So-called "honor killings" have become so prevalent in the southern Iraqi city of Basra that, according to today's edition of the Guardian, "you can find a killer standing in any coffee shop discussing prices of a life as if he was buying a piece of meat." And the going rate is no more than $100.
So far this year, 81 women in that city have been murdered for allegedly bringing shame to their families, up 70% from last year.
A few months ago, another English paper, the Observer, reported on the death of 17-year-old Rand Abdel-Qader. Rand had fallen in love with a British soldier. As a result, her father suffocated her and then hacked her to death with a knife. According to the father, the police congratulated him for the murder.
Rand's mother, who objected to the killing, divorced her husband and went into hiding. Her whereabouts were discovered, however, and she was assassinated by an unknown gunman. Two women who were helping her to hide from her husband were also injured.
The Guardian reported that any woman who talks in public with a man who is not her husband or a relative is assumed to be a prostitute and, as such, is subject to punishment. Recently, three women who stopped to speak to a male friend in a marketplace were burned with acid.
Authorities admit they are powerless to halt the practice of honor killings which has been woven into the fabric of Iraqi society for centuries. Nine of the 12 rights organizations helping women in the Basra area have been forced to close down in recent years. After the killing of Rand, the local chapter of the Women's Rights Association also closed down because of death threats.
The same situation exists in other parts of Iraq, especially in the northern cities, where a 17-year-old girl was recently buried up to her neck and stoned to death for being friends with a man from another sect. The English press, however, has confined its investigations to conditions in the Basra area where British troops have been stationed.
Meanwhile, the security agreement governing the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was approved by Parliament on Thursday but, at the same time, it seems to be running into increased opposition.
It must now be approved by Iraqi voters in a referendum vote scheduled for July. By then, according to the terms of the agreement, U.S. forces should be off the streets of the cities, although the definition of the soldiers it applies to and exactly where they are supposed to go are left vague.
Iraq's preeminent spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who expressed support for the pact two weeks ago, now says he is concerned that it gives the U.S. the upper hand. Others complain about the vagueness of the wording and the lack of definitions.
Anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr has also threatened to dispatch his elite force, the Promised Day Brigade, against U.S. troops, if the agreement continues to stand.
As a result, the U.N. has announced that a spate of attacks are now anticipated to coincide with the provincial elections early next year.
This past week, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of four military personnel killed in Iraq. One of the deaths, involving a 35-year-old, was categorized as being from non-combat-related injuries. Two soldiers, ages 26 and 43, were shot down by a man in an Iraqi army uniform as they were distributing humanitarian aid in Baaj, near the Syrian border.
The other death involved an extraordinary hero, Army Sgt. 1st Class Miguel Wilson, 36, of Bonham, Texas, who was killed while attempting to rescue another soldier during a reconnaissance mission in Abu Sayf, north of Baghdad.
According to the web site www.icasualties.org , U.S. deaths in Iraq now total 4,207, including one whose family is being notified today.
U.S. deaths in Afghanistan stand at 557, as of November 28, according to the Pentagon.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 61
David, it was stated over two weeks ago, that the Iraqi Government has voted the US to stay in Iraq and help for three more years.
By the way, I have supported women's rights since the early 1950s.
And thanks for the additional information, Jim, Colonel, Larry, Leah and Debra.
Thanks for the heads up on Colonel george's book, Ron. I've been looking for it and may send for it.
There is nothing we can do for them.
You're right, Dave. Until the last radically religious Muslam/Islam man vanishes from the earth and takes these vile practices with him, no woman is safe there.
I have to say, I saw the "60 Minutes" piece in which an 18 year old medic endangered her own life for two wounded soldiers. Both of those soldiers (although not all the others in her group) refused to go on camera because they did not feel she deserved the silver star. Sexism exists within the US forces as well as in Iraq. We should not throw stones, but instead help where we can to change the culture, instead of letting it continue for another 1000 years.
Jim, she was very brave and absolutely deserved it.
This link will take you to a site that will send a letter to the Senate and to the President urging them on behalf of the National Organization for Women to pass Senator Biden's bill.
http://www.progsec.org/DynMenu/DynMenu.php?Table=lettercontrol&Page=IntlViolenceWomen1__
You forgot to mention that the practice of "honor killings" is widespread in the Muslim countries, not just in Iraq, so it makes no sense to say that we are "supporting " the practice in Iraq, unless you are willing to blame the U.S. for everything that has happened in Iraq for the last "1000 years". Ayaan Hirsi Ali provides a good description of the Muslim practice of honor killings which is plaguing Europe in her book "Infidel".
