How to End the War
Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.
Editor's Note: The following essay is adapted from remarks made at the National Teach-in on Iraq sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. The teach-in was held on March 24, the 40th anniversary of the first teach-in on the Vietnam War, which was held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The central question we need to answer is this: What were the real reasons for the Bush administrationâ€™s invasion and occupation of Iraq?
When we identify why we really went to warâ€”not the cover reasons or the rebranded reasons, freedom and democracy, but the real reasonsâ€”then we can become more effective anti-war activists. The most effective and strategic way to stop this occupation and prevent future wars is to deny the people who wage these wars their spoilsâ€”to make war unprofitable. And we canâ€™t do that unless we effectively identify the goals of war.
When I was in Iraq a year ago trying to answer that question, one of the most effective ways I found to do that was to follow the bulldozers and construction machinery. I was in Iraq to research the so-called reconstruction. And what struck me most was the absence of reconstruction machinery, of cranes and bulldozers, in downtown Baghdad. I expected to see reconstruction all over the place.
I saw bulldozers in military bases. I saw bulldozers in the Green Zone, where a huge amount of construction was going on, building up Bechtelâ€™s headquarters and getting the new U.S. embassy ready. There was also a ton of construction going on at all of the U.S. military bases. But, on the streets of Baghdad, the former ministry buildings are absolutely untouched. They hadnâ€™t even cleared away the rubble, let alone started the reconstruction process.
The one crane I saw in the streets of Baghdad was hoisting an advertising billboard. One of the surreal things about Baghdad is that the old city lies in ruins, yet there are these shiny new billboards advertising the glories of the global economy. And the message is: â€œEverything you were before isnâ€™t worth rebuilding.â€ Weâ€™re going to import a brand-new country. It is the Iraq version of the Extreme Makeover.
Itâ€™s not a coincidence that Americans were at home watching this explosion of extreme reality television shows where peopleâ€™s bodies were being surgically remade and their homes were being bulldozed and reconstituted. The message of these shows is: Everything you are now, everything you own, everything you do sucks. Weâ€™re going to completely erase it and rebuild it with a team of experts. You just go limp and let the experts take over. That is exactly what â€œExtreme Makover: Iraqâ€ is.
There was no role for Iraqis in this process. It was all foreign companies modernizing the country. Iraqis with engineering Ph.D.s who built their electricity system and who built their telephone system had no place in the reconstruction process.
If we want to know what the goals of the war are, we have to look at what Paul Bremer did when he first arrived in Iraq. He laid off 500,000 people, 400,000 of whom were soldiers. And he shredded Iraqâ€™s constitution and wrote a series of economic laws that the The Economist described as â€œthe wish list of foreign investors.â€
Basically, Iraq has been turned into a laboratory for the radical free-market policies that the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute dream about in Washington, D.C., but are only able to impose in relative slow motion here at home.
So we just have to examine the Bush administrationâ€™s policies and actions. We donâ€™t have to wield secret documents or massive conspiracy theories. We have to look at the fact that they built enduring military bases and didnâ€™t rebuild the country. Their very first act was to protect the oil ministry leaving the the rest of the country to burnâ€”to which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded: â€œStuff happens.â€ Theirs was an almost apocalyptic glee in allowing Iraq to burn. They let the country be erased, leaving a blank slate that they could rebuild in their image This was the goal of the war.
The Big Lie
The administration says the war was about fighting for democracy. That was the big lie they resorted to when they were caught in the other lies. But itâ€™s a different kind of a lie in the sense that itâ€™s a useful lie. The lie that the United States invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy not just to Iraq but, as it turns out, to the whole world, is tremendously usefulâ€”because we can first expose it as a lie and then we can join with Iraqis to try to make it true. So it disturbs me that a lot of progressives are afraid to use the language of democracy now that George W. Bush is using it. We are somehow giving up on the most powerful emancipatory ideas ever created, of self-determination, liberation and democracy.
And itâ€™s absolutely crucial not to let Bush get away with stealing and defaming these ideasâ€”they are too important.
In looking at democracy in Iraq, we first need to make the distinction between elections and democracy. The reality is the Bush administration has fought democracy in Iraq at every turn.
Why? Because if genuine democracy ever came to Iraq, the real goals of the warâ€”control over oil, support for Israel, the construction of enduring military bases, the privatization of the entire economyâ€”would all be lost. Why? Because Iraqis donâ€™t want them and they donâ€™t agree with them. They have said it over and over againâ€”first in opinion polls, which is why the Bush administration broke its original promise to have elections within months of the invasion. I believe Paul Wolfowitz genuinely thought that Iraqis would respond like the contestants on a reality TV show and say: â€œOh my God. Thank you for my brand-new shiny country.â€ They didnâ€™t. They protested that 500,000 people had lost their jobs. They protested the fact that they were being shut out of the reconstruction of their own country, and they made it clear they didnâ€™t want permanent U.S. bases.
Thatâ€™s when the administration broke its promise and appointed a CIA agent as the interim prime minister. In that period they locked inâ€”basically shackledâ€”Iraqâ€™s future governments to an International Monetary Fund program until 2008. This will make the humanitarian crisis in Iraq much, much deeper. Hereâ€™s just one example: The IMF and the World Bank are demanding the elimination of Iraqâ€™s food ration program, upon which 60 percent of the population depends for nutrition, as a condition for debt relief and for the new loans that have been made in deals with an unelected government.
