Why We Must Leave Iraq (From An Analytical Perspective)

CFTM EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS

BY: Mike Schiller dontbelievethespin@yahoo.com

Point 1: Military action in Iraq both was and still is completely un-necessary, and it does not serve any national security purpose.

I do not say this lightly. Around Spring of 2001, I, as a concerned citizen, sent an email to the White House with a prediction that the Taliban was a threat to the national security of the United States. I was not a military intelligence expert then, and I am not one now. However, as a person with a great deal of experience in behavioral analysis, it was clear to me that the behavior of the Taliban regime was that of a regime which was planning to invade other countries. Their actions mirrored those of past regimes which sought to expand in an empirical fashion. Although Al-Qaeda turned out to be the instrument through which the Taliban coordinated an attack against the United States, Al Qaeda was and is a threat which exists independently of the Taliban. In other words, the fall of the Taliban was not the end of Al Qaeda. There are strong links and alliances between the two, but they are two entities, not one. That said, the nature of the threat posed by Al Qaeda was and is different from that of the Taliban. If the Taliban had remained in power in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban collectively would pose not only a terrorist threat, but also a potential military threat in the traditional sense.

The fall of the Taliban removed that aspect of the Al-Qaeda threat from the equation. There is now no longer a government in the middle east with militarily empirical aspirations from which Al Qaeda is able to receive support. This does not mean that no government in the middle east is supporting Al Qaeda. However, they are not doing so in a way that is consistent with the patterns of governments which have militarily empirical goals. Thus, Al Qaeda does not pose the type of threat which military action can prevent. When the threat is not on par with that of a possible military invasion, military action is un-necessary and serves no national security purpose. The Taliban, if left in power for too long, would eventually have begun a series of invasions, not just terror attacks. That is why the threat posed by the Taliban warranted U.S. military action, but also why there was no justification for the use of military force against Iraq, and why nothing which is happening in Iraq at this point in time warrants continued U.S. military involvement.

We all know that Iraq did not pose a terrorist or military threat. What many people do not know is that even now, if Al Qaeda were recruiting large numbers of Iraqis to their cause, their recruitment efforts could only produce a successful attack if the attack were not thwarted at a law enforcement level. Additionally, it would take at least a decade for any new regime in Iraq to gain a strong enough foothold that they would pose a military threat of their own. It is unlikely that any new regime will remain in power for the next ten years, and thus unlikely that a new regime will pose a military threat, regardless of how extreme their ideology may be. Although it is possible for a foreign government to achieve a military objective by sponsoring a terrorist attack, a terrorist attack is not a military invasion.

Point 2: Terrorism cannot be prevented by military means.

Potential terrorism is an appropriate justification for a ceaseless counterterrorism program led by law enforcement and intelligence agencies. It is also an appropriate justification for renewed investment in structural improvements in skyscrapers and other important buildings throughout our national infrastructure. Potential terrorism is not an appropriate justification for the application of military force, and no counterterrorism goal can be achieved through the application of military force. The only thing which military action against a foreign government can prevent is a possible military invasion. Thus, if no foreign government is planning to stage a military invasion against the United States, the use of military force is inappropriate. Anti-terrorism efforts both before and after September 11th have consistently been led by law enforcement agencies. Any claim to the contrary is misleading.

No matter how devastating the effects of a terror attack can be, the only agencies with the capability to interrupt such activities are law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Military action can incite terrorism, but it cannot prevent it. The job of tracking terrorist activities is actually complicated, not helped, by the chaos which military strikes inflict on any particular region. Consolidation of our intelligence agencies would not assist them, but instead politicize them, and that would erode their ability to function. Our law enforcement agencies should be expanded, not consolidated. Most of the changes implemented by congress have been largely useless and un-necessary to anti-terrorism efforts. Although law enforcement can prevent individual acts of terrorism, the only way to deal with the broader problem is to discredit the ideas which lead people to join terrorist organizations in the first place. That would entail discrediting the idea of violence as a means to achieve a policy objective, which means never giving up freedom or civil liberties in the name of safety.

Point 3: A state of war is a greater threat to the security of the American people than terrorism.

The numbers speak for themselves. More Americans have been either killed or injured in Iraq than were killed or injured in the World Trade Center on September 11th. That means the Iraq war is killing more Americans than any domestic Al Qaeda attack ever has or could. Every day that our military remains engaged in Iraq, in any form, their lives are being jeopardized in vain. My previous points explain in detail why their deaths have been in vain and continue to be in vain. The longer they remain there, the worse the situation will get.

