Mary Mostert
May 25, 2004
A free Iraq MUST be free of foreign control
By Mary Mostert

Hours before the President spoke last night, CNN/USA Today released their latest poll which asks: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?"

Of course, the response to question, for all presidents, goes up and down based on what is happening in the news. For example, exactly five years ago on May 25, 1999 Bill Clinton was busy bombing Yugoslavia, a nation which had never attacked the United States and, in fact, in World War II was the only real ally we had in the Balkans in our fight against Adolph Hitler. The Serbs saved over 500 downed US Pilots, which often resulted in Serbian women and children being killed in retaliation.

One of CNN's questions at the time was: "If the current NATO air and missile strikes are not effective in achieving the United States' objectives in Kosovo, would you favor or oppose President Clinton sending U.S. ground troops into the region along with troops from other NATO countries?" Only 39% would have favored such an action, while 57% would have opposed it.

Not only do we have ground troops in Iraq, we've had over 700 deaths. We had not been attacked. There was not even a HINT that Yugoslavia had any weapons of mass destruction. After NATO forces took control of Kosovo, we discovered no "mass graves" of "100,000 Albanians" killed in the KLA reported "genocide." They did find 2000 bodies in mass graves — many of them Serbs.

We didn't go in because of a genocide in Iraq, but have already found 400,000 bodies in mass graves — many of them babies shot through the head. We know the Kurds were the targets of chemical weapons attacks which killed over 5000 people in Halabjah. Yet, we have listened to months of media and political attacks on George W. Bush because, until recently, we didn't find proof that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons.

Last night the President outlined his 5 part plan which involves turning sovereignty back over to the Iraqis at the end of June. He is being criticized by Democrats, of course. Senator Diane Feinstein, (D-CA) said: "We have gone on now with the sense of 'We will stay the course' for too long," said Feinstein, who voted to authorize Bush to take military action against Iraq. "We need to know precisely what that course is."

And David Gergen, who likes to advise everyone, both Democrats and Republicans, said Bush must offer "a clear, credible plan for success."

Success of what? The Iraqi nation? If the goal is, as the President has said, "the rise of a free and self-governing Iraq (that) will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region," how can a foreign power DO that? It has to be done by the Iraqi people. And, they have to be sovereign and free to DO it.

The United States of America became a free and independent nation because King Louis XVI of France, who was publicly beheaded a little over a decade later in the French Revolution, had sent the French Navy and part of its Army to help George Washington. With the French fleet cutting off the British escape by sea, Britain's General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown on October 19, 1781. The Articles of Confederation, which had been introduced into the Continental Congress in the same day as the Declaration of Independence 1776, were finally ratified by all 13 colonies nearly 5 years later on March 1, 1871. By 1786 the Americans had some really serious problems and anarchy loomed. That was why the Federal Constitutional Convention was convened in 1787.

I spent most of the past year researching and writing a couple of books on this subject. The ratification of the Articles of Confederation convinced France that the bickering colonies might eventually become a nation and took the risk of sending the French Navy to help the American commander, George Washington, in order to retaliate against its old enemy, Britain.

It is unfortunate that most Americans have no idea what the process was we Americans went through to found this nation of liberty. George W. Bush appears to be one of the few who DOES understand that a foreign country cannot give orders to a new nation and expect its people to understand what it means to be a citizen of a free and independent nation. As President Bush put it, "

    "Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they do not build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live, and hope, and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists' only influence is violence, and their only agenda is death.

    "Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure."

He then outlined "five steps ... to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom."

It took us from 1776 to 1789, 13 years, to even get a Constitution written. The Afghans adopted their Constitution in January of this year. The Iraqis signed a document that was called Law of Administration for the State of Iraq on March 8, 2004. It is sort of a combination of a Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and states: "This law shall remain in effect until the permanent constitution is issued and the new Iraqi government is formed in accordance with it."

Some of the people who wrote and signed that document have already been assassinated by terrorists. The French and the Germans are already insisting that the United Nations, not the Iraqi people, determine the relationship between the United States government and the new Iraqi government. That is an attack not only on US sovereignty but also, of course, the sovereignty of the new government of Iraq. Any nation under the control of another nation, or another group of nations loses its sovereignty.

If Iraq is to become a free nation, it must be free of foreign control — and that means free of United Nation, or French, or German, or Russian or U.S. Control.

Will they perhaps make mistakes and have problems in their journey to freedom? Probably. After all, we did. The Civil War comes to mind.

© Mary Mostert

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Mary Mostert

Mary Mostert is a nationally-respected political writer. She was one of the first female political commentators to be published in a major metropolitan newspaper in the 1960s... (more)

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Mary Mostert: Click here

Latest articles

September 29, 2010
The consequences of deception


March 17, 2009
Glenn Beck and 21st century version of Founding Fathers' "Committee on Correspondence"


February 27, 2009
Community organizer Obama confronts the power structure


February 17, 2009
Will al-Qaeda trade box cutters they used in 2001 for nuclear missiles in 2009?


January 18, 2009
Terrorism: President Bush's record vs. President Obama's promises


January 4, 2009
The Gaza problem: how do you negotiate with people who want to obliterate you?


December 10, 2008
Obama, Gov. Blagojevitch, Chicago politics, corruption, and change


November 14, 2008
Prop. 8, homosexuals, attacks on LDS churches, freedom, and Gadianton Robbers


November 6, 2008
Comparing acceptance speeches: Adolf Hitler 1933 and Barack Obama 2008


November 1, 2008
The "I'm tired of being called a racist" factor in the 2008 election


More articles