Reconstructing Iraq Liberal Voice

Author: Daryn Cambridge

Even though Saddam Hussein may be considered an "evil" dictator, that does not mean that, by waging war against his regime and working to dispose him of power, it makes George W. Bush a "good" leader, a liberator, or, in any way, justified in his actions. As much as Bush would like to believe the contrary, those who fight "evil" do not immediately become "good" (to borrow the bellicose black and white vocabulary of which Bush is so fond). In many cases those who claim to be "liberators" exercise similar modes of domination, control, suppression of opinion and military power to exercise those means. Bush has condemned Saddam Hussein for attempting to dominate the Middle East by intimidating his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.
How is Bush any different? He has prefaced his reconstruction goals by utilizing the intimidation factor, "shocking and awing" those around Iraq's borders to follow suit and obey American orders.
The unification of both neo-conservative ideologies and corporate interests has provided the Bush administration with an agenda that will define peace in American terms for the advancement of American interests. The reconstruction of Iraq is the first step in the implementation of this "Pax Americana".
So, when "Operation: Iraqi Freedom" gets flashed on the television screen do not be fooled. The word "freedom" should be understood in neo-conservative terms: Iraqis will be "free" to do what Americans allow. After all, as Donald Rumsfeld said - when questioned about the disorder and anarchy that has been sweeping Baghdad - "freedom can be untidy." Hence those with American ties should be there to maintain order, restructure the government and control the future of Iraqi freedom.
Whether it's Jay Garner, Ahmad Chalabi or some other pro-American elite, whoever holds positions of power in post-war Iraq will be sure to advance the security/economic interests of the individuals and administration that helped put them in power.
In addition, many people, including former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, who served under President George Bush Sr., have speculated that the diplomatic failure at the United Nations was intentional so as to ensure the Bush administration's sole claim to post-war reconstruction.
Basically, since certain governments did not support the war and did not commit any troops, they therefore have no say as to how Iraq will be rebuilt. The problem with this childish refusal of help is that if Bush were truly concerned with liberating and helping the Iraqi people, he would want as much international support and aid as possible.
All things considered, it must be understood that the primary and central goal of the Iraqi reconstruction is to serve American interests. The neo-conservatives have been brewing this concoction of increased American hegemony since before Bush took office.
In the spring of 1997, the American Enterprise Institute, a neo-conservative think tank, established the "Project for the New American Century." They drafted a document called, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century." This document was distributed to Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and other influential individuals in the administration.
It explicitly outlines that "at no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals." It goes on to say that, "unless the United States maintains sufficient military strength, this opportunity will be lost."
The time is now, and the Bush Administration is working to create this "new American century," which might seem innocent enough until it is understood militarily. In an article called "Constant Conflict" published by the U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Major Ralph Peters writes, "There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be





multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive.
"The de facto role of the U.S. armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing" (www.informationclearinghouse.info).
Finally, the Bush administration stinks of corporate favoritism. Iraq's reconstruction has energy companies licking their chops at potential control of the world's second largest known oil reserves. Halliburton, of which Vice President Cheney was CEO from 1996 to 2000, was the first company awarded contracts in Iraq. The multi-billion dollar Halliburton contract has been fraught with controversy since it was done in secret and without any competitive bidding from other companies (www.cnn.com).
In addition to Halliburton, Bechtel has been awarded one of the most lucrative contracts in rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure. George Schultz, who is on the board of directors of Bechtel, is also chairman of the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a pro-war group with close ties to the White House (www.nytimes.com).
With information such as this, the reconstruction of Iraq can be seen only as neo-conservative ideology working to further American imperialism, in addition to corporate interests awarded by Bush and co. in the White House all at the expense of an entire country. Where is the liberty in that?

Daryn Cambrige is an English/philosophy joint major from Arlington, Virginia.