Backtrack to Colonialism
The administration believes that a US occupation of Iraq is the first step toward democratizing the Middle East. Certainly support for democracy should be a major creed of US foreign policy, but the occupation of Iraq won't forward that aim. The rest of the world views an occupation of Iraq as an attempt by the US to build a stronghold from which it may extend influence throughout the Middle East.
According to the New York Times, the United States is preparing to establish immediate sole control of postwar Iraq, initially without recourse to the United Nations. Senior administration officials have indicated that a civilian administration will operate under the direct command of the US military. It is clear that the US prefers that any UN involvement in Iraq be subordinate to the Pentagon.
In other words, the United Nations is expected to help clean up the mess that the administration is making while the US continues to call the shots.
According to John Donnelly and Anthony Shadid in the San Francisco Gate, the administration assumes it will gain region-wide power from the Iraqi invasion. Officials believe a military occupation of Iraq will give the US more leverage against Syria and Iran. Control over Iraqi oil will also allow the US to rely less on Saudi oil - the fulcrum in the balance of power between the US and Saudi Arabia.
Many in the administration believe that these conditions will lead to a new Middle East. Richard Perle, an influential advisor to the Pentagon, said "There is tremendous potential to transform the region…If a tyrant like Saddam can be brought down, others are going to begin to think and act to bring down the tyrants that are inflicting them."
Yet, as the perpetrator of a bloody takeover, it is the US that many people of the region will identify with tyranny.
The invasion of Iraq is already greatly increasing resentment of the US and will help terrorists recruit to their ranks. A prolonged military occupation will only worsen this trend. US allies in the region (a number of which are less than democratic themselves) may face internal instability, and non-allied countries may feel provoked into acting more aggressively for fear of becoming the next target on America's global dartboard.
The belief that a US military occupation will bring a wave of democracy to the Middle East is just plain wrong. The occupation of Iraq will not create a popular inclination for democracy. It has, however, already created a popular movement against the US.
Speak Out Against a US Occupation
A military occupation of Iraq is not in the best interest of democracy. Get the attention of your community and members of Congress by helping Peace Action publish letters to the editors in hundreds of papers throughout the nation. You can write your own letter or use our sample below.To the Editor:
The administration's belief that its invasion of Iraq will bring democracy to the Middle East is dangerously misguided.
The rest of the world will see the occupation of Iraq as an attempt by the US to build a stronghold from which it may extend influence throughout the Middle East. This will only strengthen anti-American sentiment, increasing terrorists' ability to recruit to their ranks. Non-allied countries may feel provoked into acting more aggressively for fear of becoming the next target on America's global dartboard; allied countries may face greater instability from within.
An indefinite occupation of Iraq will result in turmoil, rather than democracy, in the Middle East.
Americans value democracy and our foreign policy can reflect this, but only if our members of Congress assert better leadership based on democratic principles such as human rights, disarmament, and international cooperation.
Sincerely,
[Your name]
