Bacevich on Iraq

Andrew Bacevich, the international relations expert and author of the exceptional work The New American Militarism, has written an excellent piece in the Washington Post. The article revolves around Bacevich's attempts to affect change in America's foreign adventurism -- a policy that ultimately resulted in the death of Bacevich's son, who was killed earlier this month by a suicide bomber in Iraq.

Bacevich relates how a number of ignorant and callous people wrote to him after his son died, blaming him for his opposition to the war and claiming that he somehow supported the terrorists, causing his son's death. While one might be tempted to dismiss these statements as the blather of far-right extremists, Bacevich notes that their sentiments run parallel to a wider social pattern which demands unthinking support of the President, and looks on dissent as treasonous.

Most importantly, Bacevich explains how, in the wake of 9/11, he thought that the American people could speak up and bring about change in destructive government policies. This belief, however, was crushed when the American people turned decisively against the war, and yet the political elites in Washington -- both Republicans and Democrats -- totally ignored the "will of the people" and did nothing. In his words:

I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people."

Even worse than the stubborn refusal of the President to change has been the Democrats' betrayal of the very promises that got them elected in 2006. Despite their affinity for making noise about ending the war, Democrats have done nothing to bring the troops home. Many of these politicians have pieced together elaborate justifications for their inaction, when in reality their betrayal of the American people stems from the undemocratic power of wealthy elites and corporations:

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check.

It is surely hard to accept that our government answers not to the people but to elite interests, yet the continuation of the war in Iraq -- despite overwhelming public opposition -- shows this to be undeniably the case. Unfortunately, the men and women with the power to end the war in Iraq are bought and paid for, acting according to their own interests with little regard for the lives of young American soldiers. The sooner we come to accept this tragic reality, the sooner we can begin to make things right.

The only real way to bring about positive change is by escaping the false choice Americans are given between the two establishment parties. I'll leave you with Bacevich's words on this system, with the hope that more people will see the truth of Bacevich's critique and work to bring about change.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.