Iraq, invasion, sanctions
I welcome Noam Chomsky to the blogosphere with his Turning the Tide. He has a way of encapsulating issues better than most.
In his recent post, The Invasion of Iraq, Chomsky sums up the biggest flaw with using the humanitarian card to justify the war in Iraq. You know what card I’m talking about. It seems that so many still think that the fact that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power is the only reason needed to warrant the U.S. attack on Iraq. While I have no love for Saddam (it’s annoying to have to spell out such obviousness), I have never bought into this “humanitarian” defense; something about it never sat right with me.
U.S. sanctions and routine bombings against Iraq lasted 10+ years. In that time, so many Iraqis, including hundreds of thousands of children, died as a result of ruined infrastructure and lack of access to water, supplies and medical treatment. Chomsky makes the clear point that the policy of sanctions did nothing to Saddam’s position but strengthen it; the people of Iraq depended on him for their very survival. In such a weakened, sanctioned state, it was difficult for Iraqis to overthrow their leader.
There is reason to believe … that if the vicious sanctions regime had been ended the population of Iraq would have been able to send Saddam Hussein to the same fate as other murderous gangsters supported by the US and UK: Ceausescu, Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier, Chun, Mobutu…. — quite a rogue’s gallery, some of them easily comparable to Saddam, to which new names are being added daily by the same Western leaders, whose values are unchanged. If so, both murderous regimes could have been ended without invasion.
This is one of the main reasons I oppose the invasion - the fact that the sanctions imposed on Iraq for so many years debilitated the people to such a degree that there was little they could do for their own country. But then again, if Iraqis had been able to overthrow Saddam on their own, we wouldn’t be seeing such Western corporate contracts in Iraq, now would we? Liberate Iraq, my ass… as if the sanctions were liberating.
Those who still believe this campaign was about liberating Iraq are miserably in the dark. To those still hanging on to the humanitarian defense:
Unless the population is at least given the opportunity to overthrow a murderous tyrant, as they did in the case of the other members of the rogue’s gallery supported by the US and UK (including the current incumbents), there is no justification for resort to outside force to do so.
Kari-Ann said,
March 29, 2004 @ 3:20 pm
Maybe I am naive, but it’s hard for me to believe that middle-aged white men sit around in the White House and deliberately decide to do evil things to people for the sake of making money.
At the same time, I totally agree with you.
Emily said,
March 29, 2004 @ 7:47 pm
It’s not that literal… instead, actions are justified though the logic of free market neo-liberalism. So, it’s about protecting and furthering financial interests in the global arena. Iraq is the newest stomping grounds.
Here’s another point: There’s an awful lot of action taken out of theory (like, “if we sanction this country then it will punish its leader”) that winds up looking a lot different in reality. Reason for concern comes when as it becomes clear that the action taken is hurting people, not only is the action not stopped, but it is still argued for with the initial theory.
We see this a lot with globalization and free trade agreements - there are proponents who continue to argue vehemently for these policies when it’s SO CLEAR that people and the environment worldwide are severely hurt by them. One’s jaw drops that people in power can continue these practices. Believe me, the more you learn, the more you realize your best interests are NOT at heart of the powers that be!
It’s not as literal as “they’re sitting around plotting evil” so much as that they’re completely out of touch with reality and at the same time really disconnected from their own humanity.