Any administration’s stubborn unwillingness to admit that one cannot control the world will not help the situation. Pride and respect are qualities which can be earned in many ways- we do not gain anything by insisting that our pride or respect hinge on the future of Iraq. They do not. We will be able to regain the world’s respect only if we first admit our mistakes and take steps to reverse them. The mistake was not the way Iraq was invaded, the mistake was the invasion itself. All of our government’s existing plans for Iraq must be abandoned. They are impossible objectives to achieve by force. Especially in that region of the world.

Democracy can only be brought about by the people. By nature it is a system of government meant to represent the will of the people. The only way Democracy can develop with any sense of legitimacy in the eyes of it’s people, is for the people to decide when and how to embrace it. Any attempt to impose it will not produce a long term result. Likewise, any foothold gained in Iraq by warlords will probably be just as short lived. Iraq must be left to determine its own political future. To leave does not require a plan, it simply requires a few transport vehicles and a President with the courage to say "We must leave Iraq, now."

In Simple Terms: Why Bush’s War Doctrine Is A Greater Threat To America Than Terrorism

Several newspapers estimated the number of Americans injured in Iraq now exceed 6,000. In addition to those figures are the over 1,000 Americans who were killed in Iraq... and for what? Surely this was never about terrorism, as it has been revealed that Saddam Hussein did not have any chemical weapons, nor the capability of developing them. This was always about corporate profits, and every single person in America knows that, but some people were willing to overlook that because they believed, naively, that Saddam Hussein may have also posed a terrorist threat. Everyone knew Bush did not believe his own rationale, but they pretended to think he believed it because most Americans have always harbored some paranoia about Iraq, ever since the first gulf war. Saturday Night Live skits, news casts, jokes told in television shows painted a picture of Saddam Hussein which left a lasting impression in people’s minds... that he was dangerous and determined to attack us. We now know that this was all nonsense. Yet some people still believe that Iraq has some relevance to the national security of the United States. Whenever one reason for supporting this war is proven false, they invent a new reason, one which is just as imaginary and untrue as the reason which preceded it.

They convince themselves the war is now suddenly justifiable because "Al Quaida now has a foothold in Iraq", or "Religious extremists will start a civil war and the result will eventually increase the threat of terrorism", or "We have to finish what we started or the Iraquis will be angry at us for leaving and then engage in terrorism". All of these reasons are absurd. Even those who are misinformed enough to believe these bogus excuses for Bush’s refusal to bring the troops home, must consider this: The Iraq war has, now, statistically, harmed more Americans than the attacks of September 11th did. Over 7,000 Americans have been senselessly and purposelessly killed or wounded in Iraq. Even when the WTC casualty figures were at their most inflated estimates, they never exceeded 4,000. Once all the inaccuracies were corrected, the figures were lowered to somewhere in the 1,000 + range.

So Bush’s war in Iraq, which was never the American people’s war in the first place, has actually harmed more Americans than the September 11th attacks. Bush has now harmed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden. The war in Iraq is a greater threat to the American people than terrorism is. The continuation of the Iraq war is a worse scenario than that of another terrorist attack. Even if we were attacked by terrorists again, it is unlikely the death toll would be high enough to come close to the number of Americans Bush himself has killed with his narcissistic obsession with Iraq. Not even if the number was added to the September 11th numbers.

Don’t get me wrong. People are much more than numbers, and I understand in a very personal way how terrible September 11th was. I lost many of my neighbors that day. I could have died that day, given that I commuted through the World Trade Center every morning. Yet I would feel much safer in a world where terrorism was the worst thing I had to worry about, than I would in a world where a never-ending war was the worst thing I had to worry about. It is quite clear to me that terrorism, though dangerous, is nowhere near as dangerous as war. There is absolutely nothing positive which can be achieved from continued US military involvement in Iraq. The worse terrorist act imaginable cannot harm as many Americans as leaving our troops in Iraq would.

Bush’s war in Iraq has already devastated a larger number of American families than the September 11th attacks ever did. For the American people to tolerate the continuation of this war because it makes them feel safer is self-defeating. This war is already harming too many Americans, and it’s inflicting more harm than any terrorist attack ever could. This war in itself is a greater danger to the safety of the American people than anything else. There is no greater threat to our safety than this war, and not because it increases the likelihood of terrorism, but because the death toll is worse than that of terrorism.

I am not suggesting that we stop caring about terrorism, but that we understand that anti-terrorism efforts should be handled strictly by law enforcement as they always were. What should we be doing, as an alternative to this self-defeating involvement in the middle east? We should be increasing the size of our police forces, providing new police and FBI recruits with the best possible training, and expand the FBI and CIA without consolidating them. We should be giving out government grants to management firms that own skyscrapers so that they can install cutting edge technology which would enable them to sense a problem before it occurs, conduct an evacuation, and notify the authorities. We should have our entire military stationed here in the US, and deploy it domestically only for the purpose of responding to a specific threat or incident.

