Miller time… »
« Ockham’s Razor
“stay the course?” – NOT…

Posted on Friday 8 December 2006

 

Arianna Hiffington: Huffington PostArianna Huffington has a post up about the Iraq Study Group report. I love her style of cutting-to-the-chase writing. This one’s called Cutting the Fat from the Iraq Study Group’s 79 Proposals. This time, however, I disagree with her about something. She comments:
– it’s hard enough to read through 79 proposals, let alone try to implement them. Here then is HuffPost’s look at seven of the Group’s suggestions that should be the first to go:
…
Recommendation 21: The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq’s oil. Too hard for him to pull off with a straight face.
…
I know she’s joking, teasing about the fact that Presidents Bush and Cheney took us to Iraq specifically because they wanted to control Iraq’s Oil. But to my way of thinking, this is one of the two most important proposals in the report. The two are [my copy isn’t numbered like Arianna’s]:
RECOMMENDATION 22: The President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq. If the Iraqi government were to request a temporary base or bases, then the U.S. government could consider that request as it would in the case of any other government.

RECOMMENDATION 23: The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq’s oil.

Maybe Bush has said those things and maybe he hasn’t. Maybe he’s said them and not meant them [there’s a lot of stuff like that with Mr. Bush]. But I think that these two proposals are at the center of the problem. We’re in a double bind in Iraq. In theory, a double bind is composed of four elements:
  1. a compelling pull in a certain direction
  2. a compelling pull in the opposite direction
  3. the injunction to do something
  4. the prohibition against acknowledging the conflict
Another name for a double bind is an "impossible situation." Double bind theory arose in studying communication patterns in dysfunctional families, but has a far wider application. It’s the third element that matters – the injunction to do something when you’re in an impossible situation makes people crazy – because there’s nothing right to do. The only solution is what Aristotle called "going between the horns of a dilemma." What that means is disavowing number 4., the prohibition against acknowledging the conflict. If you’re in an impossible situation, of course there’s nothing right to do. No Study Group can solve the problem. But they can say, "This is an impossible situation!" over and over again, and, if possible, try to figure out why things are so impossible.

Nobody still believes that the United States of America and our allies invaded Iraq for the reasons given. It is increasingly clear that we invaded Iraq to "control Iraq’s oil" which would require "permanent military bases in Iraq." Sure, those other things were factors [or excuses], but we were primarily there for access to their oil reserves. That’s what the Iraqis think. That’s what the other Arabs think. That’s what the rest of the world thinks. That’s what I think, along with an increasing number of other Americans. It’s what "stay the course" really means. I think it’s the reason the current situation is so impossible.

What’s being said is that we can’t leave because of the chaos. What’s also being said is that the chaos is caused by our being there. While both of those things might be true, the biggest truth is that we’re staying there because Presidents Bush and Cheney still want to control Iraq’s oil. So, I think these two recommendations are key, but we need to do more than state that "the United States does not seek to control Iraq’s oil" and that "the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq," we need to mean them, and we need to show we mean them in every way in our power. I expect the Iraqis may, in time, forgive us for unseating Saddam Hussein even if we had rotten motives. Hussein was hard to love. But they’ll never forgive us for a war of conquest and pillage. No matter what complex set of motives took us on this misadventure, it’s time to get real clear that we’ve given up on the oil ploy, and we know it. We have to lose the wrongly motivated war in spades, in order to begin to negotiate a best case leaving scenerio. That ball is actually in our court, and Recommendation 22 and Recommendation 23 are keys to the door out…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.