BTW, are you sure you want to assign the U.S. the blame for 1000 years of anything in Iraq? That's a little heavy, don't you think, since our country is less that 250 years old.
You have some hope yet of a loss in Iraq,Obama is now in charge and he could very well turn victiory into defeat,keep your fingers crossed Dave?
As to the increase of honor killings in certain areas over the last twelve months, in every case it corresponds almost exactly to the Iraqi forces taking over responsibility for security in those areas.
When you look at the bare facts, Dave's article is not only an argument in favor of the Iraq invasion to begin with it also supports an extended American and Biritsh presence in the future. President-elect Obama would be very disappointed in all of you who agreed with it.
I'm reading a new book by Malcolm Gladwell called "Outliers" which is excellent. Part of it he describes the honor culture. The theory is honor cultures are descended from herders. Herders have to maintain a tough facade and honor, basically vengeance and tenacity against anyone who would do them wrong. Farmers do not have to worry about their wealth being stolen, but herders are constantly at risk of someone stealing their animals. Gladwell talks about how all along the East of America in a certain time there were these blood feuds between families, and they all came from parts of Europe, like barren Scotland where this was the culture, and how they reproduced that when they came to America.
A very similar attitude in the Middle East, herders that were constantly being invaded or at risk of losing their livelihoods to theives. Wives are counted as possessions I guess.
It's a delima. A SOPHIE'S CHOICE", kind of situation.
Try to protect your offspring and risk having the entire family killed to extinction, or expose the one perceived as the traitor, and even see to the punishment yourself, thereby saving all the rest of ones family.
It ws like this back in the day. It's in the Bible. Some cultures still live this way.
If you understand that what are now extremely patriarchal religious governments were, at one time, GODDESS-oriented - some of them even matriarchal -
and that the universal pendulum swung away from Goddess-rule and towards God-rule.......
And understand that the HUMILIATION OF THE GODDESS is an archetypal mystery that happens in the "great" cycles that last many thousands of years.......
Currently we're still focused on the HUMILIATION OF THE GOD (Jesus on the cross).......
But consciousness has its tides, its feasts and famines.......
So back to the problem at hand:
The only reason we haven't been able to help this quagmire consciousness move and change is that we've never tried our [groupmind] hand at very concentrated prayer-meditation-dreamwork-ceremony SPIRITUAL ENERGY SCIENCE. There are small groups doing this work. But we need to have huge numbers who realize and agree that we must assist the goddess-in-all-women to loose her bindings and set herself free of the chains -
That the males cannot bloom and renew their goodness by themselves -
That they need free, empowered women to hold the space for male maturity......
Think about what I've written here for just a moment. That would be a moment of awareness, a moment of unity - a moment in which the power of your mind opening to this concept may help some young woman to escape being murdered by the insanity of the unbalanced patriarchy.
This is an abhorrent practice; even if nothing changes immediately, they can't say "everybody does it" or even "all good Muslims do it" in the face of universal outcry against it.
Click this link to send this letter
This letter supports a campaign of the National Organization for Women. It
goes to the President and Congress.
Dear: _________________
the page came up just fine and I am getting it out to many other sites...especially the ones that deal with peace!
the comment about the war going very well in Iraq is a bunch of crap...and believe me there is a lot more reported about what you have posted here in other countries...so you are not being the least bit "desperate"....
YOU are trying to make a the ugliness be known...that is what we should all be addressing...
Those that feel this war is ok...just do not want to hear it...they have what is called PDR
(Psychologically Driven Reality) and the odds are they have not got a clue!
we ought to get out of there ... I wished at the time we had not gone in, but that is too late now.
Using the word OK about war is not saying anything. Also deciding of judging what clues what people have by little sentences like that is not valid either.
And yes, this ignorant practice exists elesewhere, and in parts of east Africa the situation for women is much worse, a tragedy that I have researched and written about. In fact, the indiscriminant rapes in that region go on right under the noses of our global oil company executives and you might say that they may be culpable for ignoring it in their quest for black gold, but that is a different story.
