The Scottish poet Robert Burns wrote "Oh what a gift a gift to gie us, to see ourselves as others see us." Burns could not have possibly predicted a hubris ridden twenty-first century America not much given to introspection, but there were certainly enough examples of over mighty kings and princes in his own time for him to draw upon. Burns' enduring wisdom about people and their ways is particularly relevant in our own time--something that might give pause to all Americans as Washington's political class blunderingly continues to seek to remake the world in its own image. A bit of Burnsian self-criticism might also help the many pundits who inhabit the media talk shows, bombarding the American public with their wisdom explaining why things are the way they are and why we citizens should be satisfied that a state of continual warfare in pursuit of a dubious new world order, is the best we can hope for.

It is particularly interesting to follow the pieces written by the many opinion shapers in the print media. Many were cheerleaders for Iraq, became doubters when the war went sour, climbed on the bandwagon of the surge, and now are accomplices in Washington's attempt to subdue Afghanistan. The most subtle of the pundits are those like Tom Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times who appear to be reasonable but are nevertheless agents of the consensus politics crafted by the Washington elite from both parties, hardly ever advocating what might actually be good for the American people. David Ignatius of the Washington Post is another example and particularly appealing as he exudes calmness and "let us reason together" in his articles and op-eds, unlike his more strident opinion page colleague Charles Krauthammer. Ignatius is, nevertheless, no disinterested observer. He is a classic Washington "insider," an embedded media source with the US commands in Iraq and Afghanistan and his unique access to information is the prize he gets for saying the right things. One of his more recent offerings, "Buying the Vote: Iran is backing candidates -- In Iraq" (Feb 25), is a replay of the enemy is Iran theme that has proven popular in the mainstream media, so popular indeed that a large majority of Americans now think incorrectly that Iran already has a nuclear weapon and have concluded that it is a threat that has to be dealt with by force of arms.

Ignatius should pay attention to Robert Burns. He does not even conceal that his information comes from the US Commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno. Odierno/Ignatius make the following four points to illustrate Iranian hostility: First, "Iran provides money, campaign materials, and political training to various individuals and political parties in Iraq." Second, "Iran interferes in Iraq's political process, urging alliances that not all Iraqi politicians favor, in an effort to consolidate power among parties supported by Iran." Third, "Iran supports de-Baathification efforts engineered by Ahmed Chalabi for the purpose of eliminated potential obstacles to Iranian influence." And fourth, "According to all source intelligence, Ahmed Chalabi visited Iran at least three times since last year."

The Baath Party was the ruling political grouping under Saddam Hussein and, because it was part of the dictatorial regime, what role it should play at the present time is hotly debated in Iraq. The Baaths were predominantly Sunni Muslims. Ahmed Chalabi, is a leading Shi'ite politician who has lately been blamed for efforts to limit the Sunni influence, acting in collusion with the rulers in Iran, who are also Shi'ites.

The situation is extremely confusing, but even Ignatius concedes that in spite of their best efforts Iranians are not particularly popular in Iraq and being linked to them is in all likelihood a vote loser rather than a gainer. Ignatius and Odierno might also note that if you substitute the United States for Iran in all the charges they are leveling against the Mullahs you will find that everything applies pretty much equally well. The US Embassy is heavily engaged in the elections both supporting and promoting candidates that are deemed to be pro-American--it was behind the initial and catastrophic de-Baathification program of the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003-4--and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden have visited Iraq numerous times to tell Iraqi leaders what to do. It is particularly ironic that Ahmed Chalabi, who was the darling of the Pentagon neocons, has gone from hero to villain. Ignatius once enjoyed easy access to Chalabi through his neocon friends. Now Odierno and Ignatius regard Chalabi as a dupe of Tehran whereas in reality Chalabi is what he has always been--a promoter of himself and his personal political interests.

So the wheel turns. The United States decides it must interfere in the Middle East for reasons of its own security based on phony allegations about weapons of mass destruction. It smashes Iraq, destroys its government, and produces a vacuum which powerful neighbor Iran seeks to fill insofar as possible. What exactly did Washington expect to happen--Switzerland on the Tigris? Iran has a great deal to lose if a hostile government were to emerge in Baghdad. After all, it lives in the neighborhood and shares an 875 mile border with a country that has often been viewed as an enemy. Iraq's war of aggression against Iran, producing over a million Iranian casualties between 1980 and 1988, is a recent memory. Iran is also surrounded by a sea of hostile predominantly Sunni Muslim states backed by American firepower, meaning that it is impelled to protect itself by establishing friendly and even client relationships with other Shia groups in the region. The United States has much less at stake. It only wants Iraqi elections to bring a certain measure of stability so plans to withdraw US forces can proceed, enabling a focus on the new big war in neighboring Afghanistan. Even there it is hedging its bets with Odierno stating recently that Washington would be prepared to stay in Iraq if the political situation does not stabilize, whatever that means. Ultimately it makes little difference to the US who is on top in Iraq as long as they sell their oil on the international market and are not openly hostile or permitting the country to be used as a base for groups like al-Qaeda.

David Ignatius is by no means unique. The mainstream media is full of self-described experts who need tension and war to bolster their own self-esteem so that they will continue to appear as well-informed and well-paid interpreters of today's world. They artfully package threats against the US national interest in such a way as to make it seem as if a war against dark forces can and should go on and on forever, eventually involving Washington in every corner of the globe. Until the money and manpower run out. Ironically, none of the hawks are actually willing to put their own lives on the line to support the policies they so passionately embrace. None have any actual experience of warfare beyond riding around in a Pentagon protected bubble with a platoon of infantrymen to guard them. Run through the list of media neocons and pro-war journalists if you will. You will not find one who has done military service yet all are constantly in full chickenhawk battle array, boasting about how much they love America's armed forces. Their quest for military glory is in truth hostile to everything the American Republic has ever stood for, dedicated to creating a narrative that will ultimately lead to more wars against every Muslim country left standing, shedding other Americans' blood and eviscerating the US economy until there is nothing more to give.

Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty