A Viable Alternative to The Surge

  Bush is prepared to ask Congress for $5.6 billion to fund his troop surge and an additional $1.2 billion to fund a “jobs program” in Iraq with the claim that his detractors have no viable alternative to that plan. Yet, while that may be true of some members of Congress who feel our continued presence in the Middle East is unequivocal, it’s certainly not true of us here at the Populist Review. And to prove our point, we've compiled a list of alternatives to expanding the war and recommendations on more productive ways to spend the money. So, here goes.

  First let’s look at a few theories surrounding our involvement in the Middle East. The first and most prevalent theory on Iraq is that our leaving would create a power vacuum which would be filled by anti-American terrorists, extending their base of operations and giving them total control over the country’s oil resources. Maybe so. But who exactly benefits from having international conglomerates control Iraq’s oil production? The American people? If Iran were to sweep in today and take control of Iraq’s oil fields, would Americans be stricken by higher gas prices? Would we be struck with higher heating bills? Would the price of oil increase to such a point as to threaten our economy? Perhaps. But how would ExxonMobil’s control of the oil fields be any different? And to those who think it would: are the interests of the American people really so aligned with the interests of ExxonMobil and Chevon as to justify our kids remaining in harm’s way into perpetuity?

   We at the Populist Review think not. So, our first alternative would be to pull our troops out immediately. Call it defeat. Call it cut-and-run. Call it whatever you like. But if international conglomerates like ExxonMobil want to steal Iraq’s oil, which it appears they have, they can damn well pay for their own security force. Our troops have sacrificed enough on the altar of corporate greed. It's high time we brought them back home.

   The next theory is the notion that a troop withdrawal would threaten our national security. This is a favorite on both sides of the aisle. But would it really? The answer is yes if you identify your security with the economic interests of Halliburton and ExxonMobil. The answer is yes if you identify your security with the political security of the ruling elite in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, and the UAE. The answer is yes if you identify your security with the security of Israel. The answer is yes if you identify your security with an ever-expanding network of U.S. bases and overseas prisons, and a head-on assault with the Moslem world. But the answer is a resounding no if you identify your security with a reduction in global hatred toward the United States. And the answer is no if you identify your security with a reduction in the fanaticism that’s made anti-U.S. recruitment as easy as selling coke.

   So, again, we beg to differ. Our security has never been more threatened than it is today thanks in large part to this war and our relentless presence. And expanding that presence will only exacerbate the situation. So our second alternative would be to not only pull our troops from Iraq, but to remove our battleships from the region as well. We need bold action to repair the damage done by this administration and a truly new strategy will only be credible if we end hostilities.

   Of course, with all the money we save by ending this war (indulge us, please), we could initiate any number of social programs. Instead of a jobs program for Iraq, we could start a jobs program here at home. Or how about subsidies for small business owners? Or a self-pay national health plan to cover the 50 million Americans without health insurance? We could inoculate every child in America, pay for No Child Left Behind, offer tuition reimbursement to the millions unable to afford higher education. We could provide jobs for the millions of homeless who’ve fallen through the ever-widening cracks in our social programs. Or how about our veterans? Or how about subsidies for free clinics? Or reducing the cost of prescription drugs for our senior citizens? Or funding alternative energy programs?

  The problem isn't a lack of alternatives to expanding this war. It’s finding the political courage to stand up to entrenched corporate interests and their toadies in government, both here and abroad, who have a stake in our continued commitment. Bush’s plan would expand that commitment at the expense of our troops, our prestige, our security, our economy, our people, and our long-held traditions. Our alternative, however radical it may seem with respect to the mainstream debate, would prevent such sacrifices.

 

                                             

Andrea Hackett is an freelance journalist, founder of the Las Vegas Dancers Alliance in Nevada, and editor of the Populist Review. She may be contacted at andreahackett@cox.net

Comments

[Andrea]

mb -
and enough of this non-binding resolution jazz. Congress needs to cut funding for this war and if they don't have the political will to do it, the people will just have to get out in the street like we did in the sixties.
See you on March 17th!

[Populist Party]

Well done, Andrea - the ONLY resolution to an unconstitution, immoral, murderous, and completely ruinous war is to end it. period.

--mb