The Shifting of Terrorism

The war on terror has come full circle. The US was once liberators and now we are the terrorists.

Last Sunday, a convoy of hired Blackwater USA security forces escorting State Department vehicles open fired on a crowd of innocent Iraqis in an open square. The first person they shot was a man in a car, the second was the woman next to him, holding a baby. When the incident was over, somewhere from eight to eleven Iraqis were killed.

The Iraqi government recently released a preliminary report about these events, stating that “the murder of citizens in cold blood in the Nisour area by Blackwater is considered a terrorist action against civilians just like any other terrorist operation."

This statement sums up the US's involvement in Iraqi, military or private. Before, even if it was under false pretenses, the US claimed it was trying to spread freedom and democracy. Now, it seems, we are just adding to the terror we came to stop.

According to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, there have been seven incidents of Blackwater needlessly killing Iraqis. Blackwater claims that the convoy they were guarding was ambused, and no press releases or acknowledgment of the issues appears on their web page. The only thing that appears is their denial that employees have been illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq that end up on the black market.

Even before the shootings last Sunday, Iraqi officials repeatedly complained to the US about the problems with Blackwater. After the incident, the Iraqi government banned Blackwater operations. Prime Minister al-Maliki even insisted that the state department drop them as a contractor. But they continued their work anyways. Apparently, private security firms are protected in a loophole law that was set up before the Iraqis took power.

The arrogance of Blackwater's continuation is incredibly frustrating. The US is over in Iraq to stop terrorism, yet we are perpetuating it ourselves. Blackwater has denied all wrongdoings, and the US government has made no moves to evaluate the situation. This situation shows how much we don't care about the Iraqi citizens and just how concerned we are with our own agenda. This isn't the war on terror, and it never has been. Soon, both the American people and the Iraqi people are going to completely realize the falsity of this war and everyone will be in a huge amount of trouble. It seems like it is already to late to do anything about it.

Read This Post

I am not going to start off with a personal anecdote and suspend for once my delusions that this blog could be a jumping point my my New-York-Times-columnist career.

I am just going to say; read this article: "A Way Out of Debt By Way of Iraq."

It is about the men and women of this country that have chosen to go to Iraq to escape and eliminate their financial burdens.

At first, I thought, how interesting. Then, as I continued to read, I thought, how incredibly horrible and frightening. The article describes how people with massive amounts of debt find volunteering for Iraq an easy way to gain some quick cash and live in a low-cost lifestyle.

My country has left people with no choice but to sell their lives to escape their problems at home. I cannot believe this. I thought this was the land of opportunity, yet my fellow citizens are resorting to participating in warfare and violence to solve their individual problems, and financial ones at that.

I am reminded of a David Cross joke of him describing his reaction to watching a reality show: "Bush always says; 'the terrorists hate our freedom.' Well, I hate our freedom too, if this is what we do with it."

This is the land of the free, but these free people have been forced to resorting to risking their lives abroad to fix their lives at home. If this is what our freedom gets us, then it really isn't freedom.

The Next War

Yesterday, I didn't feel engaged by the Sunday New York Times. This happens occasionally, due to a combination of a laziness and the fact that most stories in the Sunday paper are published a day or so early, making most of it not that timely.

So, after browsing through the New York Times headlines, I decided to move onto England's the Guardian Unlimited, the online version of the Guardian, which could be described as England's New York Times.

Anyways, I didn't expect to find anything there all that interesting. What I did fine, for lack of a better metaphor, sent shivers down my spine.

There was a boldfaced headline, complete with a color picture, reading: Cheney pushes Bush to Act on Iran.

I quickly read the story.

Then I quickly searched the New York Times for any verification of this story. Nothing. I waited a day, knowing England is about eight hours ahead of us, assuming the Guardian published this story before the US papers went to print.

Today, still nothing. The Guardian article had moved to the "More News" section, second from the top.

The story discussed how President Bush has been influenced by Vice President Cheney to resort to military action in Iran. At previous discussions on Iran, Bush has sided with Secretary Rice and Gates, both which discourage military intervention. Now, apparently, Bush is listening to Cheney's advice and looking for a military solution.

The Guardian's anonymous source said that "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo," and that "Mr Bush and Mr Cheney [do] not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively." The White house claims Iran is building a nuclear weapon and is supplying terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The claims of the White House may be true. Iran may be supplying terrorists, or developing a nuclear weapon. One of the most recent articles from the Associated Press on Iran, Iran Reversing Ban, Will Open Reactor to U.N. Inspectors , published on the 14th, is about how it will open their country up to UN nuclear inspectors. If Iran follows through, this will greatly weaken the White House's argument that it is building nuclear weapons.

Whatever the truth may be for the Iran situation, it is dangerous to think of it as an "Iran situation." This type of thinking got the US into Iraq. The President had an "Iraq situation" that he thought he needed to deal with. He saw military action as the most suitable solution, and evidence to justify this military action seemed to conveniently exist.

While reading this Guardian article, it seems the same thing is beginning to happen with Iran. Cheney is pressuring Bush into a military solution, regardless of Iran's practices. Military action might be the best solution for Iran, I don't know, I'm not an administrative official. But if a war is started because of an "Iran situation", instead of what Iran does, the Iran war will be as unfounded as the Iraq war.

What disturbed me the most about this Iran situation, is that people in England know more about it than people in the US. There is now evidence that the administration was pushing for a Iraq war long before the public knew about it, and it seems like the same thing might be happening again. I respect the New York Times as a publication, but I am disappointed that they did not cover this story, or even reprint the Guardian article. The American people need to know what their government is planning, and the press is the only thing that can provide them with this information.