Iraq ShowsThe Failure Of Militarism And Socialism
14 March 2013
By Jacob G. Hornberger
With the 10-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of
Iraq upon us, there are three things that I find
particularly fascinating.
First, the people who favored the invasion have
different rationales for why they favored the
invasion. Some of them say it's because Saddam Hussein
conspired with al-Qaeda to commit the 9/11 attacks.
Others say it's because there were terrorists inside
Iraq. Others say that it was to bring democracy to
Iraq. Others say it was to find WMDs, including those
that the United States furnished Iraq to help Saddam
with his war against Iran. Still others say that it
was to enforce UN resolutions.
It's as if the U.S. government placed a smorgasbord of
rationales for invading the country before the
American people and said, "To enable you to feel
better about the massive death and destruction that
U.S. forces are about to wreak on the country, we are
providing you with a range of rationales on which you
can base your support. You are free to take your
pick."
Second, except for libertarians and a few liberals
there has never been any big push for an official
investigation to determine whether every one of those
that rationales for invading Iraq was bogus, as a way
to cover up what was nothing more than a classic U.S.
regime-change operation.
Were the American people intentionally misled into
supporting the invasion of Iraq? Was it a classic
regime-change operation the entire time? Was the deep
fear of terrorism generated by the 9/11 attacks
misused to garner support for the operation? Alas, all
too many Americans just don't want to know.
But that's not to say that the passage of time won't
change that sentiment. For example, right now there is
a criminal trial taking place in Argentina for crimes
committed during the 1970s and 1980s. The criminal
defendants are former government officials, including
military officials, from various South American
countries who are charged with participating in a
coordinated killing campaign known as Operation
Condor, an operation in which officials of the U.S.
national-security state, especially the CIA, actively
participated. While it has taken more than 30 years to
bring the defendants to trial, at least it shows that
officials who purportedly commit such crimes can never
sleep easy no matter how much time has elapsed.
Third, while there are undoubtedly a few die-hards who
claim that the invasion and multi-year occupation of
Iraq converted the country into a paradise of freedom,
prosperity, and harmony, I think it's safe to say that
most Americans have arrived at the realization that
Iraq is no different a place than when Saddam Hussein
was in charge. Different faces but the same
authoritarianism, torture, killing, violence,
executions, and indefinite incarcerations without
trial.
In fact, a strong piece of circumstantial evidence of
how bad things are in Iraq is that not one single
American neo-con and not one single American
congressmen has taken his family on vacation to Iraq
since the date of the U.S. invasion back in 2003.
Indeed, not even President Obama dared to spend even
one night in Iraq when he made one of his periodic
unannounced visits to the country to see the troops.
Why are things such a mess in Iraq? Possibly because
God has created a consistent universe, one in which
immoral means beget bad results.
But there's another factor to consider, one that was
detailed in an article entitled "Report Details
Mistakes Made by U.S. in Improvement Projects for
Iraq" in yesterday's New York Times. The article
points out that the $60 billion in foreign aid to Iraq
has essentially gone down a rat hole.
U.S. officials blame the failure of their "rebuilding"
projects on poor planning and supervision. They just
don't get it. The projects are nothing more than
socialist public-works projects, no different from
those in socialist countries. As such, they are
inherently defective. Therefore, it's not a question
of incompetency or inefficiency. Instead, the problem
is that the Pentagon embraces socialism as the way to
rebuild the countries it destroys. It fails to realize
that socialism has never worked and will never work.
A fascinating insight into the military mindset was
provided by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who
stated in that NYT article that the withdrawal of U.S.
troops from Iraq prevented the United States from
dissuading Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki from
making "bad decisions" and "going off a cliff." I
can't help but wonder how exactly Panetta would have
used those U.S. military forces to convince Maliki to
do things differently. Of course though, what Panetta
fails to recognize is that nothing, not even the
threat of deadly force, can make socialism succeed.
The federal government is facing a perfect storm of
messes arising from its domestic and foreign programs,
including Social Security, healthcare, welfare,
spending, debt, the dollar, the drug war, the war on
terrorism, Afghanistan, and, of course, Iraq.
Americans would be wise to question the
welfare-warfare system itself rather than hope that
U.S. officials will keep trying to make it work.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The
Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised
in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics
from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree
from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney
for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct
professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught
law and economics. In 1987, Mr. Hornberger left the
practice of law to become director of programs at the
Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all
across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto
and Greta van Susteren shows and he appeared as a
regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show
Freedom Watch. View these interviews at
LewRockwell.com and from Full Context. Send him email.
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments