The wars we are seeing in the Middle East are not wars against terror and they are not wars to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. They are wars of conquest and wars of exploitation.

The war against Iraq is a war of exploitation. Although the ostensible reason has much validity – that

Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator generally hated by his own subjects – this is only a partial justification for the present war rhetoric. Why is the Bush administration willing to invest $80 billion to $100 billion in this war? They also know that the cost will likely rise since no one in Congress doubts that troops will be stationed there for the foreseeable future. But the underlying reason is not hard to find.

Underneath Iraq lies a vast supply of oil. It has been estimated that there is more oil under Iraq than all of Canada, Europe, America and Russia combined. There is a known reserve of 120 billion barrels and possibly as much again that has yet to be discovered. At a conservative estimate of $25 a barrel it is easy to see that there are several trillion dollars worth of oil at stake in the control of those oil fields. It is not difficult to see who will benefit most from having a new regime in Iraq.

The rhetoric of exploitation is also a rhetoric of mass destruction which has become more sophisticated with modern weaponry even though the results are just as brutal. Are the present attempts at domination, conquest and exploitation really any different than those of the 16th and 17th centuries?

Although the Conquistadors used the language of religion when it was convenient their primary reason for invading Central and South America was the exploitation of the vast resources of silver and gold needed for European coffers. Such exploitation gave considerable wealth to Spanish kings for purposes such as launching the largest Armada in Western history up to that time. But then nature stepped in. Great storms wrecked most of the Armada ships and the remnants were destroyed by the English navy. A reality check that refers us back to historical events such as this helps us understand that arrogance based on brute force and greed cannot last long.

Recent polls cited by Sen. Joseph Biden indicate that the American public does not support unilateral action and is not willing to support military action without a multilateral approach such as is represented by the United Nations. It is clear that the American public is far more cautious than the present leadership despite the Bush administration’s intemperate speeches. Anxiety is felt around the world when unilateral action and regime change are major topics of conversation in Washington, and the expressed disdain for United Nations inspections does not help matters.

If the administration was really motivated by fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction why was the invasion not completed 10 years ago? American intelligence sources readily admit that Iraq’s forces are only one-third now what they were then and they were abysmally bad at that time.

The British Empire envisioned itself to be a latter-day Roman Empire but lasted less than half as long. To the relief of most of its saner citizens it has retreated back to its small island kingdom. Since World War II America has tried assuming the mantle of the British Empire, especially in the Middle East. It has also unfortunately begun to adopt the British habit of paying little attention to the numerous domestic problems that plague the nation. The British ruling class was cynical when it came to poverty and took few steps to alleviate it. Enterprises abroad were their major preoccupations. Similarly the present administration in Washington is unwilling to address growing poverty or redress social inequalities. Need one even mention corporate greed and environmental problems that are barely paid attention to, or is the present foreign policy a way of diverting attention away from all these issues?

American lives are being devalued. At the present time nearly one million Americans are homeless. Twelve million children live in poverty. Sixty million Americans have seen their incomes drop over the past 10 years.

Thirty-three million Americans live in poverty, an 11 percent increase in the past year. But at the top end of the income pyramid three million others have seen their incomes triple (from $200,000 to $600,000 a year). Those living at minimum wage are unable to afford housing and nearly one-third of the homeless are working poor. The average American works 30 percent to 40 percent more than the average European yet Europeans have more leisure time and a better standard of living. Nor do Europeans have to be preoccupied with lack of health care as tens of millions of Americans do.

Invading Iraq will only make matters worse. There will be less funding of domestic programs and the idea that the war with Iraq will not provoke further terrorism shows an unwillingness to face reality. The idea that 23 million Iraqi people do not have a lunatic fringe willing to sacrifice themselves for revenge betrays an administration with blinders on. In a free society it is the good will of the citizens that provides the most protection. But now with a short-sighted administration wanting to lead the country into war there will be results which neither they nor anyone else can predict. We do know that there will be a civilian loss of lives and further human degradation. How then can such a war be ethically justified? Not only is the civilian cost incalculable but the immediate economic costs as well as future costs are only vaguely being alluded to.

Some commentators believe that war will cause the United States to spiral into serious recession. A senior U.S. senator maintains that Americans can forget debt reduction, or reduction in taxes or the creation of any new programs to alleviate social problems. There are also other costs such as heightened anxiety due to the threat of more terrorism as well as the likely loss of sons or daughters in war. And there is the enormous emotional and physical cost to the civilian population of Iraq whose loved ones will suffer grievously. Should not human suffering be foremost in our minds? An entire infrastructure that serves the Iraqi people will most likely be destroyed including transportation, hospitals and homes. Is the Bush administration willing to undertake the rebuilding of Iraq or will it be left the way Afghanistan has been left, with a rural population in even worse poverty and more defenseless against warlords?

Is it fair to demonize all the people of Iraq because of one man and his small cadre of followers? It is true that we desperately need a regime change, but not just in Iraq. We need it in America and we need it soon. We need people of vision to reassert a rational and visionary future before it is too late and there is no way back.

Hugh Curran teaches in the Peace Studies Program at the University of Maine. He was formerly co-director of a Down East homeless shelter.