Our government is not in East Africa taking responsibility for restructuring the country, as it is in Iraq. Therefore, as a citizen of this country, I don't feel I share one three hundred millionth of the blame for Africa, or India, or most of the other countries where these practices exist, but each and every one of us is to blame for America's neglectful attitude towards the treatment of women in Iraq - in my humble opinion.
> or the U.S. to get so involved but, at the same time, turn a
> blind eye to this travesty suggests, in my opinion, a degree of culpability.
Huh? Why would that be, logically? And what do you suggest we do
about it Dave?
If we do something about this, does it obligate us them to do something
to save the people of West Africa as well? What do we do when we
simple do not have the power or resources or mandate to fix this?
Remember, in democratic terms these people are multiplying much
faster than the developed world is.
There has been no improvement in conviction rates for these killings. So far this year, 81 women in the city have been murdered for allegedly bringing shame on their families. Only five people have been convicted. A lawyer in the city was quoted by the Guardian as saying the police support the murderers and do little or next to nothing to bring them to justice.
And since the practice is ignored by the American presence, the subject of this article is entirely irrelevent to our preemptive invasion of Iraq, our continuing occupation and our some-time withdrawal...
During 2007 the Basra security committee recorded 47 'honour killings' and three convictions. .and said that a woman in Basra could now be murdered by hired hitmen for as little as $100
No we have no business poking our noses into West Africa, Bruce, except possibly through participation in UN action, any more than we had any business iinvading Iraq and imposing our system onto that country. But since we have gone that far in Iraq, we should also take responsibility for the plight of women there and do something about it. What that something would be could possibly involve economic incentives, education, media saturation (something our gov is very good at). Anything would be 100% better than nothing.
"
This past week, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of four military personnel killed in Iraq. One of the deaths, involving a 35-year-old, was categorized as being from non-combat-related injuries. Two soldiers, ages 26 and 43, were shot down by a man in an Iraqi army uniform as they were distributing humanitarian aid in Baaj, near the Syrian border.
The other death involved an extraordinary hero, Army Sgt. 1st Class Miguel Wilson, 36, of Bonham, Texas, who was killed while attempting to rescue another soldier during a reconnaissance mission in Abu Sayf, north of Baghdad.
According to the web site www.icasualties.org , U.S. deaths in Iraq now total 4,207, including one whose family is being notified today.
U.S. deaths in Afghanistan stand at 557, as of November 28, according to the Pentagon."
Do we accept that other cultures deal differently with certain situations --- as in mind-our-own-business?
How would you have us approach this situation?
> No we have no business poking our noses into West Africa, Bruce,
> except possibly through participation in UN action, any more than
> we had any business iinvading Iraq and imposing our system onto
> that country
First, we and the UN do have business with Iraq, and/or Iran if they
are planning belligerence to other nations. The history of the US is
that the rest of the world does impinge, and more, on us. We
would have ended up having to deal with Iraq since it was up to
us mostly to police the no-fly-zone.
If you think there is or was a simpler way out of this mess, what do
think it was or is, and what is the risk that it would not have worked
and things would get worse? Not invading Iraq while we were
operating in Afghanistan is the only thing I can think.
But how would that have looked sequentially also?
However, we have a myriad number of human rights violations and other problems right here in good old USA to keep us busy for a while . Then there is the hunger problem here at home. There is the need for health care. No, we can't be expected to solve the world's problems.
> helping the downtrodden and making all things right again!
> We cannot be the worlds police force.
Lone Ranger? No, we cannot wear a mask, that's for sure.
We have acted successfully to help the downtrodden, and
make some things right though.
And by the existence of a power vacuum in the world we
are by default the world's policeman.
Are we good at it? Do we have enough resources? Can
we do it alone? These are better questions.
We are certainly better suited and have been more
effective than the UN. The UN has major problems.
It would be a shame to shut down the UN, but it is also
a shame that it works so badly.
Also the idea that we do not have the resources, while
true, when WWII was optional no one would have said we
have the resources to right that as well. Justice, human
rights and stability has a cost.
What if the cost of inaction is that this system grows and
gain power. Islam is a very strong hierarchical system, and has
never been so strong until it was able to freely gain and control
money, information and technology of the west that we allowed
to happen.
