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 [1]. Kind of a Big Deal appears Tuesdays.
Links:
[1] mailto:lat34@cornell.edu