HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
For
Self-Determination in Iraq,
The
U.S. Must Leave
by
Robert Jensen
April
15, 2003
The
U.S. attack on Iraqi has brought the collapse of Saddam Hussein's brutal
regime, which is cause for celebration. For the first time in at least 35
years, the conditions could exist for Iraqis to chart their own destiny.
Now
the United States has a crucial part to play in making Iraqi self-determination
a reality: It must get out.
President
Bush has told the Iraqi people: "We will help you build a peaceful and
representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then
our military forces will leave."
Bush
has the sequence wrong; a truly representative government in Iraq is possible
only if U.S. military forces leave first. The reason is simple:
Liberating
the Iraqi people was part of the Bush PR campaign to justify a war, but it was
not the motive force behind U.S. policy. Neither were stated concerns about
weapons of mass destruction or alleged terrorist ties.
Bush's
fundamental goal in Middle East policy is no different from other
administrations since World War II: To strengthen U.S. control over the flow of
the region's oil resources and the resulting profits. In a world that runs on
oil, the nation that controls the flow of oil has considerable strategic power,
not only over the terms of its own consumption but over other nations. U.S.
policymakers want leverage over the economies of our biggest competitors --
Western Europe, Japan and China -- which are more dependent on Middle Eastern
oil.
From
this logic has flowed U.S. support for reactionary regimes (Saudi Arabia), dictatorships
(Iran under the Shah, Iraq in the 1980s) and regional military surrogates
(Israel) -- always aimed at maintaining control. A "democratic"
government in Iraq will be allowed if, and only if, such a government lines up
with U.S. interests. The United States will allow the trappings of a democratic
process as long as the process produces the right result.
This
approach to democracy has been a consistent feature of U.S. foreign policy.
While many acknowledge that in the past the United States has supported
dictators and derailed real democracy abroad, the conventional wisdom is that
things have changed since the end of the Cold War. Two recent examples suggest
that though tactics may change, the goal remains the same.
In
Afghanistan, U.S. support for "democracy" included strong-arm tactics
at the loya jirga to eliminate a role for former king Zahir Shah and force his
withdrawal as a candidate. After the fall of the Taliban, there was
considerable support for his return to the country to play a unifying role, but
Bush officials preferred their handpicked candidate, Hamid Karzai.
In
Venezuela, U.S. officials were quick to proclaim support for last year's
abortive coup attempt that temporarily displaced the elected president, Hugo
Chavez. Even more embarrassing was the revelation that U.S. officials had met
with Venezuelan military officers and opposition activists, including the
nominal leader of the coup. Because Chavez defied the United States, the
democratic process by which he had been elected was irrelevant.
What
will democracy mean in Iraq? When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was
asked Sunday whether the United States would accept in Iraqi elections a
victory by candidates opposed to U.S. policy, he waffled. The lack of a history
of political freedom in Iraq meant that sometimes "people end up not
understanding what really are the facts," he said. How long does it take
to reverse that? "It takes some time."
Will
Iraqis be allowed to choose their own government only when their understanding
of the facts matches Rumsfeld's? Will U.S. occupation continue until Rumsfeld
is satisfied with the pace and direction of Iraqi learning?
An
ongoing U.S. occupation will not be embraced by most Iraqis, with the exception
of figures such as Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress exile group --
a "reliable" leader (defined as willingness to accept U.S. orders)
preferred by many in this administration.
Gen.
Tommy Franks has said U.S. forces will stay in Iraq "until there is a free
government." Like his commander in chief, Franks misses the point: Real
freedom stand a fighting chance only if the U.S. military withdraws and a U.N.
peacekeeping force takes over the work of stabilizing the country. American
military power can remove a dictator but -- given U.S. actions in Iraq and the
Middle East -- it cannot create meaningful democracy.
Robert Jensen is a journalism
professor at the University of Texas at Austin and author of "Writing
Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream." He can
be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.