The cost of doing nothing may well be that this system is
allowed to grow unchecked and will eventually outgrow other
competitive systems through their own inaction.
I Don't necessarily disagree with your statement. There are many times we have and will continue to, ass ist other nations and correct certain injustices. However, I don't feel we can afford to be the worlds policemen, investing all our resources in improving the lives of everyone else on earth, many of whom either don't want us to or will make zero effort to improve or change their own situation.
If we are going to recognize Islam as the threat to the world then it is time to forget about considering it a religion of peace and simply kill everyone who avidly believes in that religion. I don't think we are anywhere near ready to do that!
I've mentioned before that a thirty year occupation of threatening nations with the schools and everything else under our control could produce a climate for change not currently possible. We are not about to do that either!
What we can do is protect against infiltration in our own country and then not set the stage for the advancement of the terrorist type Muslim groups, as we made the mistake of doing in Iraq. there is no doubt in my mind that if Saddam were still in power, they dynamics of the Mideast would lean a lot more favorable in our direction from an overall standpoint.
It isn't just our enemies who hate us, take the Saudis, their people are strongly against the United States. Sure, the government likes us as we are their protection so they don't have to worry themselves about that little matter. Frankly, the Iraqis whom we just rescued from a fate worst than death seen to have a pretty good dislike for the US and our people if you get down to the truthful street level. Our own Gush administration acknowledges that there are more extremists today than there were before the Iraq war.
You may be correct in your last paragraph, but I'm of the opinion that those cultures, while plenty smart enough to do so, are not going to develop that successfully simply because of the cultural characteristics with which their governments must contend. I guess time will tell!
My point is, we didn't belong in Iraq, and if there is a global or European or Asian or Israeli problem with Iran, then - if the situation warrants - we should corral those so affected and make it a joint effort.
Based on history, those entities listed above seem to want to benefit from the U.S. taking on challenges unilaterally, without raising a finger to help, and it has got to stop. And personally, I hope that if a true coalition can be put together, the problems might just get solved without force, because - I don't know whether you noticed it or not, but this nation is close to bankruptcy (devaluation) and we can't afford war if it can possibly be avoided.
Not the way Bush did invaded Iraq -
the when and how of that - I don't and I never did support that.
However, post-invasion we are in a new situation, and my
point has always been that we cannot just look at the mistake
of how we got to where we are, we have to look at plusses
and minuses of where we are right now, at the moment.
I do not see much benefit to anyone in a unilateral pullout.
Yes, there is the benefit to us that we will not be losing lives,
but we will not be spending that much money, because most
of what we are spending is under the Defense Dept. budget.
On the other hand the budget is supposedly secret, so it is
hard to tell.
This is complicated, and basing it on the emotional feeling
that Bush left about everything does not compute. I do
not see Obama following through on his talk about leaving
Iraq immediately either. That raises some interesting
questions about Obama and what he really is.
So, ideally I agree with you about a global effort, but when has
that ideal ever happened. I mean, ideally, it would have made
sense to mobilze against Hitler much earlier than we did, but it
was hard globally to make the US see that it "might" lose lots
of lives in the future weighed against losing no lives in the
present - maybe.
This is what we have now - a calculated gamble. You are
arguing that since we are broke and having problems we can
afford to gamble that radical Islam is going to decrease as a
threat while we regroup. I think that is 180 degree offbase.
If anything they will see this as a time to strike. They have to
believe that they are the ones bankrupting us, bleeding us dry,
like the did the USSR. Ahmadinejad has got to see his end of
America coming true and be emboldened. Don't you think?
Talk about hard to understand Dave, you want to tow both sides
of the question in these "Toll" articles of yours. You speak against
the war, post the soldiers lost, and yet you mention the abuses
of radical Islam along with it.
Also, we are the ones affected by the Middle East the most.
If the oil stops from the Middle East, what we are going through
right now will look like a picnic.
> but this nation is close to bankruptcy (devaluation) and we
> can't afford war if it can possibly be avoided.
That's the gamble. On the other hand, so far, the world economy
is based around the US, and Europe, the West. If we go broke,
what does it really mean? Who loses out?
Dave, I answered your question, so try answering mine"
DAve:
> or the U.S. to get so involved but, at the same time, turn a
> blind eye to this travesty suggests, in my opinion, a degree of culpability.
