In Defense
of Flip-Flopping
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Hardly
anyone noticed when President Bush signed a proclamation giving
Iraqis the right to export thousands of products to the US without
paying any duties. After imposing years of duties and tariffs on
many dozens of goods from timber to textiles to shrimp during his
term, this might be his first action fully consistent with free
trade. How about expanding this proclamation to all other countries
in the world?
Only
one problem: Iraq's duty-free status exempts oil, since of course
that would make Iraqi oil competitive with US oil, and we can't
have that. Make that two problems: there isn't anything else left
in Iraq to export. Oh, there is, of course, the vast reservoir of
anti-US hatred endemic to the population there that can be exported
to the world.
There
might have been many actual goods to sell in world markets before
the 1990s, when Iraq was prosperous, peaceful, liberal, and civilized
by comparison to some other countries in that region. But trade
sanctions drove the country to the status of the third world in
the 1990s, killing hundreds of thousands or maybe millions, actions
which gave rise to Islamic extremism and bolstered recruits for
al Qaeda.
And
now that Bush is running the show in Iraq, he decides that free
trade is a great idea. Talk about flip-flop. Had his father not
decided to wage low-grade warfare, a policy continued by Clinton,
we might not be in the mess we are today. Our relations with Iraq
would be much like they are with fifty other countries run by despots
but with which we otherwise have normal relations.
When
I first saw Bush ads about Kerry's flip-flopping, it struck me as
a weak attack. Who cares if someone has changed a position if the
person is going from wrong to right? Isn't that better than dogged
persistence in error?
For
example, Bush has doggedly defended his decision to unleash Hell
on Iraq and cause mass bloodshed, despite the fact that the rationale
for having done so was entirely trumped up. Bush himself has never
wavered in his support for spending other people's money to blow
up property and people in distant lands; only the rationale changes.
The effects, however, do not change: increasing, not reducing, the
drive to attack US soil in retaliation.
Accusing
Kerry of flip-flopping is also the way Bush has answered some of
the few sensible comments Kerry has thus far made in this election
campaign. The "hard reality," he says, is that the Iraq War has
led to "spreading violence, growing extremism, havens for terrorists
that weren’t there before."
He
now says that rather than wanting to increase the number of troops,
he wants to pull out the troops. Hear hear! It's about time he states
the obvious. Yes, he voted for the war, but why does that mean that
Kerry should have to embrace all the disasters that have resulted,
including all the spending?
However,
the Bush regime can only focus on Kerry's failure to persist in
error: "John Kerry voted for the war but voted against funding for
combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan," said spokesman Steve
Schmidt. "This is another example of John Kerry’s indecision, vacillation,
and political gamesmanship."
Now,
agree or disagree with Kerry, it is not political gamesmanship to
decry a war that a nation is currently fighting. In fact, it is
one of the most difficult political stands to take. You are subjected
to smears, lies, and every manner of threat. People say you are
guilty of treason and sedition, and suggest that you are undermining
the war effort. You are blamed for inspiring the enemy to kill our
troops. It is said that you have no faith in the nation state and
that you are unpatriotic. Truly, criticizing a current war is one
of the most difficult even courageous things that
a public official can ever do.
By
comparison, one of the most cowardly acts is to persist in a disaster
for reasons of pride and power. That is what the Bush administration
has done in Iraq. It's as if no one at the White House has noticed
how the war is going. Every day, there are more attacks on Americans,
more deaths of Iraqis, more opposition to the US in the country
and region. Every day, the US controls less and less of the country,
and the extremist Islamists more and more. Major fighting and killing
is going on even in the places that the US claims to control.
Listen
to the remarkable comments by Maj. Gen. John R. Batiste, commander
of the Army First Infantry Division, who is running operations in
Samarra. "Samarra is a city where Iraqis are taking charge to throw
out anti-Iraqi forces. No one has ceded the city to insurgents and
there is no cordon. What we have in Samarra is the good people of
Iraq, led by far-sighted provincial and city leadership, senior
sheiks, and clerics, standing up to the enemy."
There's
only one problem: it's sheer fantasy. Reporters who talk to residents
say that insurgents are fully in control, just as they are in Ramadi,
Falluja, and Baqub. The US military is just dreaming, while killing.
The bloodshed is going to their heads.
The
US runs a puppet government that would immediately collapse if the
US pulled out. Any public officials that have cooperated with the
US, any troops that have fought for the US, and any merchants that
have gone along with the occupation, will immediately fear for their
lives. The longer the US stays, the more this will be true. Leaving
today will probably produce disaster, it is true; but leaving in
six months or six years will produce an even greater disaster. And
meanwhile, the bloodshed that occurs on a daily basis cries out
to Heaven for vengeance.
Would
that someone in the White House wake up and look at reality. Would
that someone there be willing to tell Mad George and Tricky Dick
that they have lost their minds, that the war is a catastrophe,
and that there is no easy way out. Someone needs to tell these people
that every day the war goes on, the worse terrorism will become.
As to whether speaking truth to power would make a difference in
this case, I don't know. The exercise of power is like a drug, or
maybe like demonic possession. The people running the country and
trying to run the world today are high on it.
September
10, 2004
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him
mail] is president of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com,
and author of Speaking
of Liberty.
Copyright
© 2004 LewRockwell.com
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|