Home » Jason White

Yes, the Iraqis are better off

Submitted by Jason White on April 15, 2005 - 8:51am.
Tags:

While Republicans celebrate what they see as their victory and the vindication of their arrogant, aggressive policy, too often Democrats seem to be reeling back on their heels. Republicans ask "aren't the Iraqis better off?" and Democrats artfully avoid the question. The Republican stance is that the Democrats have somehow been proven wrong. Meanwhile the multiple shifting justifications have been found to be "dead wrong" yet the Republicans artfully avoid facing that. The debate will not move forward until this dynamic is unlocked.

(continued, click "read more" below...)

The answer is "YES." We love freedom and democracy just as much as any American. We want everyone in the world to enjoy freedoms and representative government. Let us state this in no uncertain terms! The Iraqis are better off.

Now let us move forward. Your clue is right there in the question "aren't Iraqis better off?" Where in the Constitution of the United States of America does it say our government's charter is to work to make other nations' citizens better off? What logic justifies using huge amounts of Americans' tax dollars to benefit citizens of other nations? Show me where it is written that we the people grant the United States government the right to send American sons and daughters to their death working for freedom and democracy in other nations. This is illegal.

I care about Iraqis. I want them and everyone else on the planet to have a better life. But our government's job is not to provide for the Iraqis. It is to provide for the Americans.

I have no problem with our government providing for the Iraqis. But I only grant our government the right to do this after each and every American has been provided for. When ALL Americans have a home, have healthcare, have a job, are not hungry and have access to the finest education, then and only then do I allow my government to go out into the world and benefit citizens of other nations. And I only grant the government the right to do this in a non-violent, diplomatic and culturally aware way.

Note that I am purposefully separating providing at home and providing abroad as mutually exclusive to illustrate my point. In practice, I want my government to exhibit benevolence to all of Earth's citizens. We will not be truly prosperous and safe until everyone on Earth is.

Note also that this is quite a different issue from providing for the defense of our nation. This we must do while at the same time we work to create the conditions where there is no threat from which to defend ourselves.

Now the Republicans are back on their heels stuttering about Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, 9/11, American interests. But it's time they answered with a simple and unqualified, "okay, we were wrong about all that." Let the debate will move forward from there. The fundamental debate is about what the scope of our government is, about who its beneficiaries are, about the priorities of the American people. The government belongs to us and (should) serve us!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

move the debate forward

Submitted by Jason White on April 18, 2005 - 10:48pm.

Yes, "better off" is definitely not the question. One does not point to strife and turmoil in American society and argue that the founders and all the revolutionaries who supported and died for their vision were therefore wrong because we would have been better off under British rule. Difficulty and imperfection practically define our humanity, so none of this is unusual at all.

My aim is to move the debate beyond sentiments like "better off with democracy" and "dead wrong about WMD". These "what if" and "told you so" statements are not terribly useful and are rather disharmonious. We are in the present moment and what has been done is irreversible. The better debate centers around the illegality of the administration's policies and the obvious misuse and overspending of public funds.

why "better off" is not the question, and has no answer

Submitted by stereoman on April 18, 2005 - 8:57pm.

Better off than what? Does the current experience of ordinary Iraqi's resemble "democracy"? For twelve years before the 2003 invasion, Iraqi's were subjected to the most punishing sanctions ever inflicted upon a sovereign nation. At least as many died from hunger and diseases caused by the sanctions as were killed by the "ruthless dictator" Saddam. How much have conditions improved for ordinary Iraqi's since the elections? Why should they care whether they have an elected government or not if they do not have clean water or enough to eat?

The idea that the Republicans have somehow proven the Democrats wrong flies in the face of very recent history. Half of the Democrats voted in favor of authorizing the invasion, knowing full well - as we ordinary citizens knew - that Mr. Bush would abuse that authority. With the exception of a few brave and conscientious souls - such as Mr. Kucinich - the Democratic Party swallowed the bogus WMD claims, and regurgitated them to their constituents as justification for "military action", a euphemism for invasion. I have letters from both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards to demonstrate this point. The principle "anti-war" Democratic Presidential candidate - and I don't mean Mr. Kucinich - was destroyed by the so-called "Liberal Media's" comliance in endlessly playing back a "doctored" video. Pardon the expression.

In the end, the Bush agenda is met by usurping Iraq's control of their own natural resources - read: oil - to the benefit of the corporations whom the Administration serves. The Democratic party, for the most part, is married to the same agenda. Ordinary Iraqi's, who are among the best educated, most literate of Arabic people, have no reason to accept the propaganda that keeps cheap gasoline flowing into American cars and cheap heating oil heating American homes. They are not fooled by the rhetoric of "freedom and democracy". That's why Iraqi pipelines are on fire every day. That's why, despite two years of concentrated effort on the part of the overwhelmingly powerful Occupying Forces, Iraqi oil production has not yet even reached pre-invasion levels.

At present rate of consumption, all of the world's known oil reserves will last another fifteen years. Iraq and Iran together contain approximately four of those fifteen years of oil. That simple fact should tell you a lot about our foreign policy goals for the foreseeable future. If the US Government is to "serve Americans first", then the impending invasion of Iran is justified for the same reason as the invasion of Iraq.

Steve

=========

What you do may not seem important . . . but it is important that you do it. (attributed to Mahatma Gandhi)