Huh? Why would that be, logically? And what do you suggest we do
about it Dave?
a false argument that is more sarcastic than anything else.
So depending on what you mean when you say that the
answer can be yes or no, but the question is skewed.
In the case of the Middle East, the situation has been getting
worse over time, and threatens to get even worse, and possibly
nuclear. Calling our involvement merely as trying to be the
world's policeman I think frames the whole problem wrongly.
> If we are going to recognize Islam as the threat to the world
> then it is time to forget about considering it a religion of
> peace and simply kill everyone who avidly believes in that
> religion. I don't think we are anywhere near ready to do that!
I agree with you there, but we are moving in that direction
I think. We and the rest of the world. It is a question of
education. Radical Islam has already "indoctrinated" its
people against everyone else including the West, we just do
not realize that and what we are up against, still!
So who else has the power, planning, weapons and might
to take on this threat? No one else really. We do at least
for a while longer.
There are more extremists because of the way Islam has
primed the pump so that if we react at all it has the effect
of radicalizing Muslims that we do not yet recognize as being
radicals. We have to start to realize that far more Muslims
are radicals that we know of. We have to find a way to
split off the radicals from the Non-radicals, to find out enemies
and attack them. Since "peaceful" islam has not helped
in that, despite escalating scope and intensity in terrorism
a worldwide cause should be made that "peaceful" Islam
is either weak, or non-existent, a case more nuanced than
"you're either with us or your with the enemy", though
that said it ... to early to have the desired effect I think.
This is the same game that the Israelis have the world sees
them go into Palestinians areas that are called civilian to get
terrorists. The civilians "pretend" to be uninvolved with the
fight, but most of them are involved. Involvement in a way
that is amorphous, hard to define and prove ... involved in a
way that is hard for the US to do anything about let alone
see in the western way we look at things.
I think the US has to be willing to stand up and declare war,
making this overt. We have to be willing to say that this is a
war against radical Islam and be willing to push blame on
Islam in general to do something - take sides of declare
itself. This is the weakness in our strategy, with the dependence
on oil we are afraid that all of Islam will declare for the terrorists,
and in that case we eventually will push all Islam into the
hands of the terrorist, violent or non-violent, the result is going
to be the same.
The US has been outmaneuvered at the diplomatic game, all that
is left is violence, and George W. Bush, has made that much more
difficult. By engaging in talk and letting claims of intent, ie. Islam
is the religion of peace, and the US is the problem frame the issue,
radical Islam has been able to advance towards their goals.
To end this, something must convince Islam that whatever they do
and whatever they say is not going to matter, we are not going to
be tolerant of their intolerance, period. Is this going to happen?
Who knows. Either way it is not going to be nice.
When I reference bing the worlds policeman I am not being facetious. I don't believe we are that but when people tell me that we went into Iraq because Saddam was a despot and "needed to be taken out" they are making a case for us to go into anywhere there is a despotic government and policing the world.
No we are not the world's policeman. You haven't seen us invading China or Russia because of all the human rights violations there. A true world policeman would go wherever wrong occurred and we are not about to do that, thank God! Although defenders of certain actions would have you believe they were done for altruistic reasons. We both know that is not true unless you call oil and money an altruistic reason.
If I had an answer to the problem that would protect us and keep us out of foreign entanglements simultaneously, I would certainly share it with you. I do not. We'll have to see what those much smarter than me choose to do.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Well, two weeks ago I decided to start writing what I wanted to write and enable the ratings. That's probably why you saw two sides being dealt with. Having written these for nearly three years now, there has been a lot of research absorbed under my belt. and it's resulted in some pretty strong opinions which will probably get aired in future Tolls...
One of the interesting dilemmas the U.S. apparently has now, for example, is the conundrum associated with just pulling out. But why is that? Is it really that we are afraid the country will explode into a civil war and sink into chaos? There are certainly differences among the various sects but a close look at the present situation doesn't really support that fear.
Then, how about the fear that Iraq will fall into Iran's sphere of influence if we're not there? To that, you have to say - IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED!!! Whether we leave or stay another hundred years, Iraq has moved into bed with Iran and the situation will continue to get chummier as time goes by - no matter what.
So, it's the oil then, right? That's why we're there to protect the flow of oil so Iraq can keep on banking $80 billion a year while we spend $10 billion per month.
