The US says it is fighting
for democracy - but is deaf to the cries of the Iraqis
They are not building a palatial embassy with the
intention of going
By Noam Chomsky
02/11/07 "The
Independent" -- -- There was unprecedented élite condemnation of the plans to invade Iraq. Sensible
analysts were able to perceive that the enterprise
carried significant risks for US interests, however
conceived. Phrases thrown in by the official
Presidential Directive from the standard boilerplate
about freedom that accompany every action, and are close
to a historical universal, were dismissed as meaningless
by reasonable people. Global opposition was utterly
overwhelming, and the likely costs to the US were
apparent, though the catastrophe created by the invasion
went far beyond anyone's worst expectations. It's
amusing to watch the lying as the strongest supporters
of the war try to deny what they very clearly said.
On the US motives for staying in Iraq, I can only repeat
what I've been saying for years. A sovereign Iraq,
partially democratic, could well be a disaster for US
planners. With a Shia majority, it is likely to continue
improving relations with Iran. There is a Shia
population right across the border in Saudi Arabia,
bitterly oppressed by the US-backed tyranny. Any step
towards sovereignty in Iraq encourages activism there
for human rights and a degree of autonomy - and that
happens to be where most of Saudi oil is.
Sovereignty in Iraq might well lead to a loose Shia
alliance controlling most of the world's petroleum
resources and independent of the US, undermining a
primary goal of US foreign policy since it became the
world-dominant power after the Second World War. Worse
yet, though the US can intimidate Europe, it cannot
intimidate China, which blithely goes its own way, even
in Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown - the primary
reason why China is considered a leading threat. An
independent energy bloc in the Gulf area is likely to
link up with the China-based Asian Energy Security Grid
and Shanghai Cooperation Council, with Russia (which has
its own huge resources) as an integral part, and with
the Central Asian states (already members), possibly
India. Iran is already associated with them, and a Shia-dominated
bloc in the Arab states might well go along. All of that
would be a nightmare for US planners and their Western
allies.
There are, then, very powerful reasons why the US and UK
are likely to try in every possible way to maintain
effective control over Iraq. The US is not constructing
a palatial embassy, by far the largest in the world and
virtually a separate city within Baghdad, and pouring
money into military bases, with the intention of leaving
Iraq to Iraqis. All of this is quite separate from the
expectations that matters can be arranged so that US
corporations profit from the vast riches of Iraq.
These topics, though high on the agenda of planners, are
not within the realm of discussion, as can easily be
determined. That is only to be expected. These
considerations violate the fundamental doctrine that
state power has noble objectives, and while it may make
terrible blunders, it can have no crass motives and is
not influenced by domestic concentrations of private
power. Any questioning of these Higher Truths is either
ignored or bitterly denounced, also for good reasons:
allowing them to be discussed could undermine power and
privilege.
There is another issue: even the most dedicated
scholar/advocates of "democracy promotion" recognise
that there is a "strong line of continuity" in US
efforts to promote democracy going back as far as you
like and reaching the present: democracy is supported if
and only if it conforms to strategic and economic
objectives. For example, supporting the brutal
punishment of people who committed the crime of voting
"the wrong way" in a free election, as in Palestine
right now, with pretexts that would inspire ridicule in
a free society. As for democracy in the US, élite
opinion has generally considered it a dangerous threat
which must be resisted. But some Iraqis agreed with
Bush's mission to bring democracy to the world: 1 per
cent in a poll in Baghdad just as the noble vision was
declared in Washington.
On withdrawal proposals from élite circles, however, I
think one should be cautious. Some may be so deeply
indoctrinated that they cannot allow themselves to think
about the reasons for the invasion or the insistence on
maintaining the occupation, in one or another form.
Others may have in mind more effective techniques of
control by redeploying US military forces in bases in
Iraq and in the region, making sure to control logistics
and support for client forces in Iraq, air power in the
style of the destruction of much of Indochina after the
business community turned against the war, and so on.
As to the consequences of a US withdrawal, we are
entitled to have our personal judgements, all of them as
uninformed and dubious as those of US intelligence. But
they do not matter. What matters is what Iraqis think.
Or rather, that is what should matter, and we learn a
lot about the character and moral level of the reigning
intellectual culture from the fact that the question of
what the victims want barely even arises.
The Baker-Hamilton report dismisses partition proposals,
even the more limited proposals for a high level of
independence within a loosely federal structure. Though
it's not really our business, or our right to decide,
their scepticism is probably warranted. Neighbouring
countries would be very hostile to an independent
Kurdistan, which is landlocked, and Turkey might even
invade, which would also threaten the long-standing and
critical US-Turkey-Israel alliance. Kurds strongly
favour independence, but appear to regard it as not
feasible - for now, at least. The Sunni states might
invade to protect the Sunni areas, which lack resources.
The Shia region might improve ties with Iran. It could
set off a regional war. My own view is that federal
arrangements make good sense, not only in Iraq. But
these do not seem realistic prospects for the near-term
future.
US policy should be that of all aggressors: (1) pay
reparations; (2) attend to the will of the victims; (3)
hold the guilty parties accountable, in accord with the
Nuremberg principles, the UN Charter, and other
international instruments. A more practical proposal is
to work to change the domestic society and culture
substantially enough so that what should be done can at
least become a topic for discussion. That is a large
task, not only on this issue, though I think élite
opposition is far more ferocious than that of the
general public.
Adapted from an interview for Z Net with Michael Albert,
published tomorrow in 'The Drawbridge'. Noam Chomsky's
latest book is 'Failed States' (Hamish Hamilton, June
2006; Penguin Books, March 2007)
© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited