The Root | TheRoot.com
Skip Navigation
Cancel

Blog Title

  •  
Full Post
Posted Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:41 AM

Out of Iraq? [call]

melissa harrislacewell

Marc,

What did you think of yesterday's performance by Clinton, McCain and Obama as they questioned General Petraeus about the situation in Iraq? I found it pretty depressing.

Like most African Americans I opposed this war from the start. Black folks have been the opinion leaders on the war. Compare polling data from 2002 and today and you will see that the country's opinions about the war in 2008 finally reflect the position that African Americans have had since before the invasion.

I am always annoyed when African American support of Obama is cast in entirely racial terms. Much of his support among black voters can be traced to the fact that he shared our broad opposition to the war since its inception. So as much as anyone, I wish that our men and women could all come home today.

That said, I am deeply concerned about a theme that has emerged among all the candidates as they discuss Iraq. I call this theme the "negro-ization" of Iraq. My colleague Cornel West often speaks of the process in America post 9-11. He says that after the September 11th attacks, all Americans learned what black folks had known for centuries: what it means to be hated for who you are and subject to random violence. I see a parallel in our national discourse about Iraq.

Here is a sovereign nation that we invaded, destroying its infrastructure, unleashing sectarian violence, clearing the path for outside terrorists, and exploiting it for our corporate gain. Now we claim that it is their fault that they can't get it together and make a peaceful nation. That sounds uncomfortably familiar to me. It is too close to how America systematically dismantled the social, economic and political lives of black communities and then blamed those same communities for not getting it together.

Yesterday sounded like the application of the anti-black personal responsibility rhetoric deployed against the nation of Iraq.I confess that my specialty is American domestic politics and elections.

I understand much more about electoral strategy than military strategy. It seems likely to me that our continued military presence in Iraq only fuels every negative social outcome of our ill-conceived invasion. I suspect that we have to leave and do it soon, because there is no way we can fix what we have broken.

But I think it is wrong to leave while wagging a judgmental finger at the failing Iraqi government. Without a more honest assessment of our deep implication in both the military and the political problems of Iraq we may be doomed to repeat this wretched history.

What do you think Marc? Is there a way out?

Melissa

 

 

 

 

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: kid5rivers (April 9, 2008 at 11:44 AM)

Tongue-in-cheek here!

The way out is the same way in: by plane, ship or submarine!

The real question is, "Is there a will to use the way out?" The USA needs to learn that it must let these nations be. Let them brw and stew and squirm as they struggle to forge their own personalities, their own style of doing things. Didn't America herself, go through those violent birth pains?

As a native of a former (some say, still) English/Spnish colony, I appreciate full well what messed up consequences that befall many a satrapy. It is clear that America's intention is to make/keep Iraq in a state of dependence.

Therefore, I see no change in the USA's official posture towards Iraq, until the results of the unpcoming presidential elections are known to have favoured Barack Hussein Obama.


Posted By: Cobb (April 9, 2008 at 2:20 PM)

I am astonished at how you maintain any credibility with your defiance of the facts in evidence. It only goes to show how deeply affected intelligent people can be by the political hypnosis of repeated half-truths.

Exploiting for corporate gain? Is this just anything more than a convenient cliche for 'speaking truth to power'?


Posted By: Nefarious Muse (April 9, 2008 at 8:41 PM)

We'll see what Obama does if elected.  There have been plenty of anti-war candidates, but never an anti-war president.  Besides, you never can tell what someone will do when they are actually in a position where they have to decided such matters.  When GWB was running against Gore, he scared myself and many of my coworkers by spouting hyper-isolationist rhetoric.  Earl Warren helped in the internment of the Japanese Americans before he became s Supreme Court justice noted for his "liberal" decisions.  Charlton Heston marched with civil rights leaders before becoming conservative in his old age.  So, while I'm hopeful for Obama, I'm not holding my breath on this issue.

Yes, Obama would never have taken us into Iraq.  But that doesn't mean he's going to take us out quickly.  


Posted By: maliph (April 9, 2008 at 10:52 PM)

whoah nelly.

sorry i missed that!

Disclaimer: Bajan, in Barbados, watchin' y'all americans have difficulty electing a black president.

should Obama make it to president, he will have to bring your boys home, fire blackwater, and walk away from a hole in the ground (into which u r currently pouring money).

Of the three candidates you have left, he appears to be the sanest choice, for engaging in civilised discours, with anyone.

we shall see.


Posted By: Dtoler (April 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM)

I think the emphasis on blaming Iraqis for the damage we caused is an updated "declare victory and get out" policy.  It appears some political leaders are laying the groundwork for a way to leave Iraq without appearing to retreat.  "We're leaving and it's your fault" becomes an alternative to "we're leaving because various indigenous and insurgent factions kicked our butts and forced us to flee".  It's also an alternative to "we're leaving because we misjudged this operation from the start and systematically destroyed the infrastructure of an innocent country and now there's no choice but for us to cut our loses".  No one outside the US borders buys our finger-wagging judgment but perhaps US citizens will believe this nonsense.  I think that's the calculation that's happening here.


Posted By: kid5rivers (April 11, 2008 at 6:34 AM)

Don't dither, Dtoler! A lot of US citizens do believe in the "finger-wagging" nonsense! HRC is still permitted space in the race, isn't she? :-)


Posted By: duboisist (April 11, 2008 at 10:06 AM)

Sen. Clinton EXPLAINS WHY she, given the information she had at the time, voted the way she did and she is accused of being a warmonger.  Sen. Obama flips a coin and it lands on "oppose the war" and he is viewed as an "anit-war" candidate.

I don't now

I don't know why Prof. Harris-Lacewell is surprised to hear Sen. Obama "blame the victims" when the victims are Iraqi.  HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN NOTHING ELSE, except blaming one power deprived group or another.  If it's not some subset of black people (old, scared, the black church, young men with baggy pants, unwed mothers, etc.) it's anybody who doesn't vomit at the sound of Hillary Clinton's voice, or people who lack the "hope" necessary to ignore his many shortcomings.

His advisers are the people who sat next to GWB's advisers at prep school, at college, in Grad school, at think tanks, and in board rooms.  All Sen. Obama ever does is rattle off what his advisers consider "facts" and say how these so called facts need to change.  When he never talks about what actions people took that CAUSED the condition, he left with NOTHING ELSE except "blame the victims."


Posted By: Kordo (April 12, 2008 at 3:56 AM)

"But I think it is wrong to leave while wagging a judgmental finger at the failing Iraqi government."

 But, Melissa, the Iraqi government isn't failing ANY of it's objectives. It's accomplishing it's goals beautifully (marginalization of Sunnis, obtaining tactical US military assistance without compromising on it's own strategic political objectives, and balancing quite nicely between the US and Iran on the diplomatic front) There is a widespread misconception that Al-Maliki needs us to prop his government up, that we are somehow vital to his political survival. We (by which I mean our troops) are not. The US armed forces are the only thing standing in the way of his coalition's consolidation of power in Iraq. His recent assaults on the Sadrist faction had less to do with battling "insurgents", and more to do with weakening his domestic political opposition in the run-up to the coming elections in Iraq. As to walking away from something we've broken, there's an element of truth to that. But, I would argue that this region was broken even before the Anglo-American meddling of the last 100 years. Iraq is an artificial nation, drawn up by oilmen many decades ago. The people who live there will be the ones to decide how they move forward. We can, and should, help any way we can, since we contributed to the current chaos, but when all's said and done, it is up to them.

The preceding was just my opinion. Here's a fact: You were great on Hardball today! The best kind of Obama supporter, someone who dosen't pull punches and excuse any blunder made by their candidate. Nice work. Call, and Response, indeed....

Obama 08


Posted By: Kinsmankid (April 12, 2008 at 5:12 PM)

Cobb,

I'm sure that when Melissa writes of the government's use of the the war to exploit corporate gain she is referring to the $7 billion no-bid contract Haliburton -- once headed by Cheney -- received to rebuild the Iraqi oil fields that the US destroyed.  Or she might be referring to Bechtel's $1 billion contract to build Iraq's infrastructure  -- $680 million of that was under a no-bid contract.  

Melissa, keep doing your thing!!!


Posted By: pringlegirl (April 23, 2008 at 2:20 PM)

I want to thank you for what you say. For about 2 years now I have wondered how we can destroy a country and then blame it for being destroyed. I have wondered if it was our moral duty to help them fix our mess or to get out of the way so they can do it themselves. I have seen the parallel between our attitude here and how we treat the opressed within our own society. I am glad to hear someone else make these comments too.

I feel that Bill Richardson may be the only person who can lead us through this mess and I hope that whoever the next president is would do the right thing and make him Secretary of State.


Posted By: mawonajj (April 24, 2008 at 7:11 AM)

Sak Pase?

Thank you so much for this post Professor Lacewell. I have seen you on TV a lot and I really believe that you speak well and seem well informed about the issues. My favorite debate with you was on Democracy Now! against (that seasoned white feminist who backs HRC). She was so callous while you presented facts about black male versus white female presence in political office. White women always want us to forget that they were always there lying next to power while the black folks (even though black men had the vote but could not really vote before them) were always relegated to the outsider status even while we served them in every way. As they continue to promote this hierarchy I am reminded of the facts presented in Angela Davis's well researched book (which should be revised and updated asap) in which she discusses at length how white feminist went ballistic when it seemed that black men were going to get the vote before them. Some of the most well known ones decided on the strategy of de-humanization of the black men to show him as a raping monster who would have more rights and access once given the vote. Excuse me, who was raping whom?

Anyway, to come back to your post on Iraq, HRC went for her constituency, she did not read the entire report when she made her decision to vote for the war. I am not sure that Obama would have voted against it either because of the power structure and the aura in the US government at the time. Still, she is an opportunistic woman who stayed in an abusive marriage for her own gains and she has been allowed (by the base of white working class folks who support her) to continue with this madness. And as she goes on and runs a campaign that is increasingly negative and racist against Obama the Democratic party is risking losing yet another presidential race in 11/08.

Moreover, with regards to Iraq, I watched my girl Samantha Powers on CSPAN a few weeks ago discussing amongst other things her book on the UN fellow who died there. A very astute older white man stood up and made a compelling statement which was like pure oxygen for my brain. You see, right there at the New York Public Library, a truth was spoken, he reminded her and everyone else that folks said the same things about Vietnam or Surname Viet given name Nam. I was born in 1969 and I can barely remember the ordeal. But I do remember an extended family member who lived in my cousin's basement after returning from fighting there in 1975. They should have gotten out but the powers that be and their constituency argued that a precipitous withdrawal would not be in the best interest of the people. In fact, the Vietnamese were probably better off. And the same goes for the Iraquis. Now that the women are about to be targeted for wearing ethnic and religious clothing. This is the continued campaign to "modernize" and formalize the Iraqi culture and people. As you probably know that Iraq was the biblical Babylon, so I don't put it pass these Republikkklans and their allies to try to fight a symbolic battle to destroy "anti-christian" places like New Orleans and Iraq.

Gurl, we got our work cut out for us. And I hope that we survive it. You know, I only disagree with you once when during your appearance on the Charlie Rose show you expressed your disapproval of the space that Barrack Obama made his speech after the Texas primary. You mentioned that the background was dull and you missed the colourful flavor of multicultural and multi racial faces that we usually see standing behind Obama during his speeches. I personally found the background very uplifting for 2 reasons. First, it was in Saint Antonio, and as a 2nd generation trans national Haitian woman I know that Saint Anthony is supposed to help with fertility. And Michelle works out, they are obviously very much in love and I see twin boys in their very near future. (I use my psychic powers). Secondly, they both looked very official and presidential as they walked up to the stage. The black doors and their black outfits as well as the secret service people pacing in the background made it seem like a scene directly from the White house itself. In fact, had we not been made aware that it was in Saint Antonio I would have thought that it was really there especially since few people had Obama signs.

Keep on keeping on woman and I will keep reading. We need Angela Davis, belle hooks  and Manning Marable and so many others who have been left out of the mainstream media live analysis on these situations to show that black folks are not voting their "race" but on real issues, I am not an Obama supporter because I don't believe that he would support me and my kind. He would have to refute, reject and repudiate me and mine somehow. Still, I think that he is trying to run an honorable campaign and I hate watching the way that the corporate media waste our time on these nonsensical issues. (You know I agree with everything Jeremiah Wright said because thank goodness I can read. And the weather Underground was a needed organization to counteract the destruction of civil rights and liberties (remember COINTELPRO?).

Blessed love.


Posted By: Purchase vicodin. (May 6, 2008 at 4:16 AM)

Vicodin. Vicodin without prescription. Vicodin consultation.