Op-Ed
A Quagmire of Rhetoric
Email: 
Share: 
This past week, much was made on campus of the University of Connecticut survey that claims Cornell students do not know basic American history. However, there has been a different thread in the opinion section of The Sun — an all-out assault on criticisms of U.S. foreign policy in. One cannot help but wonder if this, albeit anecdotal, tidbit reveals an underlying reality of some sort, especially as conflicting sides approach the ever-pressing issue of the Iraq War. Indeed, it seems that the proverbial quagmire on the ground has migrated to the columns of The Sun in full force.
Taking a step back, I examined what has appeared in this paper over the past week or so in an attempt to orient myself to the lay of the rhetorical land. I read that pursuing human rights “has sunk from a noble calling to merely another brand of left-wing, anti-American agitation” (Ari Rabkin) and that those who oppose the war at best hold merely a simple one-dimensional fantasy that withdrawal solves everything (Ben Birnbaum) and at worst are “traitors” who “hate our soldiers” (Billy McMorris). A sober analysis of U.S. policy and its critics has disappeared as so much chalking on Ho Plaza under Ithacan snow.
We have now been involved in this war for longer than World War II. In addition to the casualties suffered by the U.S., a Lancet study found Iraqi death toll hovers around the 700,000 mark. Skimming the opinion pages of The Sun, one would think such a position was merely confined to a small sect of America-haters who offer a strategy that should be summarily dismissed. In reality, public opposition to the war has been growing, with the January 27 March on Washington bringing upwards of 300,000 to say “Troops Out Now.” A strong movement against the war is building, and there is good reason for it.
With a straight face, we are told by Birnbaum, “Iraq is a complex country, a complex country with a complex population and a complex history.” Indeed, a complex sentence such as that one would think invites an in-depth analysis of the situation or even a look at the history of the execution of the war. What are we actually presented? Nothing other than the crypto-racist declaration that “Iraq is, quite literally, going to Shi’ite” along with a basic repetition of the talking points of each of Bush’s multiple “surge” speeches comprising the past few years following “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.
These observations reveal that at least some Cornell students not only lack knowledge of history, but even current events. In August 2006, the U.S. conducted “Operation Forward Freedom II” — as effective as sequels are in cinema, those concerned about Iraq should recognize they make for bad strategy. With the stated goal of bringing “stability” in response to the now hackneyed “Shi’ias inherently hate Sunnis” justification to continue occupying Iraq, this surge of troops in Baghdad actually increased violence. Even the Iraq Study Group acknowledged this when analyzing the operation, stating, “Violence in Baghdad — already at high levels — jumped more than 43 percent between the summer and October 2006.” The reason? The United States is funding, arming and backing opposing groups with each new surge, disrupting any unified anti-occupation resistance as it begins to solidify.
Unfortunately, few in Washington are willing to acknowledge the role that the U.S. plays in fomenting violence in Iraq. Instead, we are fed offensive untruths about the Middle East — such as columnist Thomas Friedman asserting that Arab and Muslims “have no tradition of democracy” and are simply from a “broken society.” Even Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was praised by some leftists this weekend after announcing his intention to run for president, has been engaging in a bizarre twist on blaming the victim, announcing that there should be “no more coddling” of the Iraqi government — as if the Iraqi people asked to be invaded and occupied.
I cannot speak for my fellow columnist Jeff Purcell, named by Birnbaum as another one of those anti-war folks who just doesn’t get it, but I do stand for an immediate full withdrawal of all troops. I’m not deluded. Yes, an immediate withdrawal will most likely result in a short-term readjustment of the political forces on the ground, previously divided for conquering by the U.S., and this will result in factional violence. History has shown what pro-occupation speculation (“Saudi Arabia and Iran will ignite a full-blow war”) cannot — Iraqis are indeed capable of ruling their own country, and order will return to the country after occupying U.S. troops leave. The invasion and withdrawal from Falluja provide a microcosmic history lesson to this point. Those who are beginning to see through the tattered façade veiling the oil-grab of the occupation in Iraq also recognize that we must grant reparations to the country we have destroyed, give full democratic autonomy to those same people and provide full mental and physical support to the brave soldiers who were sent to war.
More and more Americans are starting to connect the misrepresentations (or, as Birnbaum would argue, “unappreciated nuances”) of the invasion to the misrepresentation of the continued need for troops on the ground. As a nation-wide movement for campus-wide strikes against the war on Feb. 15 builds, especially among our fellow Ivies such as Columbia, we owe it to ourselves to take an honest look at the debate on our own campus, lest we find ourselves embarrassingly on the bottom of another survey of student awareness.
Laura Taylor is a senior in the School of Industrial and Labor Relations. She can be reached at lat34@cornell.edu. Kind of a Big Deal appears Tuesdays.
