|
Candidate Hillary Does Iraq
By James Rothenberg
06/27/07 "ICH"
-- - I received a letter from Hillary Clinton the other day
noting my “concerns” regarding Iraq. She acknowledges the
“seriousness” of the situation which is a “major and constant
focus of hers”. I’m sure it is. The question is, for what
reason?
Hillary believes that “the President should abandon his
escalation of the war”. She chooses not to say “his” war because
it could not have been “his” war without the help of people like
“her”. This leaves aside the annoying distinction that this
never really was a “war”, in the sense of two opposing sides,
but simply an attack of the most strong on the most weak,
putting it in the preferred state terminology, “shock and awe”.
She feels our troops (whom she “fully supports”) should be given
a “new strategy” in place of what, she doesn’t mention, but one
assumes to be an “old strategy”. This may be the strategy that
didn’t materialize – the immaculate takeover. Had it
materialized it is debatable whether she would have been
overcome by the “seriousness” of the situation.
This attitude is made apparent in the following sentence. “We
cannot afford to repeat past failures, such as not planning
adequately for the conflict and failing to properly equip our
men and women in uniform.” The “conflict”, the focus of her
“seriousness”, is tacitly justified.
She believes a full reconsideration of the terms and conditions
of the authorization for the use of force in Iraq is “overdue”.
One may rightly ask, at what date was it first overdue?
Hillary cites her January trip to Iraq to assess the situation
“firsthand” and express her “gratitude” to the troops. Anyone
who has ever served in the military can tell you that the last
thing you want to hear is that some dignitary is coming to visit
your base because all that means is hassle and scrubdown. There
is a play being staged called ‘Look and Act Your Best’ and
everyone understands this is a play except the dignitary for
whom it is being performed.
She notes her Troop Protection and Reduction bill would cap the
number of troops in Iraq at the level before the President’s
escalation. The selection of this level is no accident because
it is not until this late time that she moderated her visible
support of the occupation, an occupation whose illegality and
immorality can be ascertained without “firsthand” experience.
And then of course she pulls out the most incredulous piece of
Washington doctrine – that we have to put “real pressure on the
Iraqi government” – just what Iraqis need, more pressure.
Putting it cutely, this is equivalent to beating someone until
their morale increases.
Hillary’s letter is a vain attempt to please a voter and,
besides the fact that it does not address a single “concern” of
mine, it contains a gross insult. It assumes Americans value
American lives more than Iraqi lives even when it is the
Americans who are taking the Iraqi lives via the “authorization
to use force” that she voted for. In the 800 words of her letter
there is not a solitary word devoted to an Iraqi life, an Iraqi
loss, an Iraqi feeling, or an Iraqi aspiration, although we do
understand Hillary’s.
But maybe we should trust her, put her in the White House and
let her keep her promise to end this war, in small part, her
war. We have a little insight into how she would deal with Iraq
(and other countries we are in “conflict” with) from her First
Lady association with Bill “humanitarian intervention” Clinton.
The Clintons presided over much of the sanctions regime against
Iraq. During this period the United States, in contravention of
the Geneva Conventions, intentionally degraded Iraq’s water
supply by bombing its electrical power system, thereby
destroying the country’s ability to operate its water-treatment
plants. The United States did this fully knowing the damage this
would do to Iraqi civilians, particularly children. The
predicted consequences included increased outbreaks of disease
and high rates of child mortality. Yet it was more concerned
about the public relations nightmare for Washington than the
actual nightmare that the sanctions created for innocent Iraqis.
This accusation is not controversial. It is substantiated in
Defense Intelligence Agency documents, the primary one entitled
Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities, detailing how sanctions
will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.
(These documents were found on the Pentagon’s website, though
not easily. See article by Thomas Nagy, The Progressive,
September 2001).
In rationalizing the Pentagon’s punishment of the Iraqi people,
a senior Air Force officer noted that many Iraqis supported
Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. “They do live there, and ultimately
the people have some control over what goes on in their
country.” (Washington Post, 23 June 1991). It is instructive to
consider the consequences of the universalism of this principle
and its direction toward us.
“If the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq
during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would
have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in
the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to
1998" (UNICEF, 12 August 1999)
"We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as
simple and terrifying as that. It is illegal and immoral."
(Denis Halliday, after resigning as first UN Assistant Secretary
General and Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, The Independent,
15 October 1998)
Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned in
protest. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in
Iraq, did the same. First Lady Hillary Clinton stayed on. Her
reaction can be summed in a single word. Silence.
Finally, Hillary categorizes the situation in Iraq as
“extraordinarily difficult”. Maybe, but there is a solution
although she wouldn’t like it. She would find it “impossibly”
difficult. As a nation we confess to the crime of aggression,
apologize, arrest and punish the perpetrators, and pay
reparations. This will be costly to the country but is partially
offset by the savings owing to unneeded secret service
protection for some of our incarcerated high officials.
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
