"George Bush sends his regards." This statement will, perhaps, characterize the moment when it was percieved the former Iraqi regime had finally toppled. We captured their leader, not after a standoff with the closest members of his guard in struggle, but hiding in a hole in the desert hoping to escape notice. Such a manuver seems to betray something about the conflict in the Gulf, that our opposition was not an evil dictator bent on our destruction, but a dictator, content in the control of his fife, and unconcerned wtih the affairs of others as long as his rule remained in tact.
Compare this to the actions of the man on acount of which this conflict supposedly began. Osama Bin Laden remains free, having escaped the government eye and continues in his agenda. The man who actually attacked and destroyed American targets on our own soil remains free. But we have his associate in prison. That's a victory, right?
The victory seems only to be that we have gained an additional resource in a foreign land, not that we have actually defeated our enemy. Terrorist cells continue to exist, but are apparently untouchable by the state. If this is the case, one must wonder how it is that other governments are able to operate in collusion with them and why persueding others that it is more profitable to side with America than the terrorists would not be in their best interests. I offer a hypothesis: It is because it is not in our best interests.
As much as the attack on NYC was a positive blow in the minds of terrorism, it has also worked out for those with interests in the middle east. Oil companies who desire higher stakes in mid-east oil have it. We are also attempting to build a regime that opens diplomatic doors in the gulf region as well. So it seems that we are winning the conflict only in the sense that the interests of a few powerful people are being taken care of, albeit through a long arduous process.
The telling sign is that our opinions are split. Those who are in support of the war see it as an opportunity to benifit either their pockets or the world through the spread of "freedom". Why is the second benefit important? Because it betrays a need for us to feel like we are not threatened from the outside. That others see our view as positive and will follow suit, making an ally. But for this goal to be accomplished is such a move necessary? I think not. In order to fulfill the desires of both the investors and those who desire secuirty, I offer the following proposal.
The reason why it takes conflict to wrest power from regimes such as Hussein's is that it would be the natural course even without US intervention. If his rule became unbearable, there would be enough people who disagreed with his control who would take up arms to defend themselves. It's what we do when we feel legitimate danger. Thus, it seems fitting that those who desire the resources there would choose violence , but the rest of the nation has declared that such a conflict should not be in the name of all Americans. I would contend that the move of Cheney et.al. to hire a corp of mercs to take over would be just as profitable, though with more overhead, and would proceed more in line with the way succession would occur naturally. By keeping the national military home, we avoid the use of the force as a nation when the nation as a whole doesn't desire it. There should be some concern for the IRaqi people, but I contend that as a part of taking over the country, it is necessary to protect them as well (or at least those willing to follow suit) since they too are a resource for the new regime. The struggle over the new government among factions of Iraqi's shows why this is difficult, but also why those who are actually invested in having control over the land should only extend their personal resources and not those of the nation.
Instead, the US role in such conflicts should be one of mediation. In cases of struggle between groups in countries, it should be our role to attempt to provide an amiable solution, but if neither side is willing to compromise, struggle will continue regardless of our actions. It is in the best interest of all to either wait or foster movements that seek compromise and work towards mutual benefit to change the actual social landscape of these countries in a way that its own citizens see fit, rather than simple imposition of a new regime.
The key is the promotion of state autonomy inside of nations. If a conflict is among seperate groups of people inside of one nation, then the problem is internal and must be solved by internal change. Nations as a whole should only be involved in situations where the wellbeing of the entire nation is at risk. Hence, only international struggles over fundamental issues, not wealth and resources. In cases where such resources are necessary for survival, trade would seem to be the proper router, but only trade that ensures that both sides are taken care of to prevent future conflict.
These thoughts have motivated my project of locating the source of conflict in the desire for the fulfillment of basic needs and the opportunity to fulfill oneself as a person. My initial project, to show how a process such as the consensual democracy of some african tribes, sees mass participation, while the process in a nation such as ours is ignored as futile by much of our population. The key to the African system seems to be that participation in one's social order is a fundamental character of a human being to be considered a free person. This is the opposite of the case in the US, where it seems to be more in the vein of wealth and other categories of people who feel disenfranchised. It seems that if these people felt that they were a part of the system as well, that it did speak to their concerns, they would be more active in its operation. Thus, ensuring social justice and rights for the people of the nation.