Wait, so the socialist
Wait, so the socialist columnist who thought that Iranians were Arabs and whose columns are generally riddled with basic factual errors is lecturing others on not understanding the situation in the Middle East?
Oh, irony.
Honest Look?
It is more than ironic that an article calling for an "honest look" starts with an outright fabrication of the number of protesters in Washington. Official estimates were 30,000-90,000 (quite a generous spread); not the 300,000 cited by Ms. Taylor.
When in doubt, play the racism card. A pun = racism. An innovative play on an old liberal stalking horse.
I cannot help but laugh when a sentence criticizing the war begins "Even the Iraq Study Group. . . .". Have you read the report? Taken a course in rhetoric? The use of the term "Even" suggests that it would be a surprising admission by the ISG. In fact it simply mirrors the enitre substance and tenor of the report. It is thereofre expected, not unexpected.
Talk about code words: a "short-term readjustment of the politcial forces on the ground". What a nice way of saying massive bloodshed due to the abandonment of the Iraqis by the US. Don't forget what happened last time the US pulled out of Iraq before the job was done.
The familiar "oil grab". I see. Economics major, Ms. Taylor? The oil grab would account for the record high prices recently experienced for oil and gasoline? Even Paul Samuelson wasn't that clueless about basic economics.
The "country we have destroyed." Yes, that well-known international tourist destination and oasis known as Iraq has been destroyed by the imperialist running dogs of the US. Baghdad, that shining beacon on a hill, extinguished by the damn Yankees.
Finally, I am consistently puzzled by women who oppose our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not pretend to know Ms. Taylor's position on the issue, but on the international scene, it appears that the primary women's rights issue is making sure that abortion is legal throughout the world, and the UN and its agencies go to great lengths to see that this policy is implemented in every developing nation (propsects of aid are cut off if they don't sign on the dotted line to the UN's agenda). Personally, I believe that basic human and civil rights for women are far more important. That is only one of the things at stake in iraq and Afghanistan. The UN's silence on this issue is absurd.
"we are fed offensive
"we are fed offensive untruths about the Middle East — such as columnist Thomas Friedman asserting that Arab and Muslims 'have no tradition of democracy' "
Oh yes, let's look at the Arab world's wonderful tradition of "democracy:"
Egypt: has had the same president for the past 26 years, will probably democratic "elect" the extremist Muslim Brotherhood group to the government in the near future, provided they don't overthrow the existing one first.
Lebanon: under Syrian control until 2005, elected a terrorist organization to the government, who then resigned and demanded new elections so they could get more seats.
Syria: ruled by one man for 30 years; when he died, the Constitution was changed so that the minimum age to "run" for president was lowered to 30, allowing the dead president's son to win the election unopposed.
Saudi Arabia: ruled by the Saud family as a monarchy, claims its constitution is the Koran, women are forbidden from testifying in court except in extreme circumstances
Jordan: ruled by a hereditary king, who may be vetoed by the legislature, although the king can dissolve the legislature
Need I continue?
The United States of
The United States of America: currently led by a president who was elected under dubious circumstances.
Yes C, your little quip
Yes C, your little quip about the 2000 election certainly refutes my point the Arab/Muslim doesn't have a tradition of democracy. Would you care to say anything else or are you too busy patting yourself on the back for such a clever comment?
Lost at C
Following the 2000 election, the major liberal media outlets performed their own re-counts of the votes, limited to the most heavily democrat counties in Florida. The result: Bush still won. This, despite the fact, every major network except Fox announced at 8:01 p.m. eastern time on election night that Bush lost Florida. Since the polls in the Florida panhandle do not close until 9:00 p.m., such an announcemnet violates the networks' agreement not to make any predictions until all polls are closed in a particular state. The early announcement of the Florida results had an adverse impact on voter turnout in the largely republican panhandle, thereby making the Florida result much closer than it otherwise would have been.
The misreporting (or, to be kinder, the erroneous predictions) of voting results has become a fixture of presidential election night reporting since 1992. Invariably, it involves declaring that the democrat canditdate has won one or more eastern states (I have seen it hit at least 3 states in one election year) like Florida or Georgia that are key to a republican presidnetial nominee's chances for victory. For some reason, after the polls close out west, the anchor comes on to explain that, surpirse, we were wrong in calling Georgia for the democrat, the republican actually won. This is no accident. The miscalling of eastern states is designed to decrease voter turnout in the midwest and west by republicans, while serving as an incentive for democrat voters to turnout (who doesn't love to back the winner?). This tactic also affects the elections of senators and congressman out west. Jean Carnahan and Maria Cantwell never would have been elected were it not for this insidious practice. If we truly want to ensure the accuracy of our elections, we would simply ban media predictions of any kind until the last polls closed in Hawaii. Would it be such a bad thing for Americans to learn who the newly (and, more fairly) elected president was early the next morning? Our we too infantile and accustomed to instant gratification to wait for the results?