Reason not force
The questions we should be asking about the Iraq war

May 3, 2007
iranian.com

The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. --Plato

Why is America in the Middle East? Why is America killing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Muslims, and Palestinians? Why is America continuing to support oppressive regimes, while trumpeting democracy? Why is America poised to start another war with Iran? Why is America not practicing what it preaches? Why is the American administration contradictory in its words and actions? Why is America often dismissive of the international covenants and treaties? And why is America acting as the police or the lone ranger of the world?

Whether we like it or not, these are some of the key questions repeatedly posed by people around the globe, particularly in the Middle East and Muslim world.

Why do Americans support occupation and terrorization of other nations? Why has aggression become a part of the mindset and vocabulary of some of our political leaders, such as the presidential hopeful John McCain, who recently responded to a question about Iran by re-dubbing the Beach Boys song into "Bomb... Bomb... Bomb Iran?" Why have we sacrificed our "common ground" in favor of a "battleground?" Why have we forgotten the very principles of humanity and the U.S. Constitution? Why have we forgotten the simple yet profound Christian admonition, "Do unto others as you would have them do onto you"?

The tragic war on Iraq, or the so-called war on terrorism, has impacted the lives of numerous families across the U.S., Iraq, and indeed the world. The ongoing illegal and immoral war in the Middle East has not only adversely touched everyone in Iraq but has reached the very doorsteps in large and small towns and hamlets across the United States. Aldous Huxley once said, "Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe." But it appears that today we favor catastrophe over education, conflict over dialogue, war over peace, and death over life. Consequently, terrorism has become the weapon of choice by the weaker states and groups and, in fact, Al-Qaeda and other organized groups have gained strength and support throughout the world while America's global status, image, and prestige have been damaged, perhaps irreparably.

We have occupied Iraq, and we call those who fight for the control of their homeland our enemies. While the Iraqis want us to leave their country, we insist that they are incapable of charting their own destiny. But we do not view ourselves as foreign occupiers. On May 1, 2003, President George W. Bush standing in front of a giant "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, declared "Mission Accomplished." The fact is that the mission was not accomplished then and is not now. He continues to repeat relentlessly his self-professed mantra of "we have undermined Al-Qaeda," "we are winning the war on terrorism," "we are making progress in Iraq," and "we will fight until the enemy is defeated." Yet, his recently proposed surge in troop deployment has resulted mostly in a surge in killings in Iraq. My question is "How can one really defeat an undefined and faceless enemy?"

In the meantime, the causalities of the war on terror continue to mount. As of this writing, the American casualties of war on Iraq stand at nearly 3,400 killed and over 25,000 wounded or maimed. As the US Central Command officer, General Tommy Franks, once said, "We do not do body counts," in reference to Iraqi casualties; yet, it is estimated that nearly 70,000 have been killed and thousands injured or maimed.

Where are we headed? How can we get out of the Middle East quagmire? Obviously, there is no easy solution, only tough choices many of which were diligently identified and recommended, in March 2006, by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Each finding and recommendation was dismissed by the Bush administration. Rather than welcoming the recommendations of the10-person bipartisan commission for a phase-down, the administration opted for a surge in troop deployment to Iraq.

The surge not being as effective as anticipated, it was decided to erect a wall of separation between the rival factions in Iraq. Still not accepting failure, the administration started pointing its finger at Iran and Syria for aiding the insurgency in Iraq. But the question is, "Would attacking Iran change the course of events in Iraq or inflame the entire region and, indeed, the globe?" Based on what I know of the region, if such a scenario is enacted, my own opinion is that the latter will be the outcome.

Regarding Iran, there are some hopeful signs, and we continue to hear some level-headed comments by our politicians. When asked on Face the Nation (February 18, 2007), whether he is in favor of an invasion of Iran, Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana said: "No, I certainly am not. And I would hope very strongly the diplomatic course is followed." I couldn't agree more with the Indiana Senator, and others, including Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who argues in favor of finding common ground through dialogue rather than opting for another disastrous battleground.

Regarding Iraq, my own sense is that we should listen to the American and global voices as they are reflected in the Senate Iraq War Funding Bill that sets a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by next April. The message in that Bill is not that the U.S. is leaving, but that the Iraqi government officials have only a limited time to assume control of their own domestic and international affairs. I believe this is a sound strategy which gives ample time for Iraqis to pull together and determine the destiny of their war-torn nation. On the other hand, the Iraqis must be assured that the occupation is temporary and not long-term or permanent.

In today's highly complex global environment, it's easy to blame "others" but not "ourselves" for the ill-conceived and ill-engineered chaos of war that has plagued our daily lives. On the average, nearly 100 Iraqis, Afghanis, and American soldiers are killed and hundreds maimed daily. The highly divisive and counterproductive "us against them" and "them against us" mentality blinds us to the realities of our increasingly divided and troubled world. We call "them" our enemies and in turn they call "us" their enemies˜and, in the process, we all become enemies of one another. All this is done in the name of an ideology one kind or another. Mutual distrust and resentment have replaced mutual trust and respect.

Sadly, our myopic politicians have created an era in which death by design has become a daily occurrence. We have become numb to the plight of our fellow human beings. We kill without blinking an eye. Whether we talk of democracy, human rights, freedoms, or justice, I strongly believe that America, as the only superpower in the world, must lead by example and try to resolve domestic and global issues through persuasion, not fear, reason not force, cooperation not confrontation, dialogue not monolog, love not hate, and justice not injustice. Woodrow Wilson once said: "Power consists in one's capacity to link his will with the purpose of others, to lead by reason and a gift of cooperation". Comment

Yahya R. Kamalipour, PhD, is head of the Department of Communication and Creative Arts and Director of the Center for Global Studies at Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, Indiana, founder and managing editor of Global Media Journal and the co-editor of Journal Globalization for the Common Good. Visit kamalipour.com