Defeat for whom?
Tuesday, December 19th, 2006Now that even our government admits that Iraq policy has to change, we are hearing lots of statements that we must change the policy, but avoid “defeat.” The President says he listens to all opinions, but he rejects the ones that would “lead to defeat.” The new Secretary of Defense, Roberts M. Gates, warns that “failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come.”
Sounds a lot like the consequences if they succeed. It does no good to talk about whether “America” succeeds in Iraq, or whether “we” succeed in Iraq, only about who succeeds in Iraq. There are the people who wanted the war and started it, and there are the rest of us. We don’t have the same idea of what victory would be.
We’ve known for some time what the White House thinks. George W. Bush and the ruling class he represents are after a renewed American empire, starting with a colony in the Middle East. Bush has publicly admitted what he denied for years, which is that he is after the oil reserves. The more than half a million dead in Iraq were expendable in the cause of U.S. imperialism.
For the rest of us, “success” is stopping a war of aggression before it can do more damage, and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Success is exposing the war profiteers who started two wars for private profit. Success is permanently discrediting imperialism in general and U.S. imperialism in particular, and convincing the rest of the world that the majority of Americans are willing to respect the sovereignty of other countries. David McReynolds notes:
I understand those who feel that it would be irresponsible “to turn and run”. But to think the US can “fix” things now is like thinking a rapist is the ideal person to stay and provide therapy to the victim.
