The highly publicized “war on terror” is over in the Middle East. Or is it?
As the world sat in horror and awe watching the crumbling down in flames of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, those who felt at the moment the most Western and democratic of all vowed to avenge what they called an offense and an outrage against liberty and freedom. The tragic deaths of over 2000 US nationals and some foreigners on American continental soil was seen as the worst thing anyone could have done against mankind and human rights.
But why was it so perceived? Was it really all that bad and did it justify the subsequent invasion that ensued?
Let us examine a few things: in many films, the US military was shown as mighty, powerful and invincible. Particularly today I am remembering a sequence in The A-Team. The movie characters were placed in Iraq, during what was called the final days of American withdrawal from Iraq. In the movie, some of the characters of the film are shown packing things and loading truck with their military and personal effects, getting ready to leave and return to the US. The Iraqi soldiers are seen as oddly trained, inexperienced and a bit infantile to be left with the full responsibility of watching over their land.
Is that so? Are they really not ready to handle their own security?
More on The A-Team: The whole movie is set around a plot to steal the plates used to print US money. Those stealing it were not Iraqi soldiers, but American. The movie showed US rogue troops profiteering from the war.
Many other films were shot that portrayed that same sad reality: that the war in Iraq was nothing but a hoax and a waste of time and resources. Productions such as The Hurt Locker, Jarhead, Fahrenheit 9/11and Green Zone showed with utter honesty what was truly happening in Iraq.
This kind of language just reminded me of something else: Good seven years ago I remember being at home watching the news and saw a headline that made me question the meaning of American military presence in the Middle East: The War for Iraq. Now I am not a native speaker of English, but even I knew then that what the headline meant was that the war was waged to attempt to rescue Iraq. My question was obvious: Rescue from what or from whom? Ok, they had Saddam Hussein there for many years, but did that mean that US troops had to go there to liberate the Iraqi people from that yoke? Did it justify the terrible actions they were responsible for during their presence there?
There is an additional perspective to consider: the US upcoming presidential elections in which President Obama will try to be reelected for a new term. Public opinion has not been on his side for quite a while, thanks to the much disputed jobs bill and the rising unemployment throughout the country. Yet one of Obama´s campaign promised was to bring the soldiers home and end the occupation. Why wouldn't´t he? The American people were already not supporting the war and had been claiming the return of their sons and daughters for a very long time. Bringing the soldiers home is sure to win back some loyalty and votes for the president, but will it be enough to defeat the GOP nominee?
It is possible, but not likely. The American electorate has been known for decades to be a vengeful one. The last time they elected Bush as a response to Clinton´s presidency, which was filled of scandals. Now they elected Obama as a resentful response to Bush´s war. Next year, even if Obama, a democrat, brought back the troops, will America elect him again seeing as he is nearing the next war in Iran? It would seem from the latest events that the US is already brewing its next invasion, along with the next war on terror.
So the real question is whether anything has changed. It seems the oil now being targeted is the Iranian, if one can safely assure that such is the cause for the war. Now, would this war bring as much profit and money as the last one? Would it rally the people as well as the Iraqi war did? Would it last for just as long as this last war?
I think yes, yes and yes