According to NBC News, since April 2003, when the initial U.S. military action was over, the United States has taken in a scant 535 Iraqi refugees.
The Iraq War has made refugees of millions of Iraqis. They have been ethnically cleansed or displaced to other locations both inside the country, to neighboring countries, and overseas. Yet the Bush administration, the creator of the chaos and mayhem in Iraq, has done little to help them.
According to NBC News, since April 2003, when the initial U.S. military action was over, the United States has taken in a scant 535 Iraqi refugees. In contrast, European countries, many of which opposed the Bush administration’s invasion, have taken in 18,000. One commentator noted that taking any more Iraqis would be an implicit admission by the administration that the war was not going well.
Well, guess what, the war isn’t going well — and this dirty little secret has been out for some time now. The U.S. government has a long tradition of remaining secretive about embarrassing facts that have long been obvious to everyone — sometimes with disastrous consequences. For example, in the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, President John F. Kennedy didn’t allow the invading Cuban exiles, as they hit the beach, to have the support of their own air power or that of the United States, because that would have indicated that the invasion had outside help — read the United States — and was not merely an indigenous uprising. No matter that the United States had a long history of overthrowing governments in Latin America, and American newspapers had already run articles exposing the U.S. training of the Cuban exile invasion force in Central America. Because Cuban leader Fidel Castro could read, he readied a much larger force, which was waiting for and defeated the invaders when they finally landed.
Similarly, no one any longer believes rosy Bush administration pronouncements on Iraq. Although even Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, still has trouble mouthing the “L” word, people with any common sense, including stalwart Republican supporters of the administration, have had that sinking feeling in their stomachs for a while now that the cause in Iraq has been lost.
Politicians don’t like to tell the American public what they don’t want to hear, but at least the administration could quietly begin to open the floodgates for Iraqi refugees. Many of these people helped the United States in Iraq and could be in grave danger once U.S. forces are reduced or withdrawn.
Alas, however, the United States, the melting pot of immigrants, has a surprisingly poor record of opening its borders to wartime refugees. A couple of examples are illustrative. The United States left far too many of its friends to a grim fate after the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam. In addition, prior to and during World War II, the United States had a disgraceful record of taking in Jews being openly and viciously persecuted by Adolf Hitler. The United States could have saved many innocent lives if the puny number of Jewish refugees taken in had been significantly hiked. This abysmal record was one of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s greatest failings.
The United States must do better in the Iraq case. Much of the violence in Iraq has been caused directly or indirectly by U.S. policy. The Iraq invasion was a war of choice against a former ally that had never instigated hostilities against the United States and was little threat to U.S. security. The United States chose to depose an authoritarian regime that was the only thing holding together a fractious country, which already had had its social fabric torn by numerous wars and grinding international economic sanctions. The United States, with insufficient military strength to provide security for the country, then disbanded the only other forces capable of helping bring order — the Iraqi security forces.
With so much to answer for in Iraq, the Bush administration needs to own up to its colossal failure and help save Iraqis that have already sacrificed much to help the United States in its quixotic quest to bring democracy to that divided nation. Unfortunately for these Iraqis, in similar past situations, the United States has a very poor record, and the Bush administration is not good at even implicitly making mistakes.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
I've often wondered how one can live so divorced from reality as Mr. Eland does. Such as the absolutely ridiculous view that George Bush, not al Quida, Iran, or Syria (or previous to the invasion, Saddam Hussein). Holding Bush, who at least tried (though by the Ivan worldview failed) to free a country from a murderous dictator, responsible for the actions of foreign terrorists who are trying to set up ANOTHER murderous dictator…is moronic.
To hold this position, Mr. Eland tries to tell us that Saddam never initiated hostilities against the U.S. One would wonder what he would call the attempted assassination of a former President…a misunderstood Iraqi greeting?
If Mr. Eland really cared about the plight of the Iraq people, he'd stop carping on about how we need to pull out immediately, which will result in a Vietnam style slaughter of innocent civilians. Perhaps if he'd like a policy based on reality, he could stop adding his two cents to the conversation.
Comment by WolvenBear | June 12, 2007
If the author were really concerned about "ethnic cleansing" and providing safe harbor to fleeing Iraqis, then perhaps he should have been encouraging a multi-national invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein decades ago when he was busy killing hundreds of thousands of his own people with mustard gas. Oh wait, I forgot, Iraq was a peaceful bastion of glistening hope in the middle east until those savage Americans hit the soil in 1991. Saddam Hussein was a kind grand-fatherly character who was the source of peace and unity in Iraq. Leave it those damn Americans to devastate such a fine leader and such a cooperative and peaceful nation.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 12, 2007
Also, Mr. Eland, were he in any way concerned with confusing an issue with the facts, might have noted that the United States takes in a higher number of immigrants per year claiming refugee status than any other nation in the world - several times higher than international U.N. recommendations for refugee assistance.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | June 12, 2007
Last I checked, the "foreign terrorists who are trying to set up ANOTHER murderous dictator" are the Shia who won the democratic election that President Bush pushed for.
Why is it that the President continues to call for democratic elections throughout the middle east, but when they happen, refuses to honor them?
Oh thats right, it has nothing to do with ridding Iraq of a dictator and instilling democracy. It has to do with instilling whatever government (read regime) is in the best interest of the USA at a given point in time.
Who empowered Saddam Hussein in the first place? Oh thats right, it was the pro-democracy anti-genocide USA.
"A United States decision to go to war with Iraq should include an increased recognition of its obligation to resettle refugees from the region. However, the United States has only allocated 70,000 places for resettled refugees from throughout the world in 2003. Refugees from South Asia and the Middle East have been especially affected by an increase in background checks on resettled refugees that has slowed down resettlement processing and left many refugees in dangerous situations."
http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq021203/5.htm#_Toc32640948
The irony of this all is that the USA is now re-arming the Sunnis, the Saddam Hussein supporters, to battle the Shia, who won the democratic election, because the Shia (Iran lovers) are seen as a greater threat right now.
Comment by alexkreuz | June 18, 2007