DesperatelyObvious.com

Democratic Governor Tom Vilsack, a presidential hopeful, told Fox News, “We’ve got to put responsibility where it belongs, in the Iraqis.”

On one side we have the conservative hawks like McCain who think we must finish the job we started by sending more troops. Then on the other side we have Edwards who recommends a small troop decrease to let the Iraqis handle their own problems.

What responsibilities do victims of invasion carry? Lets say a robber breaks into your house, makes a huge mess of everything looking for valuable things to steal, but then is forced to leave when you confront him at gunpoint. Who should clean up the mess? You will, and if he stole things you will probably have to replace those yourself. And if your family is traumatized, then you’ll probably have to deal with that on your own as well. You will certainly have to attempt to fix what is broken, but responsibility does not describe those actions. Victims of invasion do what they can, not what they are responsible for.

If justice matters at all, the responsibilities lay squarely on the invader. In your case, the robber’s most imminent responsibility is to leave your house.

Perhaps when confronting the robber, he insists that he will clean up the mess for you. He argues that he can put things back together, after all he is the one who messed everything up. Nevertheless, anyone in their right mind would want the robber out, he is a dangerous madman. You want him to leave, so that is his first responsibility.

The invader’s next responsibility is to pay back what he stole and destroyed. Most of the time this doesn’t happen, but the responsibility is still there.

Of course, arguing moral responsibility to an armed robber is complete nonsense. He is not concerned with his responsibilities as evidenced by his forced breakin. Invading countries aren’t too concerned with these semantics either.

Any talk by America about responsibility that doesn’t begin with our most imminent one of heeding the will of the victims should be disregarded. The United States isn’t interested in moral responsibilities. Discussion of the war and continued occupation should be honest about this fact first.

As Wall Street posts record annual profits, “the joy is trickling down” to the “high-end New York merchants,” the Goldman Sachs employees who averaged salaries of $622,000, and just about anyone else who counts. “All industries — real estate, car dealerships, art dealers, department stores” get to reap the rewards that the Wall Street employees will soon be spending.

One can hope that these windfall profits will spur investment and in turn economic growth for the rest of us. That is what the comforting economic theory tells us.

Last month’s New York Times article sheds some light on how these profits have spurred economic growth in the recent past. They present IRS data that shows average income has rose significantly between 1979 and 2004. These income increases came despite the fact that the bottom three fifths of Americans saw their real income decrease by five percent. The next fifth of Americans fared a little better over this period with their real income increasing by two percent.

Meanwhile the top tenth of the top one percent of Americans earned a 348% increase in their incomes. This is the the type of growth that Wall Street bankers can look forward to if things stay the same. Meanwhile, the rest of Americans can probably expect low or zero growth as usual unless they find a way to claim control over the predominate public sphere in America, the economy.

As long as we are subject to laws and prevailing doctrine that encourages concentrated control by a handful of totalitarian institution, those of us in need have little hope for relief outside of an act of God. By certain definitions we live in a democracy, meaning we have some measure of control over politics. It is possible that we can use our limited form of democracy to reclaim control over the economy from corporations, who haven’t always enjoyed legal rights that surpass that of a human being.

Corporate domination is a current reality but is not a necessity and not a law of nature. However, we can not rely on political leaders, the elite, or a miracle from above to make changes. Only with organized popular movements can we hope to see improvements in the next year and beyond.

Are we helping the situation in Iraq? Are we increasing Islamic terrorism? Are too many soldiers dieing? Do we have enough soldiers there to win? What does victory look like?

These are the questions being raised in editorial boards across America. Many journalists probably consider themselves critical of U.S. power for falling on a particular side on these issues. To focus on these tactical questions, however, is to miss the underlying context that asks, “Why are we there in the first place?”

The Iraq Study Group alluded to the answer, citing that America has “long-term relationships and interests at stake in the Middle East.” They concluded that these interests are so important that we must “stay engaged” to protect them.

They further indicated why we must stay, “None of Iraq’s neighbors especially major countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel see it in their interest for the situation in Iraq to lead to aggrandized regional influence by Iran. Indeed, they may take active steps to limit Iran’s influence…”

In other words, America and its friends don’t want to see Iran have relations with Iraq. We claim we want democracy, but our interests lie in preventing a Shiite majority in Iraq from establishing friendly relations with Iran.

Some of those in power are now suggesting a withdrawal date (because the war is too costly and we are losing) while some others advocate an increase in troop size. To enter this tactical debate is to accept the imperial framework that says that we have the right to decide. Invading countries have no rights, and instead must attempt to follow the will of the victims. The Iraq Study Commission also cites polls that show a vast majority of Iraqis prefer American withdrawal. If we were at all concerned about democracy, we would honor the wishes of the Iraqis and leave.