PhilTeach Blog

Recently two events occurred; Christians around the world celebrated the Feast of Epiphany, and President Bush revealed his plan to escalate the US military presence in Iraq. What do these have in common? In both cases you see a nations leader hiding his real agenda behind words of goodness.

The image of three magi following the Star of Christmas is one which adorns many seasonal card. The story of the Wiseman of the East being guided by the star that announced the birth of a new king, the child Jesus is remembered by Christians on the yearly feast of Epiphany (manifestation). The story however states that the wise men did not exactly get their facts correct. Instead of going to the place where the infant Jesus was, they instead visited the palace of Herald the Great, the king of Judea. King Herald, who jealously held to his power even to the point of killing his own children, welcomed the mysterious foreigners. After hearing their story, and consulting with his advisors, he sent them off with the words, “When you find the child, come back and tell me where he is so that I too may worship him”. However, worship was far from his heart. Instead he sought the child in order to kill him and thus maintain his power. Luckily, the wise men did not comply with his request.

Many Americans heard President Bush’s speak in which he stated that he would increase the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. He used language and imagery that Americans would have no difficulty identifying as their own. Some of these included that Americans do not run from a fight, and that victory and not defeat is the goal of any struggle. That national leaders, more specifically Iraqi leaders, ought to govern in a manner that generates dialogue and peace among its citizens. That Liberty is something that all Americans treasure and have a responsibility to promote and defend. That the oil riches of Iraq should be use for the reconstruction and development of a democratic and just society in Iraq. That America should not abandon those who struggle for liberty. And that terrorist must not be permitted to attack U.S. citizens as they did in 2001. Just as the Wise men did not disagree with Heralds words about adoring the newborn king, so Americans do not disagree over the President’s sentiments. However, though all these the sentimental words ring true to Americans, do they actually reflect the heart of our administration and of those who govern it? Are we in Iraq and refuse to leave Iraq for these reasons, or is there another?

The Presidential Office of the Unites States is a noble office, and those elected to it, must govern wisely while constantly seeking the common good of all. This must be done in a spirit of honesty and respect for all Americans and toward people whose lives are affected by American policy. Lets face it, we do not want to entrust the most power office in the nation, and most economically and militarily influential office in the world to someone who is neither respectful nor honest with us.

So why are we still there? Did we not already complete the mission? Sadam Hussein, and his cohorts have been defeated, and are dead. A constitution has been written. Free elections have taken place and the people of Iraq have a new government. Though an expected civil war has developed, the American people did not send their children and resources to militarily build a nation, but instead to assist a people in the elimination of a tyrant, (one we conveniently no longer liked), and to, using the revenue from their natural resources, assist them in the rebuilding the life of its people. We did not go to Iraq to create a puppet state in a region that also happens to be one of the world’s top three sources of oil. Or, did we?

After reading a recent article in the British Independent press, which reports how oil corporations have been politically active in Iraq, one cannot help ask who is to primarily benefit from the establishment of the government. According to the article, oil corporations, under the careful support of the US government have been taking advantage of the growing pains of the new Iraqi government. These corporations have been pushing for Iraqi legislation, which may be soon passed giving them unprecedented control over the oil in the region. What is even most surprising is that the majority of the legislators are not even aware of such efforts, while US officials are, and have approved such measures. One cannot help but wonder whose interest is being sought by the elimination of Hussein and the orchestrated formulation of the new government. Is it really the people of Iraq, or the oil industry?

In the last few years the Republican lead Congress has consistently refusal to have oversight hearings on how US dollars are being spent by private industries involved in the providing of weapons and services to our soldiers. No substantial oversight has been given to how money, allocated to rebuilding programs in Iraq, is actually being used. Or of how much of the revenue of the sales of Iraqi oil has been reserved or used for the rebuilding of Iraq. So the question arises, “ Who is benefiting from the military action in Iraq, and who would continue to benefit?” One thing is clear; two mayor groups have already benefited, and have a great deal to gain by an increase of military presence in the region, the international oil corporations, and the weapons and war industry.