The Debacle in Iraq

Iraq 1991 & 2003

The problems and disasters besetting mankind are not signs of God's indifference but the effects of causes generated by man himself. They are lessons in life on the road to man's higher destiny as a responsible creator and co-worker with the evolutionary process.

Human government approximates the spiritual only to the limited extent that man is aligned with his own higher power. The degree of this alignment is a variable but extremely critical factor. Upon it hinge the rise and fall of nations and civilizations.

The theory of the divine rule of kings implies the perfect alignment of the ruler and the higher will. This is something we scarcely expect today, but the principle lives in the back of the human brain and plays a powerful role in the support given to charismatic leaders who are (rightly or wrongly) deemed to be above criticism.

Beyond the magic of personalities, however, are those principles and policies which affirm and support the growth and welfare of the race, and which we have the right to expect from anyone representing himself as a leader.

Everyone can understand the difference between statesmanship and ordinary politics. The former is related to the educational process, while emphasizing those factors which require immediate attention. It is the high road, seldom taken. The low road replaces education with propaganda, manipulation and the misuse of psychology in order to mold public opinion along degenerate paths. This was seen in the build-up to the senseless 2003 invasion of Iraq, a country which had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to America. That the leader of Iraq was a bad man is a moot point. He was terminally ill and, thanks to years of robust international sanctions, he no longer constituted a significant menace to the world community. Manipulative propaganda, like brute force, by-passes the educational process as an extraneous factor, an inconvenience, whereas it is at the heart.

Because of this substitution, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a part of the War against Terror, as advertised, but merely a new wave of terror, unleashed this time by America, and justifying future attacks by those who concluded that America is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism.

Our Secretary of Defense told us that we had plenty of money to pay for the wanton destruction. This was before the surplus turned into a deficit and the deficit into a financial crisis. It helps to explain the lack of funds to pay for health, education, or the rebuilding of infrastructure. The flooding of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina may be seen as ample evidence that there are projects more worthy of our resources. Many of the voters in 2008 concluded that the greatest threat to American security was found in Washington, D.C., in the inept leadership that sowed the seeds of discord and reduced the stature of America in the eyes of the world, even as it squandered the nation's resources.

Of course the electorate is equally to blame. A vast majority supported the initial invasion. Only a people living on lies and fantasy would ratify such a travesty. Now the American people must share the responsibility for their choices, including the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of the American aggression, lives that were as precious as the lives that were lost on 9/11, but which we blithely refer to as collateral damage.

We value education above government because the former touches upon the purpose of life, while the domain of the latter is the regulation of life processes so that that purpose may be fulfilled.

Minimal government is an ideal that corresponds with the blossoming of a higher humanity. The non-existence of such an ideal situation underscores the need for a culture of liberation and points to the true purpose not only of education but of religion. But these are long-range goals; in the meanwhile, we require an organized way of life that is suitable for the contemporary world, such as may be achieved through wise government.

When it wishes to pursue some specific course for which it requires popular support, government immediately launches an educational campaign to inform the public. True, “educational” campaigns are often only manipulative propaganda, but it is only the low level of the public awareness that makes this type of activity effective. A more enlightened, better educated public would not be so susceptible to crude manipulation.

Propaganda may be only the propagation of prejudice, half-truth, or outright lie; it may empower the very illusions and distortions that the seer and the educator seek to dispel. The Jews who were sent to the gas chamber were told it was a shower. Lies facilitate evil actions. The stories presented by the Bush administration to the American public on the eve of the invasion of Iraq were in this category. The war would be a cake-walk. It would pay for itself. Americans would be welcomed as liberators. Iraq possessed and was about to use weapons of mass destruction, and therefore the invasion was an urgent necessity.

Does it matter if a deceiver believes his own lies? Such self-belief only makes the deceiver more believable. As he accepts his own delusion as an incontrovertible truth, his sincerity disarms like the charm of the confidence man. With prejudice we find stupidity. Alas, stupid people seldom feel stupid, for stupidity thrives on complacency and self-satisfaction. Many thought of the war in Iraq as a kind of football game. For them it was sufficient to root for the home team. Or they confused the elective war with an action movie pitting black hats against white hats.

The work of government has three aspects:

1) Statesmanship;

2) Legislation;

3) Law enforcement.

Statesmanship is related to the understanding and enunciation of ideas. This is a question of right emphasis and timing, implying a clear view of the present need.

Legislation is the passage into law of those ideas that have won acceptance (for better or worse). Law enforcement completes the trinity. Much depends upon an educated public opinion, as well as enlightened statesmanship, and the integrity of those who pass and enforce the laws.

With law enforcement the main issue is one of a judicious and reasonable employment of force, relative to the problem at hand. The same standards are applicable to the use of military force by nations. Force can be either excessive or deficient, like the dosage of a medicine.

The use of force by the international community in 1991 to overturn Iraq's invasion of Kuwait met (or came close to meeting) these standards. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not.

Only when there is equality in the enforcement of a rational law, applied to all nations, will there be any prospect of justice, peace and security for the community of nations. Only when there is equality under the law for all within a nation will there be domestic tranquility.

This is no easy thing to achieve, given the uneven development and diversity of standards among nations. It is an impossibility as long as the Unites States and the other so-called great powers refuse to submit to the rule of law.

Not everyone was keen for the 1991 action in defense of Kuwait, given the apparent injustice underlying the creation of that tiny but extremely wealthy nation. Some viewed it as a pseudo-nation and a remnant of the colonial era.

But a consensus existed in support of international law. The development of such a consensus follows from the reasoning that, if there is established the certainty of a robust international response to any act of aggression, such aggression will soon lose its appeal.

Unfortunately, such a successful affirmation of principle has only been possible when principle has coincided with the interests of the powerful. When there is no such interest, nothing is done, no matter how great the flouting of the law or the disaster to this or that region. The Bosnian intervention was reasonably disinterested, but it would probably not have taken place if the genocidal violence that prompted it had taken place in Africa.

This leads to the charge of hypocrisy, or double standards, a charge that cannot be denied. As the world community grows in maturity, it must be expected that such double standards will, in time, disappear.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on misinformation, was a step backward.

This is widely recognized outside the United States. It remains only for Americans to realize that they have played the fool on the world stage, and that a blind and arrogant parody of leadership, using fear to justify aggression, has shamed the nation.

During the darkest days of World War II, FDR told Americans that they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Today this great truth is inverted and fear is used to drive an anti-social agenda, in line with the purpose of the forces that oppose the evolution of the race.