Lying and Accountability: Reflections on the Iraq War

A wounded soldier is evacuated during the Iraq War. (photo: blog.usnavyseals.com)

 

Reader Supported News | Perspective

ying has always been part of politics. Traditionally, however, the lie was seen as a necessary evil that those in power should keep from their subjects. Even totalitarians tried to hide the brutal truths on which their regimes rested. Discovering the disparity between illusion and reality, the way the world appeared and the way it actually functioned, gave critics and reformers their sense of purpose. In the aftermath of the Iraq War, however, that sense of purpose became imperiled along with the trust necessary for maintaining a democratic discourse. The Bush administration boldly proclaimed the legitimacy of the lie, the irrelevance of the truth in justifying its politics, while the mainstream media has essentially abandoned its responsibility. Great Britain has opened investigations into the decision by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair to support the American invasion of Iraq. Hardly a world is spoken about them on this side of the Atlantic. Why hasn't a Congressional investigation of the Bush administration taken place in the United States?

The Iraq War was not simply based on "mistaken" interpretations, or "false data" - as the mainstream media likes to suggest - but on blatant mendacity. No weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq. No evidence has been discovered of serious connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. It has now become clear that no weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. Iraq did not pose a serious security risk to the United States.

All of this has been established in Great Britain. CIA officials have stated that they were pressured to make their research results support government policy. Secretary of State Colin Powell has still not offered a satisfactory explanation of the claims made in his infamous speech to the world about weapons of mass destruction. Other important members of the Bush inner circle have admitted that that the nuclear threat served to build a consensus for war. Democracy for the region was quickly abandoned along with, more recently, the war on terror. There never was a serious justification for the invasion of Iraq. Those with a historical bent should be reminded of 1898 and the Spanish-American War, which marked the emergence of the United States as a genuine imperialist power, when the publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst told his reporters: "You supply me the headlines and I'll supply the war."

American citizens intuit the real reasons. But isn't it time that those in charge of this catastrophic war were legally confronted with them? The invasion was propelled by geo-political dreams of controlling an Iraqi nation "swimming in oil" and the control of four rivers in an arid region. Then there were the multi-billion dollar profits for Bechtel, Halliburton, Blackwell and the rest. But there were other reasons, too. Conquest of Iraq would throw the "fear of God" into Tehran and Damascus. The United States would gain an alternative military presence to what it once had in Saudi Arabia. Perhaps the fall of Saddam would even make peace possible between Israel and Palestine. Democracy might yet be exported to the region. Such were the goals. To be sure: the profits of Bush-friendly corporations exploded. None of the other goals, however, were realized. As President Barack Obama affirms his pledge to withdraw 100,000 American troops (leaving behind 50,000) Iraq is a wreck. A parliament run by warlords has arisen in Iraq, the economy is still in ruins, and its electrical grid still is not operative. American power in the region has been shaken (which helps explain the stubborn and self-defeating policy of the Obama administration in Afghanistan), Iran has become more repressive, and the "road map" for peace between Israel and Palestine has led nowhere.

Even should things appear different in the future, however, it would not excuse the inexcusable costs. We have forgotten about the "liberty fries," the televised national "alerts," the flouting of international law, and the rest of the stupid propaganda of the Republicans that a majority of Democrats happily swallowed, that is, until the United States started to lose. More than 4,400 American soldiers have lost their lives, and more than 33,000 have been wounded. We are still burdened by the loathsome Patriot Act (whose parameters have only grown) and a price tag that now exceeds $1 trillion dollars. Who stands up for the Bush Doctrine today? American standing in the world along with American security and American democracy were all compromised by this criminal war. But then, it is always about America isn't it?

While the United States congratulates itself on the "surge strategy" - whose successes are somewhat more limited than most would care to acknowledge - the political establishment has less to say about the well over 1 million Iraqis who were killed, the 7 million who were wounded, the 1-in-4 Iraqi families who lost a member to violence; the 2.5 million living in external exile; another 2 million driven from their homes; the economic devastation, the environmental damage and the sicknesses from which countless others suffered and died. Abu Ghraib is only the tip of the iceberg. Whether one wishes to label all this "genocide" or "sociocide," mass murder or mass destruction, is not the point. Important is only whether legal accountability is demanded from the principal architects for the war in the Bush administration. To sweep it all under the rug is to engage in yet another exercise in the arrogance of power. American policy in Afghanistan remains unclear and indecisive. What happens once the next lie is told and the next gamble is made? It is perhaps useful to think back to other powerful nations whose leaders liked to lie and loved to gamble - and who won, and won, and won again - until finally they believed their own lies and gambled once too often?

Stephen Eric Bronner is Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and Director of Global Relations at its Center for the Study of Genocide, Conflict Resolution, and Human Rights. He is also the Senior Editor of Logos: A Journal for Modern Society and Culture, where he has published a number of articles on the Sudan, as well as the author of "Peace Out of Reach: Middle Eastern Travels and the Search for Reconciliation."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.