Warlead

Perhaps a paradigm shift is in order. Without change, there is no hope for a better future.

There have only been changes for the worse in Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Resistance by the Iraqi military loyal to the Hussein regime was quelled only to beget an insurgency. The insurgency quickly became inter-sectarian violence. Both sides, Sunni and Shi'a opposed the US occupation, but divisions along sectarian lines and 30+ years of violent oppression, Sunni minority suppressing Shi'a majority, created the conditions for a generation of Iraqis to release their frustration and anger. Each side; Americans, Sunni Iraqis, and Shi'a Iraqis battled each other on two fronts. For the Iraqis, two fronts became three as intra-sectarian violence, Sunni on Sunni and Shi'a on Shi'a, began. The chaos has only led to intra-sectarian violence and a full-blown civil war. The reason for all of this was the ill-advised invasion and occupation of Iraq under false pretenses.

President Bush II of the united states announced recently that he will be increasing troop deployment in the four year old war with Iraq, a war that is increasingly unpopular among Americans and their elected representatives. This so-called "surge" of personnel has the task of securing Baghdad, the capital city. Despite the failure of 130 000 troops to achieve the same task, the commander-in- chief of the US believes that his new approach, complete with new rules of engagement, will get the job done.

In the same speech that announced an increase in troop deployment, the President called out two other nations, Iran and Syria, implying that their support of their ethnic compatriots must stop, or else. When questioned the following day by Senators on the foreign relations committee, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice was "evasive" in responding to questions about the will of the President and his administration to cross the borders between Iraq and Syria, and Iraq and Iran. Such transgressions clearly hearken back to the "secret wars" in 1970s Indochina, carried out by presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, administrations that lied to the American people about crossing international borders to achieve military objectives.

Engagement with Iran raises the spectre of a nuclear arms race. Iran has, for years now sought the development of a peaceful, energy-focused nuclear program. This quest has been blocked at every turn by the US and the influence they have on the UN security council. Now, the US having fomented a Hadean nightmare within Iraq for the Shi'a majority, which ethnically mirrors Iran, Iranian military planners cannot help but consider a nuclear deterrent to American influence, nor can they deny the call of their Shi'a cousins in the bloody civil war.

Chasing down the sources of support for the Iraqi insurgent forces has led to the frontiers of Iraq, as it certainly would. Whether or not the pursuit of these sources will lead across these borders is a call for the President to make. However, should these transgression require - or culminate in - a declaration of war against Iran and/or Syria, then the president must seek the blessing of Congress and the American people.

The mandate to fight the war on terror - a war declared by the Bush administration in the tradition of the Reagan administration - is a phantom battle. It begins with the identification of a perceived threat, that of terrorism, as a tangible and defeatable enemy. Now that the war on terror has advanced into its sixth year, the inference that terror is tangible and defeatable is no longer questioned.

My question, however, has remained throughout. Isn't terror and terrorism a function of the ideas of its instigators? Without the motives and tragic circumstances - effects of causes such as US foreign policy decisions and US-led economic policies - terrorism would not be the force in the world that it is today. Attacks, then, cannot be aimed at the people and nations that commit violent acts. A battle against "ideology" cannot be fought with guns, bombs, and manpower. Such notions are sheer folly. The prevailing paradigm is this same folly.

A paradigm shift is in order. The Bush administration can continue to chase down every lead in the war on terror, find every person that opposes the brand of freedom that America sells, set up as many false dichotomies as are necessary. The end result? America will be at war with everyone but those whom they identify as friends or "self".

The war on terror can only culminate in world war; but an of insidious, police-state conducted, dystopian form. The kind of war warned against be the likes of Orwell and Eisenhower. To avoid this, the prevailing paradigm must be shifted.

The conflicts between the concerns and ambitions of all parties engaged in the middle east are certainly matters of life and death. The battle for control, dominion, or authority is certainly the "greatest ideological struggle of our time." It cannot be left to the states and powers involved to see this struggle clearly. They continue to march toward the cliff warned against by many. The lies of the current administration continue to mount. Repeating the mistakes of Vietnam and other post WWII conflicts and spreading international instability and insecurity as by-products of secured economic interests, has proceeded apace. Any that stand to contest the juggernaut will be destroyed. This paradigm is unnatural and unacceptable.

A paradigm shift is a grand change. It changes the way everything is conducted, it changes the way humans see the world. It is just this sort of change that the empowered fight in everything that is under "their" control. Perhaps, it is this change that the war on terror will ultimately contest. Ideological struggles rest with the ideas of the participants. A war against ideas makes thoughts into crimes. The terror of the unknown and the unpredictable is what threatens power structures and designs the world over. Perhaps without this fear of change, fear of the unknown, humans can begin to accept the differences between one another and work toward solutions to the problems plague us. The possibilities are clear in human history, South Africa's post-apartheid truth and reconciliation commissions are proof of this.