Iraq Statehood Now!
As it's very unlikely the U.S. can afford to leave Iraq anytime soon, why not do the decent thing and offer to make it our 51st state? Sure, DC and Puerto Rico might complain about being leapfrogged, but what better way to demonstrate our sincerity in claiming that freedom has come to stay? I made this modest proposal to some friends in mid-April, just after the war ended. Go ahead and scoff, but there are pragmatic reasons to support Iraq statehood -- you read it here first!
We all know the US military isn't leaving Iraq anytime soon, where "soon" means before the 2004 presidential election and "anytime" means "in our children's lifetime." In my view, the inevitable outcome is that American resolve will be called into question if we don't stand up to Iraqis and other Arabs when they start insisting we leave. Just as the pre-war momentum required that the US not back down, we soon won't be able to afford to depart Iraq for fear that other US-occupied lands will draw the same conclusion and insist that our troops go home. You never know, Guam might come in handy someday.
Since leaving is not an option, the only solution is to create a situation where the Iraqis not only want us to stay, they would be legally bound to let us stay. Think of Alaska, another oilman's paradise. Think of Hawaii, with no oil but with redeeming qualities of its own. Better yet, think of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, whose huddled masses yearn for the benefits conferred by US statehood. Let's make Iraq the 51st state.
Before you ask, "Won't the flag look stupid with 51 stars?", please hear me out. We all know that representative government in Iraq is a complete fantasy without long-term US oversight. And we know the Iraqis will not tolerate a colonial presence. Even if we somehow establish a democratic framework before quitting the country, we'd no sooner leave than freedom-despising imams would take over and either abolish democracy or install a twisted sham of it the way Iran has.
No, we should instead let the Iraqi citizens vote on full statehood, which they would no doubt ratify in a landslide. I anticipate the following criticisms:
- The US cannot accommodate statehood for such a large, non-English speaking land. (My first answer: California. Second answer: Oil.)
- We could not afford to offer all Iraqis the same social benefits enjoyed by Americans, including the rights to work, to Social Security, and to minimal health care. (Answer: Bush budget deficits are about to ensure current Americans will not enjoy these benefits, either.)
- The US electoral system cannot run the risk of adding 22 million registered Muslim voters. (Answer: This is a tough one. We tried the "two-thirds of a man" concept without lasting success, and besides, 14.3 million is still a lot of Muslims. We could make sure Katherine Harris runs their elections, but she's busy now in Congress. Besides, if it were that simple, DC would be a state by now. I've got it . . . The GOP has benefited from its tight connections with religious fundamentalists, so a little creative pandering should in fact yield a very powerful new voting bloc in Iraq. This burgeoning Iraqi constituency has already displayed enormous affection for Bush, and at least in the short term, they could probably be counted on to vote for him due to name recognition alone. Just to be safe, let's commission some new statues.)
If neighboring countries are already threatened by our military presence in Baghdad, Basra, Tikrit, Nasiryah, Mosul and the rest, just imagine how having a damn US state next door would freak them out. Furthermore, we would then have a sovereign right to bomb the hell out of any country nearby that looked at us funny. Not that we seem to need that justification anymore, but still . . . As residents of Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the others come to recognize the enormous positive effects of Iraqi statehood, it is just a matter of time before they, too, insist on freedom or even statehood for themselves. Wait, does Syria have oil? Never mind, I know Iran and Saudi Arabia do, and that is probably sufficient. We'll put some casinos in Damascus.
I can't believe Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz haven't already thought of this. What better way to convince the people of Iraq that we're sincere about bestowing freedom upon them?
Posted by Vernam at May 2, 2003 07:20 PM