22 March 2008
Five years into the war, Iraq continues to
dominate political debate in the United States. We are reminded day in and day
out that the American people are sick and tired of the war.
But there is no surprise in this. It is
doubtful the American people would have felt any differently had the war turned
out any other way. America is a culture of speed and short memory; it is hooked
on here and now, and craves, more than anything else, convenience and quick
solutions. Events, be they cultural or political, cannot sustain people’s
interest if lasting more than a year. It is engrained in the culture that a
crisis need not be allowed to linger on for too long, and that putting the
problem behind and moving on is the best solution. The very name and popularity
of Move-on.org is a perfect illustration of that.
We are also told that only Senator Obama
knows how to end this conflict; presumably his voting against the war
authorization in 2003 gives him the necessary moral and political insight which
the other candidates (Clinton and McCain) lack.
But wait a minute. Just pretend for a
moment that the Iraq war did not happen, that Saddam is still thumbing his noise
at America, that once again he is threatening Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia with
invasion, and that at home he continues to live up to his reputation as Iraq’s
undisputed terror master.
What would Obama be saying? What would
McCain be saying? They would be saying the very exact opposite of what they are
saying now.
Here’s Obama: “My fellow Americans, this
Republican administration has had nearly eight years to liberate Iraq from
Saddam. This was a goal set by Congress in1988. By failing to act, President
Bush has shown the world that when America talks about freedom it really doesn’t
mean it. My fellow Americans, when it comes to foreign policy, with regard to
any country, not just Iraq, we cannot do better than to make the defense of
liberty our priority. What Franklin Delano Roosevelt told the world in 1941, I
want to tell the world in 2008: ‘We are putting forth our energies, our
resources and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and
maintain a free world.’
“With regard to the freedom-loving people of
Iraq, I make this pledge: In your struggle, you can count on my administration’s
iron-clad support; we have betrayed you in the past, I admit, but from now on
your struggle is also America’s struggle.
“Those who say we can still do business with
Saddam, I must insist, are sadly mistaken. This man has invaded two of his
neighbors, Iran and Kuwait. This man has produced and used chemical weapons
against his own people. This man continues to violate the no-fly zones. This
man refuses to allow UN inspections of his chemical and nuclear facilities.
This man threatens to wipe out Israel. This man finances suicide bombings
against Israeli civilians. This man has strategic ties with Al-Qaeda. No, my
fellow Americans, trust me on this: dealing with Saddam is no longer an option.
He is a big menace today; he will be a bigger one tomorrow. Appeasement, as FDR
perfectly understood, never works with an aggressor. We must make Iraq and the
region, in the words of another great president, safe for our democracy.”
And here’s what McCain would be saying:
“President Bush has shown great wisdom by resisting the call to invade Iraq.
Invasion is not the answer. Going into Iraq may be relatively easy, but going
out would be nightmarish. We would get stuck in Iraq the way we got stuck in
Vietnam. I know there is widespread support in the media for action against
Saddam, but this support is misguided. Iraqis have been fighting one another
for centuries; the moment we go in, civil war will break out. The Kurds will go
one way; the Shiites will go another. Iran will move in from the south, the
Turks from the north; soon the Jordanians and Syrians and Saudis will join in.
It will be a huge mess, fraught with untold danger, destabilizing not just Iraq
but the entire region.
“With the help of sanctions and no-fly
zones, we have managed to put Saddam in a tight box; keeping him there and
making the box even tighter with help from the UN and our allies is less of a
risk than committing ourselves to an invasion of an Arab and Muslim country.
Such invasion will not only boost Al-Qaeda’s power and prestige but will also
damage our standing in the Islamic world and beyond. We owe it to the American
people to resist the temptation to act like the world’s policeman.”
Exploiting a war’s potential for public
manipulation is nothing new in America’s political culture. Wilson did it; FDR
did it; Truman did it. All democrats. What is new about all this Iraq talk is
the way the country and its people and its history are treated like a blank
page. Even though Iraq looms large in discussion, Iraq itself is not allowed to
be heard; there is something like an embargo on its story.
Internal politics aside, Iraq talk is also
shaped by America’s all-encompassing market mentality. This is a society in
which goods, services, ideas, and events are constantly subjected to the
dictates of the market, in which the consumer is reminded over and over that
he/she must be satisfied. Consequently, it is very hard for people to bring
themselves to look at a situation like Iraq any differently from the way they
look at products and services they pay for. The market says when you spend money
you get something in return. This simple logic saturates the culture, and it is
this simple logic that creates a complete disconnect between the citizenry and
the Iraq story. The story cannot be read because it guarantees not satisfaction
but dissatisfaction. As one friend recently told me rather indignantly and
impatiently, “We don’t know Iraq; nor do we care to know Iraq.”
Dr. Sabah Salih is Professor of English
at Bloomsburg University, USA.