There are a lot of statements as to what we should do. what we might do, what we are going to do - but there are no real explanations, and when it all boils down, if we did get explanations they wouldn't be truthful anyway, no matter who is president.
The key to the answer, then, begins with the ironclad fact that nothing is as it seems. From there, I'm hoping, some interesting avenues of thought might open up....
> when people tell me that we went into Iraq because Saddam was a
> despot and "needed to be taken out" they are making a case for us
> to go into anywhere there is a despotic government and policin
> the world.
I don't believe that. Maybe some people say that, but I don't think
it is a popular idea, but it is a necessary idea, and a thankless job.
And there are parts of the US where they Police do not go either.
The idea that once we settle on the word "policeman" that we have
to immediately attack Russia or China, is a absurd argument.
The urgency of any threat and how it affects us is what decides,
as well as our strength and what else is going on in the world.
The policeman argument is often used to cast a sarcastic
and impotently perjorative on efforts of the US to police the
world, based on our failures. The whole argument when
phrased like that is a loser.
There is a good debate on this on the PBS Intelligence Squared
debate series HERE - The motion drew more supporters at the
end of the debate when all aspects of the issue were explored.
is partially due to fear that that country will fall apart, but mostly
due to the same old issues that got us in there to begin with. The
only difference is that we stuck now, we have spent the money
and the lives, and the situation is different.
The question is now, will the US remain the large intimidating
presence in the Middle East, and still push for major Islamic
change, despite having problems of our own? There is no clear
criterion to answer this but looking at the costs of the two
alternatives - and still there is no clear answer.
I think this logically means we stay as long as it means that
changing the situation lead to a more unpredictable situation
in terms of costs and events - ie. we stay as long as we can
until things get worse or more predictably better, constantly
re-evaluating.
I thought from the beginning just leave Iraq and sticking our
soldiers in Afghanistan is asking for trouble. Not to mention
Pakistan and Iran. There is value to being in Iraq militarily and
as a statement to the Islamic countries, but it does have
limits. The 10 billion a month is questionable too. How much
of that would we still be spending in the military budget?
As the situation gets more and more dire, the solutions seem
less and less controllable and more and more bloody and
large scale. I am sure that is not lost on the leaders of
those countries.
Anyway, I'll be very happy to see more political opinion from
you Dave.
America needs to put its penis away and come home and worry about itself for a while.
Jethro's trying to impose their "Democratic" idea on the rest of the world get nothing but the results we've received since this stupid war started. Stickin' around to clean up shit that we can't clean up if we wanted to (it wasn't the surge, dorks, it was the Iraqi ppl) isn't gonna do anything but dig our economy deeper into the hole. Burning money that we could be using here at home to bail out the Big Three or another AIG all while American's lose their homes and livlihoods.
After 8 years, I hope all of you that voted for and supported GW Bush get exactly whats comin' to you. Maybe all this foreclosure will give you a taste of what you imposed on millions of Iraqis. . .lol
Bring our troops home, let the chips fall where they may, and prepare to pay the price for our meddling.
And if you think we're not gonna pay for Iraq, I laugh at you as I have for the past 6 years. Stay or go, we will pay for our meddling, our murder, our torture, etc.
Appreciated the link! It was quite interesting and showed some differing thoughts. Most sounded like they were very philosophical rather than action oriented. Would have been interesting to have heard the entirety of each panelist's argument.
The last one kind of summed it up in stating that he didn't think the American people were desirous of being this world's policeman. I'm confident he was correct there but another person mentioned the US fulfilling its obligation to the world. I've read quite a few who felt that way. I would ask just how the US acquired this "responsibility" if I might.
Thanks Bruce!
I believe if you look around you can find the entire debates online in a link there somewhere. I like to hear the original shows when broadcast for that reason.
The thankless job we have been given was due to WWI and WWII, and how we had to modify our original "isolationist" strategies out of our own necessity. Instead of stepping in to be the new stronger imperial power, the US, tried to be the honest broker. I think we got corrupted at being the honest broker by economic interests, ie. Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex, and global trade interests, fruit from South America, natural resources from Africa and the Middle East, manufactured good from Asia, and we plain screwed up, I think mostly because we did not have a "mission statement" by which we could measure our performance.
Since our govenrment was and is opaque, the people had to trust the government, and the corporations, and look where we are today.