The laundry list of complaints issued by liberals about the war in Iraq rarely ever extends beyond the minute issues
of whether the Pentagon supplied sufficient weaponry and protection for our troops (
CNN), the length of the war, when we will withdrawal, and the fact that we are losing it. The job of controlled opposition throughout
history has always been to give the public an illusion of genuine debate on an issue; in which often the opponent’s
position on it is not what is being contested but small subtopics. This gives the perception of real debate while only the
“politics” are being discussed and not the legitimacy of the issue itself. One of the main objectives being to
keep the public from truly thinking about the real issue and giving the two “slightly opposite edged mediums”
as the only possible sides to take.
For example, on the topic of free trade, most liberals could careless about the
sweatshop exploitation of third world citizens, destruction of their environment, destruction of their economy, advanced corporate
rights over humans, etc. They will tend to only focus on the loss of U.S. jobs (
CNN "Critics (of CAFTA) say that it will send more U.S. jobs overseas") which reinforces the view that they value U.S. lives
more than the lives of others even though U.S. workers are far from the ones most affected by it. Plus the fact that they
do not want to end free trade, and are in fact supporters of neoliberalism, but merely reform it on some parts illustrates
my previous point as well.
The subjects of corporate war profiteering, forced neoliberalism of Iraq’s economy,
the deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians, the establishing of a puppet government to serve U.S. imperial interests, whether
Bush lied or not about the “reasons” to go to war for oil, or possible support for the Iraqi insurgency never
arise. On supporting our troops, liberals tend to fold to conservative pressure very easily on that issue, fearing the dreaded
McCarthy fingers of betrayal will be pointed at them. If they truly don’t support the war and the actions of the U.S.
soldiers carried out in it then how can they then turn around and claim to support the troops? The only answer is that they
truly don’t care about the lost lives of innocent Iraqis but only the lost lives of armed, invading combatants.
Although
the propaganda slogans of fighting “for” your country as a noble act of heroism combined with the false lure of
stability in finances and career to draw in poor, minority high school dropouts or recent graduates and its effects on the
mind cannot be ignored, responsibility for participating in a war that you know you will have to kill innocent civilians in
must ultimately fall onto yourself. Even taking into account those that signed up, never thinking they will be deployed for
Iraq, or were in the armed forces before Iraq there is really no excuse for this besides ignorance. At the moment it is well
known that the majority of recruits are being deployed to Iraq and while the excuse of signing before the war holds more legitimacy
the killing of civilians in foreign countries by U.S. troops occurs all the time and you take the risk of participating in
it when you first register.
"Instead of debating the criminality of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, the New
York Times and Washington Post are discussing what Dick Cheney actually meant by "last throes."" (
An Interview with Dr. Mohammad al-Obaidi of Iraq's Peoples' Struggle Movement) The right of the Iraqis to resist the imperial occupation is something that people never even think about while they undoubtedly
would not deny such a right for themselves. The support of U.S. soldiers, while they systematically bomb heavily populated
towns and cities, shoot innocent men, women and children, force people out of their homes in the middle of the night, cut
off all access to electricity, water, etc. to neighborhoods unless they comply to U.S. demands, destroy Iraqi historical and
cultural relics, jail people for no reason, deny them due process, and torture/rape them, etc. is clearly an unjust position
but never questioned. Even Michael Moore attempts an apologist defense of the soldiers in
Farenheit 9/11 when he said they were following "a bad example set by their president".
Throughout history, the media of invading
countries has pledged blind faith to the soldiers while demonizing the resistance; a good example of this is the portrayal
of the French insurgency as terrorists by the Nazi Germany propaganda outlets. Liberals have not refrained from labeling the
insurgents as terrorists or from portraying the soldiers as mythical heroes. Many changed their views on the Iraq War after
the “election” in January of 2005. This displayed their ignorance of the fact that no legitimate government that
had support of the invader has ever been formed while under occupation. Regardless of how it was formed it will always reflect
the political and economic interests of the occupier.
If you talk to even most conservatives or liberals today their
main objection to Iraq will be “Why are we still in Iraq” and not “Why are we in Iraq in the first place”.
What they see is that a dictator has been put into his place, our presence there is making things even worse, so why are we
still there? But if you believe that the war in Iraq was a front for establishing a puppet government that caters to the needs
of our multinational corporations by opening up their oil and water resources for plunder than you know that calling for a
withdrawal plan is useless and the questions above naïve because the goal in which Bush has spent over $200 billion on has
yet to be attained. Even in speaking on the results of the Iraq War they remain selective: the instability in Iraq and the
deaths of our soldiers remain more important than the cutting of basic needs off in many areas in Iraq, the safety of the
Iraqis, and the loss of Iraqi civilians. Their moral relativism and hypocrisy also includes citing the number of U.S. troops
that died in Iraq as a reason to leave but not the substantial amount of Iraqi citizens slaughtered, up to 128,000, as a reason
to even do likewise or much less oppose the war.
The fact is that most Democrats/Liberals don’t oppose the war
at all but merely wanted a better war, which was admitted by John Kerry in several of his speeches. The focus on lack of body
armor and protection for troops was one of Kerry’s main bases for opposing it which is one of the weakest stances I’ve
heard. If Kerry’s supporters had truly thought about it, in fact he had supported war to an even higher degree than
Bush with even greater tactics, weapon stocks, and equipment. See, the goal of Kerry and most liberals is to win this war
which they don't see happening through Bush and they carefully mascerade their ultrahawkish pro-war stance in anti-Bush rhetoric.
Liberals,
the Cindy Sheehan supporters in particular, have once again destroyed the anti-war movement as they did in Vietnam by distorting
and weakening its real positions and goals. They have altered the mainstream conversations to relatively trivial issues when
compared with reality. This does far more good for Bush and the neocons than actually supporting the war because Bush gets
to save face on many more major issues. It seems this war has reflected Vietnam in more than one way, its opponents are more
focused on bringing the government to justice for not bringing the troops home then they are for it attacking a sovereign
nation to add to its imperial system.