Our military should never have been involved in an overseas operation. Nothing could have been achieved by such a course of action, and nothing will be achieved by it. Yes, the September 11th attacks were a horrible, horrible thing which I hope and pray we as Americans never experience the likes of again. However, we need to be careful not to let our fears cause us to support a course of action which is more dangerous to our way of life than Al Quaida could ever be. Most of the arguments which an array of lawmakers and media pundits have tried to pound into our brains have been lies, manipulations, and propaganda. Even if some of the people who read this article do believe Iraq is relevant to our national security, they should seriously consider the fact that this state of war is, in itself, killing and maiming more Americans than a series of Al Quaida attacks ever could. We should not offer the souls of our young to Iraqui blood hunters as human sacrifices just because it gives us the illusion that those of us still living on American soil are somehow safer. The matter of domestic terrorism has always been dealt with by domestic law enforcement, and it always will be. Nothing that happens in the middle east will help our domestic law enforcement agencies, and thus nothing which happens in the middle east will have any affect on the question of whether we are or aren’t attacked by terrorists.

The war is worse than terrorism. If we are going to worry about something, we need to worry more about the prospect that a bunch of fools in Washington may be too ignorant to see that they are personally responsible for harming more Americans than Osama Bin Laden himself, and that their complicity in the continuation of this war poses a greater threat to the security of the American people than terrorism does.

Don’t Tell Mom The TV News Age Is Dead

In Christina Applegate’s movie "Don’t Tell Mom The Babysitter’s Dead" a nasty, domineering old lady named Mrs. Sturak dies while babysitting a group of kids whose mother is away on summer vacation. One of her most memorable pre-death scenes is when she storms into the living room and turns the television off, exclaiming "TV rots your brain! Go to your room! I expect a complete report tomorrow morning, on the life of the Aardvark!"

In the 1980’s and early 90’s, it seemed to some that old people who felt that way probably just didn’t understand technology. Why would she think a harmless television would rot someone’s brain? Mrs. Sturak obviously knew something which others did not, and it wasn’t about aardvarks. It has become clear over time that the technology is only harmless if it used properly and responsibly by both the viewer and those broadcasting the content. Today’s broadcasters are anything but responsible. They over-sensationalize stories which are relevant to our national security, which creates confusion and panic that jeopardizes people’s ability to evaluate the information and develop informed opinions. They’re not reporting the facts, they’re distorting the facts.

The coverage of recent developments in North Korea is one example of how the media exaggerates a situation to boost ratings, causing both lawmakers and the public at large to jump to irrational conclusions which have no factual basis. They emphasize the most alarming parts of the story while either ignoring or downplaying the significance of important details. After being labeled by the Bush administration as part of an "axis of evil", North Korea’s government has, predictably, begun to modernize its defense infrastructure. Their government has made several statements which have been interpreted by some as threats, but which consistently contain an "if" clause. North Korean officials have merely been publicly warning the Bush administration only that they might use their weapons to retaliate IF attacked by the United States. They have not made any statements which upon close examination would indicate that North Korea would ever launch an unprovoked attack against the United States.

The media is ignoring the "if" clause in its coverage of this situation. The reality of the situation is not being reported by the media, because if it were, the public might not tune in to see what happens next. This creates a serious problem because it has created an atmosphere of crises when there is no need for one. As long as our government can successfully reassure the North Korean government that we will not attack them, there is no need to fear that they will attack us. The language coming from North Korean officials is clearly of a defensive, not offensive nature.

There is nothing unusual about a nation seeking to build new weapons during a time of global conflict. It doesn’t mean they intend to use them as anything but a deterrent to guard themselves against an invasion. To deal effectively with such a situation requires calm, not paranoia. For the media to be so eager to portray the situation as a grave imminent danger is irresponsible.

I want to see John Kerry win this election. I can list a million issues where Bush has made the wrong decision. Dealing with North Korea on a diplomatic level is not one of them. I will say that Bush’s "axis of evil" remark was a serious rhetorical mistake, but the administration seems to have recognized that and lately seems to have been taking steps to clear the matter up through diplomatic channels as it should. As long as our government continues to deal with North Korea on a diplomatic level, it is dealing with them on the correct level.

If people want to criticize Bush, there are ample legitimate criticisms we can level at him. He was wrong for sending our troops to Iraq under false pretenses. He is still wrong for keeping troops in Iraq despite all the information which suggests there is no need for them to be there, because none of the goals he has for Iraq can be achieved by military force. He is wrong for allowing coal plants to continue using outdated and ineffective antipollution technology. He is wrong for increasing the allowable level of arsenic in our drinking water. He is wrong for promoting discrimination against gay people. He is wrong for trying to deny overtime pay to millions of working class families. He is wrong for recently setting into motion a policy which would enable psychiatrists to prescribe drugs to minors without the consent of their parents. He is wrong for tax policies which reward companies that lay off workers and send jobs overseas. He is wrong for thinking that a tax cut for billionaires does anything positive for the middle class.

