Rogue Sprinters In A Relay Race

Was the Bush Admin's invasion of Iraq undemocratic?

by Roland Kriewaldt

The American invasion of Iraq was packaged as a fight between good and evil. To blur reality even more, each side claimed to be the "good" side while rallying their team against the opposing "evil" players. Can we ever know who or what is true evil in this world? Not if politicians and religious tyrannts keep defining it for us.

The first obstacle is our being fearful and disinformed. This causes us to shoot first and ask questions later. This is not a good strategy for managing our fear of the unknown.

Much to our eventual surprise, evil won't turn out to be white, black, Asian, Christian, Muslim or Jew. It won't even be horned, flaming and jackel-like. Evil, we will find, is when we harm others in the pursuit of our own self-interest, or when we avoid taking full responsibility for our own "sins," whether out of pride or fear of retribution.

If anything, the US invasion of Iraq has shown us that the future attitudes of our leaders are fundamental to creating both democracy and a worldwide state of peace. That doesn't necessarily mean a peaceful world, but one in which violence is not considered as a way to resolve conflicts, whether between family members, or nations.

Yet in the 21st century's first embarrassing political irony, a state of rabid self-interest outweighed democracy when the George W. Bush administration went to war as a rogue nation against the will of the majority — an act far removed from the dictionary definition of democracy. When Bush's agenda encountered a truly democratic process via the United Nations Council, its members determined, via majority vote, that a violent military assault upon Iraq was not only unprovoked, but unwise, and unnecessary. What action did the Bush government choose to take? They attacked and occupied Iraq, overthrowing the government and creating chaos.

As that story began to unfold, it was clear that rabid self–interest was the driving force, not a desire for world peace. Least of all, a democratic or "Christian" version, though Bush packages himself as a believer in love at election time, when judgment is upon him.

If anything, the US invasion of Iraq has shown us that the future attitudes of our leaders are fundamental to creating both democracy and a worldwide state of peace. That doesn't necessarily mean a peaceful world, but one in which violence is not considered a means of resolving conflicts, whether between family members, or nations.

Yet in the 21st century's first embarrassing political irony, a state of rabid self-interest outweighed democracy when the George W. Bush administration went to war as a rogue nation against the will of the majority — an act far removed from the dictionary definition of democracy. When Bush's agenda encountered a truly democratic process via the United Nations Council, its members determined, via majority vote, that a violent military assault upon Iraq was not only unprovoked, but unwise, and unnecessary. What action did the Bush government choose to take? They attacked and occupied Iraq, overthrowing the government and creating chaos.

As that story unfolds, it's clear that rabid self–interest was the driving force, not a desire for world peace. Least of all, a democratic and dare I say "Christian" vision of the world, as Bush likes to package himself at election time.

Our agenda, if we are not to exterminate each other en masse one day, must be to find a means toward world peace and sustainable development. That means that any proposed solution must be both environmentally and humanistically sound. The United Nations, in name alone, already embodies the beginnings of our collective desire for a state of worldwide cooperation. The question is can we act unilaterally; one force united on behalf of all self interest, whether through the UN or another legislative body, work as a relay team to bring home the baton of peace justice, human rights and true participatory democracy? And then to deliver those basic elements for a successful, democratic reality in equal share to both the highest and the lowest paid of the world?

We shall know the answer by the end of this century: if we are still alive as a species, then the answer was yes. If we are extinct, then the answer was a loud, emphatic no. And if that is the case, then Bush and his bad boys will have rung the bell for the opening round of a perpetual boxing match that will ultimately kill our planet and all of its inhabitants. Armageddon, if you will. After all, who has the last word in a nuclear war?

As self-appointed ambassadors of democracy, the Bush Admin demonstrated that they weren't team players. Instead they chose the role of the rogue sprinter, dashing madly toward the finish line to promote their own private agenda. They won the event, but not the games. And the team lost its spirit. For who has cheered Team America since those first horrifying weeks following 9/11? Republicans sit alone in attendance but for the kids fighting on their behalf, and the parents who must somehow justify their deaths for a cause that seems more unjust each passing day. The rest of the world, including the Democratic half of America, has left the stadium in disgust.

The United States could have saved its valued status and reputation, but the Bush Team cheated to take the lead, making losers of the other runners in the field. That's not democracy. That's fascism. But the judges have called for blood tests and there's talk of disqualification. This will cost them the medal.

Epilogue:
Written in March, 2003, by January 2007, the newly elected Democrats are planning to distance themselves from all these failing wars on terrorism. Did "evil" win, and who were the good guys? Bush still acts in charge, but he's just acting, a true career politician. Everyone else knows it's over. This wasn't the recipe for success. The outcome is not what the world's last remaining "superpower" and self-professed champion of democracy was looking for. Pride before the fall, as they say. The conflict has left deep scarring worldwide while the American people feel less safe than ever before. Meanwhile, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war between the opposing forces which Saddam Hussein contained by the same means soldiers now use to enforce American will: they shoot people. Anti-American sentiment is growing; no one has answer except to retreat, or keep losing; a course Bush prefers to save face. Saddam Hussein was murdered in eye for an eye justice and Iraq is less free than before democracy arrived. It also has less water, electricity, and work for its people. Bush's PR team is now blaming Iraqis — how dare they fail us! Yup, that's why they call it "spin" — it leaves you dizzy.