Freedom Not Militarism -Free Society Collective

February 01, 2003

The call for peace in Iraq should mean more than the absence of a new U.S. invasion. For more than a decade, the Iraqi people have suffered under two oppressive regimes. Hussein's dictatorship has not only severely repressed political dissent but also pursued a murderous policy toward the Kurds. Even the recent amnesty for almost all prisoners, while freeing many who were unjustly incarcerated, underscores Hussein's brutality: it confirms the "disappearance" of numerous inmates and compels those newly released to trade their prison cells for Iraqi military barracks. The United States, in turn, has merely worsened the situation. The U.S. trade embargo and continuous air strikes have limited access to food, health care, and clean water in Iraq. As a result, more than five thousand people die every month.

Nor will increased military activity by the United States, either unilaterally or in concert with its allies, improve the lot of the Iraqi populace or make the world safer. While the Bush administration may be right in highlighting the cruelty of the Iraqi government, its interest in a "regime change" cannot be separated from economic and geopolitical motives.

Historically, the relationship of the United States to the Middle East has revolved around oil production. U.S. foreign policy has sought to create stability in oil markets, regardless of whether the United States has chosen to support military dictatorships, fundamentalist regimes, or nations with long records of human rights violations. Because Iraq holds the world's second- largest oil reserves, or nearly 11 percent of the total supply, it is no surprise that Bush and his advisers have set their sights on this country while ignoring other repressive governments. But G.W.'s new "preemptive strategy" moves beyond stabilizing the flow of resources; it now aspires to direct control.

The Bush administration is candid about its wish to replace the tyranny of Hussein with a U.S. military government. This would not only allow for greater "energy security" but also unhindered access to a large, untapped consumer market. Moreover, it gives the United States a solid foothold in a region key to facilitating the further consolidation of wealth and power. This latest military posturing is, as such, inseparable from capitalism, with its insatiable grow-or-die dynamic. Establishing control over Iraq simply fuels the expansion of the market economy on a global scale irrespective of its consequences for humanity and the natural world.

Even an unabashed proponent of "free markets," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, acknowledges the symbiotic relationship between military action and capitalism: "The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas. . . . And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." The military's job in the twenty-first century is to control resources and markets, to keep corporations safe and protect investments.

While the United States may potentially succeed in overthrowing Hussein and putting its own military government into power, this leaves little hope for the Iraqi people to experience any meaningful change. And relying on the market economy for material provisioning in Iraq reproduces the same social inequities that exist in countries such as our own.

Military intervention will also not ensure greater security both at home and abroad from violence by terrorists or states. What amounts to a first strike by the United States will potentially open up a Pandora's box of retaliatory attacks globally. It also establishes the precedent of a preemptive war that any government or group can use to justify future aggression. Weapons of mass destruction should not be tolerated. But they need to be abolished everywhere, not just in countries that fall outside of NATO.

The impending war against Iraq demands more than just a call for an undefined notion of peace. Self-determination--the ability of a people to shape their society, economy, and daily lives without external compulsion--must be a priority both here and in the Middle East. It cannot occur under a repressive regime, nor in a country striving toward limitless military expansion that will likely result in decades of upheaval and suffering for millions of people. Substantive peace involves neither capitalism, nor its bitter fruit militarism. It means replacing want and fear with abundance and joy in a self-governed society. We cannot allow the concepts of freedom and democracy to be reduced to jingoistic slogans, hollowed out by their crass use in support of U.S. military ambitions and empire building. Together, we can reclaim their meanings.

--Free Society Collective Central Vermont Posted by fsc at February 1, 2003 03:48 AM