Donate today and get a free, signed copy of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Features > May 5, 2005

How to End the War

By Naomi Klein

A billboard in Basra reads "Raise your hand for reconstruction, not a weapon of destruction."

Editors' Note

The following essay is adapted from remarks made at the National Teach-in on Iraq sponsored by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C. The teach-in was held on March 24, the 40th anniversary of the first teach-in on the Vietnam War, which was held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The central question we need to answer is this: What were the real reasons for the Bush administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq?

When we identify why we really went to war—not the cover reasons or the rebranded reasons, freedom and democracy, but the real reasons—then we can become more effective anti-war activists. The most effective and strategic way to stop this occupation and prevent future wars is to deny the people who wage these wars their spoils—to make war unprofitable. And we can’t do that unless we effectively identify the goals of war.

When I was in Iraq a year ago trying to answer that question, one of the most effective ways I found to do that was to follow the bulldozers and construction machinery. I was in Iraq to research the so-called reconstruction. And what struck me most was the absence of reconstruction machinery, of cranes and bulldozers, in downtown Baghdad. I expected to see reconstruction all over the place.

I saw bulldozers in military bases. I saw bulldozers in the Green Zone, where a huge amount of construction was going on, building up Bechtel’s headquarters and getting the new U.S. embassy ready. There was also a ton of construction going on at all of the U.S. military bases. But, on the streets of Baghdad, the former ministry buildings are absolutely untouched. They hadn’t even cleared away the rubble, let alone started the reconstruction process.

The one crane I saw in the streets of Baghdad was hoisting an advertising billboard. One of the surreal things about Baghdad is that the old city lies in ruins, yet there are these shiny new billboards advertising the glories of the global economy. And the message is: “Everything you were before isn’t worth rebuilding.” We’re going to import a brand-new country. It is the Iraq version of the “Extreme Makeover.”

It’s not a coincidence that Americans were at home watching this explosion of extreme reality television shows where people’s bodies were being surgically remade and their homes were being bulldozed and reconstituted. The message of these shows is: Everything you are now, everything you own, everything you do sucks. We’re going to completely erase it and rebuild it with a team of experts. You just go limp and let the experts take over. That is exactly what “Extreme Makover:Iraq” is.

There was no role for Iraqis in this process. It was all foreign companies modernizing the country. Iraqis with engineering Ph.D.s who built their electricity system and who built their telephone system had no place in the reconstruction process.

If we want to know what the goals of the war are, we have to look at what Paul Bremer did when he first arrived in Iraq. He laid off 500,000 people, 400,000 of whom were soldiers. And he shredded Iraq’s constitution and wrote a series of economic laws that the The Economist described as “the wish list of foreign investors.”

Basically, Iraq has been turned into a laboratory for the radical free-market policies that the American Enterprise Institute and the Cato Institute dream about in Washington, D.C., but are only able to impose in relative slow motion here at home.

So we just have to examine the Bush administration’s policies and actions. We don’t have to wield secret documents or massive conspiracy theories. We have to look at the fact that they built enduring military bases and didn’t rebuild the country. Their very first act was to protect the oil ministry leaving the the rest of the country to burn—to which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld responded: “Stuff happens.” Theirs was an almost apocalyptic glee in allowing Iraq to burn. They let the country be erased, leaving a blank slate that they could rebuild in their image This was the goal of the war.

The big lie

The administration says the war was about fighting for democracy. That was the big lie they resorted to when they were caught in the other lies. But it’s a different kind of a lie in the sense that it’s a useful lie. The lie that the United States invaded Iraq to bring freedom and democracy not just to Iraq but, as it turns out, to the whole world, is tremendously useful—because we can first expose it as a lie and then we can join with Iraqis to try to make it true. So it disturbs me that a lot of progressives are afraid to use the language of democracy now that George W. Bush is using it. We are somehow giving up on the most powerful emancipatory ideas ever created, of self-determination, liberation and democracy.

And it’s absolutely crucial not to let Bush get away with stealing and defaming these ideas—they are too important.

In looking at democracy in Iraq, we first need to make the distinction between elections and democracy. The reality is the Bush administration has fought democracy in Iraq at every turn.

Why? Because if genuine democracy ever came to Iraq, the real goals of the war—control over oil, support for Israel, the construction of enduring military bases, the privatization of the entire economy—would all be lost. Why? Because Iraqis don’t want them and they don’t agree with them. They have said it over and over again—first in opinion polls, which is why the Bush administration broke its original promise to have elections within months of the invasion. I believe Paul Wolfowitz genuinely thought that Iraqis would respond like the contestants on a reality TV show and say: “Oh my God. Thank you for my brand-new shiny country.” They didn’t. They protested that 500,000 people had lost their jobs. They protested the fact that they were being shut out of the reconstruction of their own country, and they made it clear they didn’t want permanent U.S. bases.

