Ministry of Truth

With the Baker Commission report released, and the “grave and deteriorating” tactical situation on the ground in Iraq now in writing, we find ourselves at a good vantage point from which to survey important events; both past and recent.

Before discussing the dire situation that is unfolding before us, it is necessary to look back at the origin of current events. What lead to the current situation? Why Iraq? That is a difficult question to answer. Many say “oil”. Others say ”democracy and moral responsibility”. The former is without question a factor, but probably not the prime reason. The latter is ridiculous- naive and contradictory. Iraq was most likely attacked because it is a defensless country, convenliently rich in natural recources, and a great way to preserve the war on terror as an excuse to discipline the population at home. The United States was the only country in the world that feared Saddam Hussein. Even his neighbors realized that he was harmless after desert storm, and the genocidal sanctions placed on the iraqi population after the first Gulf War. Saddam posed no threat, and the only thing that could be suspected was his possible possession of weapons of mass destruction. If possible possession of WMD is the pretext for war against Saddam, why not attack a country who’s possession of WMD is beyond doubt? Why not attack North Korea? Kim Jong Il is known to have several nuclear weapons, whereas Saddam is merely a suspect of such a “crime”. It seems that the reason North Korea wasn’t attacked is precisely that: they have dangerous weapons, and upwards of 1,000,000 men at the DMZ. As Noam Chomsky points out, the message is clear: Arm up, or the United States Government will crush you! It seems that the ultimate outcome in Iraq will either by total chaos, or a dictatorship elected by radical islamists, who’s ranks are swelling due to US action as we speak. In the latter case, the US Government will have replaced one dictator with another. One can only hope that the benefits of oil and global warmongering outweigh the cost of such destruction.

Iraq and Vietnam are two countries that will be long remembered for being a quagmire for United States troops. Although the United States lost exponentially more men in Vietnam than in Iraq so far, (58,000 compared to 2,878) both wars are/were very unpopular worldwide. However, the proposed invasion of Iraq was extremely unpopular at the outset. Unlike Vietnam, worldwide protests against the invasion (which are the largest anti-war protests to date) started before the war itself did. Furthermore, according to the Pew Research Center, a war conducted by the “coalition” forces would get a worldwide approval of only 10%. Clearly, the Coalition does not represent the forces of liberty and democracy. In fact, Rumsfeld and Bush had declared that they would invade Iraq regardless of the U.N.’s stance on the issue, and regardless of public opinion abroad.  

Although the war in Iraq is arguably even more  unpopular than the Vietnam conflict, both wars are wars of aggression. In the Vietnam war, the United States interfered in proposed elections for a national leader of a united Vietnam because it was fairly obvious that Ho Chi Minh, a communist, would win a landslide victory. In short, the United States sent large numbers of advisors and frontline troops to Vietnam in order to prevent the Vietnamese from voting the wrong way in a free election. In Iraq, the public was mislead into believing that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of 9/11, that he was a direct supporter of Al-Queida, that he had WMD, and that he was therefore a threat to the United States. The purpose of the Vietnam War was to stop the spread of an ideology (communism), not of WMD. Today, the public is a little bit more free thinking than at the time of the Vietnam conflict, and although we are far from free of ignorance, the public is able to make better decisions now than it was then. The Vietnam war had more support at the outset, because the world was afraid of the scourge of communism. Today, that is not the case, so people can make a more informed decision when they face the prospect of going to war. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop Bush. However, it did lead do a large amount of dissent, both at home and abroad. This dissent was met by contempt for democracy:

“In the two major European countries, Germany and France, the official government stands corresponded to the views of the large majority of their populations, which unequivocally opposed the war. That led to bitter condemnation by Washington and many commentators.” (Chomsky)

The war in Iraq is eating the heart out of the United States, just as the Vietnam war did 40 years ago. Sadly, the debate is no longer about the best interests of our citizens and soldiers, but about which of our two incompetent major parties will “cut and run” first. Still worse is the fact that this international atrocity is being done in our name, with our taxes, just as Vietnam was.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/