Blaming the Victim: Republican Rhetoric Redux

Blaming the Victim: Republican Rhetoric Redux

Beware! The Republican Party and its apologists are reaching into their usual bag of “tried but true” tricks again.

I’ve noticed recently that when discussing the Iraq War, Republicans are now subtly trying to shift the blame for their disastrous foreign policy decisions onto the Iraqi people themselves. In line with the Bush Administration’s perverse inability to admit any mistakes or accept any blame, the Republican spin machine is washing its hands of the mess in Iraq by suggesting that the real problem was not mistaken American actions there, but instead the sad inability of the Iraqi people themselves to seize the day and take advantage of the promise of democracy offered them by the American invasion. If only the Iraqis weren’t so blinded by ancient hatreds, the Republican spin machine opines, things could have worked out for the better.

Yes, once again it’s blame the victim time in America. Not content with blaming institutionalized poverty on some supposed failings of the poor themselves, or the problems in America’s schools on underpaid, overworked teachers, or the sad state of the American economy on our increasingly-under siege unions, the Republicans have now added the hapless Iraqi people to their ever-growing list of “those who deserve the fate we dealt them.” Almost makes one feel nostalgic for the Reagan years, doesn’t it?

As with most Republican spin, of course, the one thing conspicuously absent from the rhetoric is any nod to logic. How, one might ask, could one logically expect the Iraqi people to create a functioning democracy overnight, when they’d no previous experience whatsoever with democratic rule, and in a country whose infrastructure and economy were devastated by the American invasion, and whose bureaucracy and military and police were largely disbanded by the incoming American occupation authorities? With no economy to speak of, and precious little institutional leadership left in place, chaos marked the American occupation from the start, and in times of chaos one struggles above all for survival; the niceties of civil administration understandably take second place.

Would the Iraqis welcome democracy? Perhaps. But it, or any competing form of government, would have to provide for the basic needs of the Iraqis first, which is something that’s not currently occurring. Politics in Iraq thus far has been marked instead by partisan bickering, posturing, corruption, and subservience to the American occupiers. This hasn’t made for much of an advertisement for democracy … yet.

So let’s be careful to remind the American public just where the blame for the tragedy of Iraq lies, which is squarely with the neo-conservative ideologues of the Bush Administration. These jokers played god by planning a war to remake the world, only to discover that, as the Bible itself has well noted, “pride goeth before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18)! It’s just too unfortunate that so many innocent Iraqis must suffer for the Bush Administration’s arrogance.

Peace!
Historian

Have We Lost the War?

Have We Lost the War?

What an absurd question!

No, the U.S. hasn’t lost the war. In fact, we won it four years ago. We defeated Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards with relative ease, and overthrew one of the Middle East’s most legendary tyrants. End of story.

The problem is, we’re asking the wrong question. More specifically, we Americans are approaching the continuing troubles in Iraq from the wrong direction. We (meaning the citizens of the United States of America) have not, and never will, lose the war in Iraq. Why? It is not our war because it is not our country! Iraq isn’t ours to lose today, any more than China was ours to lose in 1949.

It would be better (and much more ethical) to start asking ourselves whether or not the Iraqis have lost the war. And if “losing” is based largely on quality of life issues, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the Iraqis have, in fact, lost the war. By most any measure – overall security, access to basic necessities, employment, education, law and order, etc. – the hostilities in Iraq have had the unfortunate effect of impoverishing most Iraqis!

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration obstinately continues to insist on American “victory” in Iraq. But that goal itself raises another vital question: How does the administration define “victory?” Has any clear and measurable goal or benchmark been articulated recently? I read the papers and watch the news, and I’m still as confused as ever.

The best answer I’ve been able to glean from the contradictory and vague pronouncements of Bush Administration officials is that victory in Iraq is somehow linked with victory in the overall war on terror. If so, we’re going to be in for the long haul, as the so-called “war on terror” (by the administration’s own admission) is both amorphous and indefinite. For those same reasons, I’d argue that the “war on terror” is ultimately unwinnable, at least in the traditional sense of the term. You cannot defeat an enemy that resists definition, nor fight a war whose goals are ever in flux.

As for Iraq, I’ll admit to conflicted feelings. I’m not sure what would be best for us to do, now that the U.S. has so botched the postwar occupation of that nation. However, I do know that we Americans ought to at least start asking questions whose answers will have meaning for the Iraqis themselves, and not just ourselves!

Peace!
Historian