In these elections, Iraqis voted for the United Iraqi Alliance. In addition to demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of troops, this coalition party has promised that they would create 100 percent full employment in the public sectorâ€”i.e., a total rebuke of the neoconsâ€™ privatization agenda. But now they canâ€™t do any of this because their democracy has been shackled. In other words, they have the vote, but no real power to govern.
A Pro-democracy Movement
The future of the anti-war movement requires that it become a pro-democracy movement. Our marching orders have been given to us by the people of Iraq. Itâ€™s important to understand that the most powerful movement against this war and this occupation is within Iraq itself. Our anti-war movement must not just be in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with the overwhelming majority of Iraqis fighting to end the occupation of their country. We need to take our direction from them.
Iraqis are resisting in many waysâ€”not just with armed resistance. They are organizing independent trade unions. They are opening critical newspapers, and then having those newspapers shut down. They are fighting privatization in state factories. They are forming new political coalitions in an attempt to force an end to the occupation.
So what is our role here? We need to support the people of Iraq and their clear demands for an end to both military and corporate occupation. That means being the resistance ourselves in our country, demanding that the troops come home, that U.S. corporations come home, that Iraqis be free of Saddamâ€™s debt and the IMF and World Bank agreements signed under occupation. It doesnâ€™t mean blindly cheerleading for â€œthe resistance.â€ Because there isnâ€™t just one resistance in Iraq. Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosquesâ€”barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq. Not everyone fighting the U.S. occupation is fighting for the freedom of all Iraqis; some are fighting for their own elite power. Thatâ€™s why we need to stay focused on supporting the demands for self-determination, not cheering any setback for U.S. empire.
And we canâ€™t cede the language, the territory of democracy. Anybody who says Iraqis donâ€™t want democracy should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Iraqis are clamoring for democracy and had risked their lives for it long before this invasionâ€”in the 1991 uprising against Saddam, for example, when they were left to be slaughtered. The elections in January took place only because of tremendous pressure from Iraqi Shia communities that insisted on getting the freedom they were promised.
The Courage to be Serious
Many of us opposed this war because it was an imperial project. Now Iraqis are struggling for the tools that will make self-determination meaningful, not just for show elections or marketing opportunities for the Bush administration. That means itâ€™s time, as Susan Sontag said, to have â€œthe courage to be serious.â€ The reason why the 58 percent of Americans against the war has not translated into the same millions of people on the streets that we saw before the war is because we havenâ€™t come forward with a serious policy agenda. We should not be afraid to be serious.
Part of that seriousness is to echo the policy demands made by voters and demonstrators in the streets of Baghdad and Basra and bring those demands to Washington, where the decisions are being made.
But the core fight is over respect for international law, and whether there is any respect for it at all in the United States. Unless weâ€™re fighting a core battle against this administrationâ€™s total disdain for the very idea of international law, then the specifics really donâ€™t matter.
We saw this very clearly in the U.S. presidential campaign, as John Kerry let Bush completely set the terms for the debate. Recall the ridicule of Kerryâ€™s mention of a â€œglobal test,â€ and the charge that it was cowardly and weak to allow for any international scrutiny of U.S. actions. Why didnâ€™t Kerry ever challenge this assumption? I blame the Kerry campaign as much as I blame the Bush administration. During the elections, he never said â€œAbu Ghraib.â€ He never said â€œGuantanamo Bay.â€ He accepted the premise that to submit to some kind of â€œglobal testâ€ was to be weak. Once they had done that, the Democrats couldnâ€™t expect to win a battle against Alberto Gonzales being appointed attorney general, when they had never talked about torture during the campaign.
And part of the war has to be a media war in this country. The problem is not that the anti-war voices arenâ€™t thereâ€”itâ€™s that the voices arenâ€™t amplified. We need a strategy to target the media in this country, making it a site of protest itself. We must demand that the media let us hear the voices of anti-war critics, of enraged mothers who have lost their sons for a lie, of betrayed soldiers who fought in a war they didnâ€™t believe in. And we need to keep deepening the definition of democracyâ€”to say that these show elections are not democracy, and that we donâ€™t have a democracy in this country either.
Sadly, the Bush administration has done a better job of using the language of responsibility than we in the anti-war movement. The message thatâ€™s getting across is that we are saying â€œjust leave,â€ while they are saying, â€œwe canâ€™t just leave, we have to stay and fix the problem we started.â€
We can have a very detailed, responsible agenda and we shouldnâ€™t be afraid of it. We should be saying, â€œLetâ€™s pull the troops out but letâ€™s leave some hope behind.â€ We canâ€™t be afraid to talk about reparations, to demand freedom from debt for Iraq, a total abandonment of Bremerâ€™s illegal economic laws, full Iraqi control over the reconstruction budgetâ€”there are many more examples of concrete policy demands that we can and must put forth. When we articulate a more genuine definition of democracy than we are hearing from the Bush administration, we will bring some hope to Iraq. And we will bring closer to us many of the 58 percent who are opposed to the war but arenâ€™t marching with us yet because they are afraid of cutting and running.
Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies and Fences and Windows: Dispatches From the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate.