Politics

Strike Two

Learn Politics on mps-politics.com. Strike Two article will help answer your questions on Politics.We at mps-politics.com specialize in Politics. Politics at mps-politics.com provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.

Three reasons given by the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq used to be clear: weapons of mass destruction, the possible democratization of the Middle East, starting with Iraq, and of course, the constant refrain, “fight them over there so we don’t have to face them here.” But these reasons are muddled now by the facts of history and by the contradictory rhetoric coming out of the White House. So much for clarity.

Recently, the administration signaled its willingness to give up the ideal of a democratic Iraq, compromising the noblest of the three reasons, and what was thought a principle so embedded in the government’s Iraq policy that even fundamentalist Shi’ite pressure couldn’t erode it. So much for principles.

And now this country of freedom-loving Americans who have sacrificed the blood of their sons and daughters on the altar of this principle are facing the possibility of an Iraqi state under Islamic law that curtails the freedoms of women, minorities and whatever other groups the well-born male-supremacist law deems is not worthy of them.

An excerpt from a draft of the new Iraqi constitution states: “Islam is the official state religion and is a basic source of legislation. No law may be legislated if it contradicts the fixed beliefs of and rulings of Islam.” It goes on to state “all Iraqis are equal before the law without any discrimination” and includes a sets-aside for “women’s participation (whatever that means) in the assembly.” Since the last two provisions contradict the first one, which one would likely be enforced in practice? Judging by just one neighboring country with a government based on Islamic law, Iran, that question can be answered. The rights of women are nowhere evident despite Iran’s “show” of democracy in limited-power elections. And Iran is a state in which well-born reformists are constantly demanding freedom from the cleric Ayatollah Khamenei’s iron grip. So much for freedom.

Because weapons of mass destruction had not been found many believers in the administration’s basic sincerity in going to war with Iraq were heartened by the concession prize. That though the U.S. turned out to be wrong about the weapons of mass destruction, at least a vicious dictator was deposed and new freedoms for the Iraqi people based upon a true democracy were on the horizon. At least that was what they were told repeatedly for more than two years. Now they learn that the administration for all its noble talk is trying to make a deal with the devil. It will no longer insist on a democracy recognizable by most Americans, where women are free to choose, at the very least, whether to wear a veil or not. Where merchants can sell any consumer product they deem fit. And where movies are not regularly banned because of religious content. A regular occurrence in Islamic states.

Americans should think back to earlier this year, think back and remember that one spectacular shining moment of democracy in action when the Iraqis went to the polls on election day in vast shimmering numbers, defying the terrorists, defying the fear, and in a few instances, stepping even over the remains of the terrorists and, sadly, of the ones they had loved. That shining moment of courage and resolve inspired in us and liberated in us a fledgling but willing respect for them and an even steadier belief in our own system of government.

But now too many of the “good guys” are hiding in traditions so brutal that it makes the atrocities of Saddam Hussein seem tame. It seems the will to fight against terrorists and against local militias grows weaker by the day, and apparently, too the administration’s will to fight for democracy. No one, not one blessed human being, can live under the boot of tyranny forever, neither the tyranny of the terrorists nor the tyranny of a government. And even if a person is willing to do so, it is an act of sincerest cruelty to help him.

The White House’s weakening resolve to help the Iraqi people form a government in the best interests of all their people, Kurds, minorities and women alike, is deserving of the kind of derision one saves for cowards. Our fighting men and women have shown extraordinary courage in the face of the tremendous odds they have had to face day by day and now year by year, but our own government hasn’t even the courage of its own convictions that were part of the justification for our troops being in Iraq in the first place.

What a weak and pitiful character of leadership the White House has shown in the betrayal of the noble cause for which our soldiers have spilled their blood. A betrayal based upon a compromise not worthy of the paper it’s written on.

Now, in light of this betrayal, are we to accept that our soldiers should still give their lives for the last reason given? “Fight them over there so we don’t have to face them here.” Like the first two, it too may be just another figment of the administration’s imagination, dreamed up by advisors and speechwriters on the eve of the Iraq war because it struck the right cord with post-911 Americans, but not because it was true.

Many believe that fighting terrorist’s in Iraq is the equivalent of fighting hornets in the hornet’s nest. The steady stream of foreign terrorists entering Iraq is convincing that this may be true. We may be simply training terrorists more perfectly in how to hit us at home by supplying them with easy access to well-trained American soldiers upon whom they can practice.

I believe the political leaders of this country who still exhibit some courage should be spending considerable time now on something that should have been a priority before the war. An exit strategy. One developed from a humane point-of-view with as little tragic consequences to the Iraqi people as possible. At least consequences that won’t add to the miseries they will undoubtedly suffer under an Islamic constitution.

More Articles: