OBAMA: IRAQ WAR OVER

BUT ITS ECONOMIC IMPACT AND THE EROSION OF USA MORAL AUTHORITY REMAINS TO HAUNT US

Yesterday, Mr. Obama notified us that the Bush war in Iraq was over and most of our troops will come home by December 31. Obama has been angling to “have his cake and eat it too” by keeping a substantial force in Iraq within our numerous military bases there (built at tremendous cost to our taxpayers) and still being able to state “our troops are leaving”! But he has been denied that political advantage. After a war in which (as President Bush promised) we bombed Iraq “back into the stone age”, at a cost of over four thousand American lives as well as the deaths, directly or indirectly of some 600,000 Iraqi civilians, and displaced or made homeless more than four million more Iraqis, it would be difficult to imagine that they would welcome us to stay on. (Even today, nine and one-half years after the invasion, and billions of US tax payer's dollars spent-- the level of electric service, availability of sewage treatment, and access to safe, fresh water sources remain below that of pre-invasion Saddam Hussein levels.) Recent polls clearly indicate that the vast majority of Iraqis are eager for us to depart. Furthermore, the present Maliki government would not sign a Status of Forces Agreement which would have guaranteed “immunity of our troops from prosecution under Iraqi law”. After the tragic Blackwater fiasco, and lack of judicial response to multiple cases of indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians by what some have described as "trigger-happy" American troops, it would be hard to see how they would agree to such a clause.

While on the home front, Americans, are ready to turn their attention to our own economic problems, as we suffer through the Great Recession of 2007. This change in direction of the nation's thinking is partly a reflection of the natural waning of September 11 anxieties after a decade of our leaders' fear-mongering. It is also a result of the realization that "something went radically wrong" in the last decade that needs change. (These feelings have been clearly manifested in two recent mass movements, the "Tea Party" uprising on the right and the "Occupy Wall Street" movement on the left.) For the more astute observers that "something" was to a large extent a result of President Bush's “unnecessary-wars-on-borrowed-money-policy”, coupled with his penchant for reducing taxes on the wealthy, and dangerous determination to expand banking deregulation.

Here in the USA, in these days of economic suffering we too are uniformly happy to see our troops withdraw and government reduce unnecessary expenditures abroad, and are ready to fore swear jingoism. Practicality seems to rule now. Few of us can see any advantage in the costly stationing of US troops in countries which pose no actual threat to us (except those of the right-wing radical fringe and the talking-head generals, who have a personal stake in these issues--and for that reason--rather than doting on their every word-- their judgement should be taken with a grain of salt). The sentiment for troop withdrawal is particularly acute for those who realize that these military costs are paid for by the US government borrowing forty cents on every dollar we spend. And recall that each pair of boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan costs us approximately one-million dollars each. Obama now claims that only a few hundred may remain to protect the massive “US Embassy” in Baghdad. That edifice, bigger than the Vatican City State, was built with no thought of cost or practical function, but with the idea that it would long-remain a "camouflaged" well-fortified outpost of US imperialism, and now with the withdrawl of December 2011 it seems, it will be remembered only as great monument to the stupidity and chicanery of Messrs Bush and Cheney--and the neocons and other Republicans and Democrats who facilitated their actions.

That the troops are coming home, we all "thank God for little mercies". But it is very sad that our President Obama, who spoke so eloquently against this war, failed to give this speech on the first day he took office. He would have saved many American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, and perhaps we would find ourselves better positioned strategically than we are in presently.

And for those Bush revisionists and "die hards" who continue to try to claim that the “Iraq war was worth it”. One must only take a look around us at the current economic, political and foreign-policy landscape to appreciate what a disaster the last nine and one-half years have been. Our nation, first ravaged by the 9-11 tragedy, then the disastrous eight years of the Bush presidency, was served poorly by the new Obama administration, which failed to correct the nation's errant course and simply let its wagon wheels fall into the deep errant ruts of the past administration, making no effort to move off in the right direction. Mr. Obama failed to use the massive mandate of the 2008 election to expose and/or punish those who got us into this financial, foreign policy and economic mess. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama chose to continue many of the very same failed policies, attacks on civil liberties, expansion of war powers acts, illegal renditions and targeted-assinations, expansion of wasteful wars, and misguided economic policies that compounded our problems rather than solved them. Only now, perhaps too late, to save his presidency he has changed course when his is at the nadir of his power.

Thus, we see that the events of the last decade have culminated in a cluster of problems for us: our national debt and deficit, the costs of the “three trillion dollar war” in Iraq, the failure of the financial sector, our persistent high unemployment rate, the nation's anxiety and unrest, and the political stalemate in Congress. As a result, we have exited from the miasma of this Iraq war as a diminished nation. Our reputation as a great nation has been sullied on all fronts. Our economy has suffered, our bonds downgraded, our dollar falling to levels not seen before relative to the Chinese yuan, our military is weakened and forced to come to terms with its limits in its geographic reach, as well as the now too obvious bounds of military force as the means to achieve our strategic and long term national goals. Finally, and sadly, even our once vaunted moral authority has suffered what appears a fatal blow.

Some may ask who cares about moral authority? Why should the nation be concerned with what the French or Germans or those third world nations think of us? The answer is that it does count, particularly in an unruly world, where, as has been so well demonstrated to us in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the aerial bomb, the foot-soldier, and the muzzle of a gun have only limited effectiveness. We must lead by example and gentle coercion of the majority. Our moral authority is the primary element of our leadership tool kit. For more than fifty years after WWII the US led the world as a model of justice and adherence to the rule of law, a model which should be emulated. Our efforts were successful in the post war world. Much of our culture of national morality was a direct outgrowth of the outstanding early model set for us by our founding fathers: Franklin, Jefferson, Adams and Monroe, and the documents they authored--our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our model of justice, humanity, and law set us apart from other nations. In this regard we are truly exceptional. And those nations who emulated us have come to see great rewards for their efforts. In a globalized world our adherence to these laudable cultural tenets permit us to lead and modify world opinion. That was a time when our word counted. Our efforts permitted us to direct ourselves and others toward in ways which would eventually lead to a better, more just, more humane post-WWII world. But today we find ourselves on a precipice where one more step in the wrong direction would be fatal.

One example of how far we have fallen on this score came to public attention yesterday October 22, 2011 in the Washington Post when it became clear that our once unchallenged moral authority has fallen apace with our military set backs, and economic woes.

When the UK-based firm Hermitage Management Capital became embroiled in a charge of tax fraud and evasion in Russia, they hired Russian attorney Sergie Magnitzky to represent them. During Magnitsky's investigation he uncovered evidence that absolved the UK firm from guilt of tax evasion, and revealed, in fact, that Hermitage MC was the victim of fraud perpetrated by powerful Russian financial institutions. During the long litigation period Magnitsky was himself charged with colluding with Hermitage and arrested on trumped up charges. He was incarcerated in the infamous Butyrka prison in Moscow where he appears to have been pressured to abandon and recant the case he had developed. He refused. During his incarceration, he fell ill. Medical attention was limited, and as he continued to resist recanting his positions, he was moved to increasingly harsh confinement conditions where his affliction worsened and eventually died of his ailment. A Russian court ruled his death the result of purposeful negligence and the doctors who treated him and prison official were tried and punished with prison terms. The UK based Economist magazine reporting on this story called his case an example of torture. Other exposes followed and "the Magnitsky case" soon became a cause celebre in the UK and on the Continent.

After Magnitsky’s death the case received further wide publicity in the UK and Europe, where eventually the EU Parliament voted for the banning of entry into the EU of sixty Russian officials who were deemed responsible for the brave attorney’s death. The Canadian Parliament followed suit, resolving to deny visas and to freeze Canadian assets of this group of Russian individuals. Here in the US, Senator John McCain co-sponsored the Justice for Sergei Magnitsky Act in October 2010, which would forbid entry into the US of the sixty individuals named in court documents. Recently, it was revealed (see October 22, Washington Post) that the Obama Administration put into effect the legislation and added these sixty people to our “banned for entry” list.

The Russian response remained muted as the statutes voted on in both the European and Canadian parliaments went into effect, but when the US chimed in, they attacked us viciously. The Russian foreign minister Alexander Lukashevich lashed out in what the Washington Post called “ unusually strong terms: stating: “Such (US) moralizing-calls appear especially cynical against the background of the practical legalization of torture in the US, special prisons, kidnapping, and mistreatment of terrorism suspects, the indefinite detention of prisoners in Guantanamo, and uninvestigated murders of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

And so is this is the world-view of the USA, after the GW Bush-Obama administrations? Is this what is said sotto voce and behind our backs? I fear it is how we are perceived around the world today. When we speak out on moral issues that need and deserve our support, will we be ignored in the future? Such an outcome is both sad, unsettling, and unfortunate for us, as a sign of our decline, and a loss of moral leadership for the world as a whole.

Note: From Wash Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russia-retaliates-against-united-states/2011/10/22/gIQAxKac6L_story.html)






Get the picture?