of "Kurdistan" includes eastern Turkey as well
as northern Iraq. Turkey fears that the Turkish Kurds would someday
secede from their country and reunite with their brethren in a postwar
Iraq.
The Bush
hawks desperately want to use Turkish bases for a northern front
against Iraq. Turkey wants assurances that their Kurdish "problem"
is dealt with. How to solve the dilemma? Cut a deal, hand over the
checks, and work on your alibi.
For the
$26 billion in bribes, the White House gets its northern front and
a shorter war. Turkey has reassurances that the Kurds will not seek
independence. It gets better. The Turkish army also gets to move
into Iraq and "secure" the Kurdish-controlled region,
under the pretext of self-protection. And to sweeten the pot, Turkey
is allowed to seize the oilfields of Kirkuk, territory coveted since
the days of the Ottoman Empire.
It's
an amazing work of math: thirty pieces of silver from first-century
Palestine comes to $26 billion in today's dollars. Of course, the
Kurds have no intention of trading one dictator for another, and
have vowed to fight any Turkish troops that march into their territory.
While we're at it, don't forget Iran, a loyal Kurdish ally, with
their soldiers nearby.
Fortunately,
Bush and Turkey's military were stopped by someone who was forgotten
in the shuffle: Turkey's parliament. With public opposition to war
hovering around, oh, 95%, their parliament voted down the agreement.
As of this writing, there is still a possibility that there would
be a second vote, with a likely success, but the fact of this arrangement
is chilling. That the Bush Administration would so willingly concoct
such a deal speaks volumes about their priorities.
Just
reflect on this for a minute, and you will begin to understand why
this coming war is such a terrible mistake. This is a disaster in
the making. Of course, I'm just being simple and naïve again,
aren't I?
|