Next page »Page 1 of 2
Naomi Klein is a columnist for In These Times, the British Guardian and The Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper and the author of No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies.

More information about Naomi Klein
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    Yes there needs to be a serious alternative presented to the joint Republicrat/Demoplican (Howard Dean is now on George W Bush’s side) vision of endless occupation in Iraq.

    We need to admit that both sides of the single payer political party in the United States are the problem. Forget the Demoplicans, if you’re still waiting for them to “get their act together”. They’ve got it together : they’ve cut a deal with the corporate/pac money machine wherein they don’t even have to win elections anymore, all they have to do is foreclose any alternative to the present regime by taking up all the political room outside the Republicrat party, and they get paid just as though they were a real alternative party.

    Wake up, realize that you’ve been betrayed enough, and work for a third way.

    Or it will be 2008 and Hillary Clinton will be continuing the Iraqi occupation and doing what she’s told by the powers that be in Greater Israel.

    Defending a basic injustice requires a fulltime occupation, in Palestine or in Iraq.

    Posted by John Francis Lee on May 5, 2005 at 7:17 AM

    Naomi,

    If there is every a terrorist award show you should be the first recipient of the Al Zarqawi Humanitarian award.

    You said:
    ** Some elements of the armed resistance are targeting Iraqi civilians as they pray in Shia mosques—barbaric acts that serve the interests of the Bush administration by feeding the perception that the country is on the brink of civil war and therefore U.S. forces must remain in Iraq.**

    Earth to Naomi…your so called armed resistance targeting innocent civilians are what we call terrorists.  If you believe a terrorist that kills Iraqi civilians applying for work or praying serves anybody’s interests except a bunch radical extremists hell bent on killing everybody not just like them, then you are delusional.  I know the “I Hate America Thing” is big with Progressives, but I had no idea it was this extreme.

    You fabricate so many points to make your argument that only a small segment of blind followers could rally behind your arguments.  That’s why your movement has no traction.  The same people who could follow this malarkey are the same people who can be convinced to strap on a bomb vest and go kill a group of innocent men, women and children while their leaders stand behind and snicker.

    I hope for the good our country, the group you are trying to rally remains small and fractured.

    Posted by U Scare Me on May 5, 2005 at 9:10 AM

    Naomi, you dropped the ball with this one. You may or may not be right about the value of the US opposition adopting a pro-democracy platform in lieu of an anti-war one, but if so, that policy should be directed at restoring the US government, not Iraq’s. Your identification with the insurrection, no matter how you try to clean it up with the non-violent examples, is a built-in suicide machine for any group that adopts it. I have read a lot of your stuff, and you should know better.

    Posted by old grey ent on May 5, 2005 at 10:15 AM

    Naomi - Thank you for the continued thoughtful expose of this War Without Borders - Against Terrorism. 
    You are a favoruie always capable of sincere writing.  I am opposed to the use of the term “Insurgents” to condemn the efforts of those fighting against the occupation of their country.  Would we not do the same?  Another favorite - Juan Cole - always uses the term “guerrillas” in his Informed Comment.
    How many innocents will die in this slaughter?

    Posted by Millie on May 5, 2005 at 10:30 AM

    USM,

    You’ve got it wrong, it’s “We Love Our Country” and are sick to death of the Republicans lying about every aspect of this “crusade”.  If we ever really meant to build Iraq back up, then why is the reconstruction almost 100% foreigners?  How is that aiding in job creation?  Where’s the 9B dollars from the oil pumped under our jurisdiction?  Where is the over 100M dollars “missing” from unregulated reconstruction efforts?  History will show this to be the biggest boondoggle in US history.

    I guess the same people who follow your malarkey are the ones who go to church recruiting events for the military.  When you think about it, when they recruit from mosques to drive out the occupiers, they’re terrorists.  When we recruit from churches to occupy, we’re patriots.  There’s something very wrong with that picture.

    And don’t you dare come back talking trash about how unpatriotic I am.  I LOVE this country, and I am madder than heck about all the lies Bush Co. has and is spreading, to the detriment of our people and our economy.  To me, people who blindly defend this farce are the traitors.

    Posted by Margaret on May 5, 2005 at 10:51 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 573 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues

Also by Naomi Klein

Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of David Sirota's New York Times bestseller The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington

Popular Discussions