Contrary to the hype and spin being promoted by media outlets these days, there is no substantive evidence that either Iran or North Korea should be considered national security "threats" at this point in time. Both of those nations are behaving in a way that is consistent with that of any nation which seeks to deter other nations from invading them. Any nation in their position which was labeled by another world leader as part of an "axis of evil" would feel it had no choice but to take steps to strengthen its national defense infrastructure.

Diplomacy has been working and will continue to work with both of those countries. Weapons programs alone do not constitute a threat. What matters in those scenarios is the intent of the program, not merely the existence of one. As long as there is an "if" clause in the statements made by their diplomats, one which illustrates that their intent is to warn, rather than threaten us, we should not jump to harsh and irrational conclusions. We as a nation need to learn to live with the fact that other countries will develop national defense infrastructures. When they do- it is usually not a sign that they want to attack, it is usually a sign that they do not want to be attacked.

The media has not reported on these issues responsibly, and they should be ashamed of themselves for trying to escalate the situation just so they can boost their ratings. It is not the first time they’ve misrepresented a story. They did it with Iraq too. We all know that Bush lied, and now that the media is admitting that Bush lied, people are for some reason ignoring the fact that most of the mainstream news outlets also lied to us. They pick and choose what to report and what not to. Some of their statements are edited to manipulate the truth, some are exaggerated, some are sensationalized, some are blatantly false. Conservatives and liberals alike believe the media is biased, which ironically means that both sides of the aisle actually share a consensus that TV news, today, is an essentially worthless source of information.

Mrs. Sturak knew something we didn’t. It wasn’t that she thought the technology itself would cause brain cells to spontaneously combust. She, and many others from her generation who said similar things to their grandchildren, knew that television is an ideal vehicle for propaganda. People tend to think that if you see someone say something on TV, it must be true. Conventional wisdom (which usually isn’t so wise) suggests that a person would not lie in front of millions of people, because someone might realize they were lying and say something. Well, they do lie, and people do say something, but guess what? You won’t see those people on TV!

Television, when misused, does rot our brains and does erode our judgment. Some programming is safe to watch- movies, sitcoms, sports, anything which is truthfully and honestly presented as entertainment. That is an appropriate use of television. Unfortunately, when people get comfortable watching TV all the time, they get lazy and stop reading. When that happens, they begin to depend on the TV for information, and that’s when there’s a problem. The major news networks are all being misused. They are distorting information to achieve private objectives which do not serve the public interest. They are rotting people’s brains, rotting the legislative process, rotting our diplomatic relations, and rotting the electoral debate. If Mrs. Sturak were here to see this, she’d have a heart attack.

TAKE ACTION!! Here is a list of six important races you can help with:

Barney Frank (cosponsor of legislation to abolish the draft)

http://barneyfrank.net/home/contribute

Cynthia McKinney (First Democrat in congress to speak up against the rationale behind Bush’s rush to war)

http://www.cynthiaforcongress.com/donations.html

Pete Defazio (coponsor of legislation to abolish the draft)

http://www.defazioforcongress.org/contribute.htm

Jeff Fisher (Consistent & trustworthy pro-peace position)

http://www.jefffisherforcongress.com/indexdonate.htm

Jan Schnieder (Consistent & trustworthy pro-peace position)

http://www.schneider-for-congress.com/_asp/Contribute_Online.htm

Also, although I never thought I would ever donate to a Republican, I found myself contributing to one today. The reason I did this is because he is running against the incumbent "democrat in name only" who voted "yea" to the draft last week. Voting in favor of the draft is not something forgivable. To suggest sacrificing more young Americans for a purposeless war, thus only prolonging the war and increasing the harm done by it- is disgusting.

In this single race, I think the pro-draft "democrat" needs to be defeated and I am willing to cross party lines to help the republican who wants to defeat him- George Bruno.

http://www.brunoforcongress.com/contribute.htm

I wrote Mr. Bruno a letter explaining that I am a liberal editorialist and endorsing him, and he was very cordial and responsive. The long term interests of the Democratic party are better served if we show independence when necessary to weed out the bad eggs in the party. Sometimes to do that we need to occasionally reach across the aisle.

I urge Democrats across the nation to have the courage to unite behind only one republican in one race, Mr. Bruno. To do so would help clarify the Democratic party’s priorities in the eyes of all the young people who have been so supportive of the party over the past year.

Please visit STOPtheNRA.com today!

If the text above does not appear as a clickable link, you can visit the web address:

– http://www.stopthenra.com

CFTM EXCLUSIVE ANALYSIS