I hate to play the race card, but how else is there to explain the current Bush administration’s argument for “staying the course” in Iraq except for a racist attitude towards the Iraqi people?
A little review is in order.
The first two arguments presented by the neo-cons for going to war in Iraq were based on blatant lies. Saddam Hussein had no connection to the 9-11 attacks and Osama bin Laden, and there were no viable weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that could be used by terrorists to attack the United States.
By the way, my LA 101 students from three years ago should remember that I never believed the link between Saddam and al Qaeda existed, nor did I think Saddam had WMD ready for delivery.
The “proof” to me, besides the repeated UN weapons inspections that found no WMD, was that Israel had done nothing, absolutely nothing, about purported WMD in Iraq.
What does Israel do when it perceives a military threat?
Don’t forget when Iraq did have a potential nuclear weapons program in the ’80s, Israel bombed the complex and consulted with the world afterward.
In other words, I am not a recent convert to the anti-war movement.
The third neo-con argument was based on a mirage: that planting the seeds of democracy in the Iraqi desert would transform all the deserts of Arabia into a garden of Freedom, with a capital F.
Now the Bush administration mantra for “staying the course” is to fight the terrorists “over there” so we don’t have to fight them here on our own soil.
The idea that hordes of terrorists would somehow enter the United States and turn our city streets into the likes of Baghdad, Basra and Fallujah is risible.
Certainly there’s the possibility of more terrorist attacks perpetrated on U.S. soil, but having 130,000 troops in Iraq does nothing to protect our streets, borders and ports.
But what I find totally unacceptable on moral grounds is the idea we should use Iraq as a “magnet” to attract terrorists so we can kill them “over there” before they get to our shores.
The problem is that “over there” is not a virtual reality or an empty desert; it is a real country with millions of ordinary citizens who did absolutely nothing before our invasion to incur our wrath.
Most Americans know we’ve lost over 2,700 soldiers in Iraq, but many don’t know or don’t care that at least 50,000 civilians (yes, women and children included) have been killed due to the violence since we invaded their country, not to mention an estimated 100,000 injured and all the destruction of property.
By arguing that we should fight “them over there” instead of here, we imply the lives and property of innocent Iraqis are not as valuable as ours.
This, I’m afraid, is a form of racism.