Friday, January 12, 2007

The motives of policing

A new year, a new argument. This week, as stories of an increased troop level in Iraq abound, there rest beneath the surface decaying motives, distorting the possibility of correcting any American activities in Iraq.

The Iraq War was a war of liberation, in order to overthrow a regime of terror (Saddam Hussein), and implement a regime against terror (Iraqi democracy). Specifically, in this sense, there is no category by which one can distinguish the goals of the Iraqi state from the goals of the foreign policy. Iraq was to be an American satelite.

Yet, liberation never happened. Due to a complete misinterpretation of Iraqi sentiments, a complete fabrication of human nature ("the liberty we cherish is not our gift to the world, it is God's gift to humankind"), and a complete misunderstanding of ethnic arrangements and loyalties in Iraq, the war was a complete failure (I don't see how anyone can argue this point, given that the goal for Iraq was a satelite state in the War on Terror, a middle-eastern allie in America's war against the middle east)...

The motives in Iraq were never motives of freedom. They were motives of national security, only thousands of miles away, in a strange land. The beauty of this for Americans is that the brunt of violence against America is shifted, to a satelite rather than to the motherland. In this sense, Iraq is nothing more than a punching bag that a husband puts in the basement to beat senselessly in times of stress, an alternative to beating his wife.

The key: the Iraq War is a war that is meant to perpetuate violence. And yet, it's hardly a "war" any longer; the American presence is now determined to serve as a police operation, to train Iraqis to handle their own security. This is a bizarre turn of events, because the War was never about Iraqi security; and yet, I doubt that it really truly is about Iraqi security, even with the shift to American policing (from American dominance, asserting the raw power through which one state can create a satelite).

But, is policing in this sense an administration if justice? Or an attempt to suspend violence? One must be skeptical that the policing efforts of America in Iraq are actually meant to surpress violence in general; rather, the policing effort of America in Iraq is meant to redirect the violence...

...but to where?

The situation in Iraq is that of sectarian violence. To correct this is not to rid the situation of violence, but to unite the violence against a different target. The target, of course, is presumably terrorism. However, uniquely, the terrorist situation in Iraq is now split, split into sectarian camps, where terrorist violence occurs on a daily basis in a brutal campaign of retaliation, murder, vigilence, and ultimately, redemption (for one's sector, of course. The other can rot).

So, the motives remain, but they are a ruin. There is not "a" terrorism any longer. (In fact, there probably never were merely "terrorists," joined together in one easy-to-find, easy-to-eliminate enemy). There are many terrorist sectors now, almost none of them unified. Targets need not be discriminated; targets range from sects of Islam, sects of ethnicities, and American police.

The motives for the Iraq war were never introduced as motives that promote a police effort to redirect violence from being-against multiple sources (bad) to being-against one source (good). The motives in the Iraq War werenever explicitly stated as "to perpetuate violence in general in the world."

But yet, those were the motives. Combatting one unified terrorist organization introduces a great and formidible enemy to Americans, an enemy worthy of a long, hard, endless battle that requires various sacrifices by American people (insert any familiar slogan chanting at we, the people, by the Bush Administration, preparing our psyches for what was never intended to be a war without end).

Thus we should not be surprised at the administration demanding 20,000 more troops in Iraq. Those troops will serve as honorable targets from various terrorist sects, but they will not serve without purpose; they will serve to perpetuate violence, and tragically so, violence for which they will be the targets.

For this reason we should be brutally opposed to the ethical activities of the Bush Administration; we must demand that a regime of instilling peace-as-security (which really means perpetuating violence, which only demands that the targets be consolidated) be shifted to a regime of delivering freedom-without-security.

Our freedom as humans will never consist in a real peacefulness; for, what we always forget in our totalitarian pushes, desires, and demands for security is that freedom is insecurity; but, insecure as it is, our freedom, when executed, when we are emancipated from our prevalent order, will at the very least end the idea of violent acts to perpetuate violence in general; for, perpetual violence is a surefire sign of totalitarian security operating at its highest level.