Freedom: It's what's for dinner

There's an old Soviet joke in which a teacher extols to her class the virtues of the Soviet Union. In her words, it's a place where there's no crime, no poverty, no hunger and everyone lives there happily and in peace. Upon hearing this description of his country, one of the students breaks into tears, and says, "I wish I lived in the Soviet Union." \nAfter hearing Bush's inauguration speech, I kind of felt like the President was that teacher, and I, the student. \nThe version of America and America's motives he paints in his speech is beautiful. I would love to believe that America's foreign policy is based on morality and the desire to do the right thing -- to secure freedom around the world. But I am afraid there's more to it than that. \nHe talked a lot about freedom, using the word no less than a whopping 27 times. Bush told us that freedom is the only force that "can break a reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant." Do you think that you would find that definition of "freedom" in Webster's Dictionary?\nBush told us that "freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing in the soul." I don't know about you, but there are a lot of things I long for in my soul -- money, super powers, a trip to the moon. Maybe I take my freedom for granted, but could it be that it's easier to justify occupying another country, and putting young lives at risk, if it's all in the interest of the "longing of the soul"?\nThat's what Bush would have us believe -- that our intentions in Iraq were always to bring "freedom" to the Iraqis -- and that the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was just something to do while we were there. It's ok that we didn't find them, because we found people longing for freedom! \nI think I need some help understanding exactly what freedom means. It's certainly a word that's getting bandied about an awful lot lately, but it seems to mean a lot of different things to different people. If you go by the way the administration uses the word, I guess that it's a panacea, one that can cure any ailment that a society has. \nBut what really is it? It seems that freedom is next to God in the Republican pantheon, and that with Freedom at your side, you are invincible and infallible. \nFreedom, as I was taught, is synonymous with free will. Doesn't everybody already have that? \nDo the Bushies mean democracy? Is "democracy" just a code word for "capitalism"? Is that what everybody needs? Is capitalism what the Iraqi people really need?\nIf so, then the elections made them free and democratic, right? \nNot yet, unfortunately. The thing about this election that nobody wants to tell you is that nothing has really changed in the life of your average Iraqi. The elections didn't bring a new government that is based on freedom; what it did was bring together some groups to write a constitution, one that hopefully will be "democratic." Unfortunately, the type of freedom that Bush and his crowd harp on is still very much a dream to the majority of Iraqis. \nWhile elections in Iraq are definitely a positive step forward, they are not a guarantee for a freedom that is difficult to define in Western terms. Freedom might be what people long for in their souls, but they also long for security and comfort. Which would Iraqis rather see: a democratic Iraq or one without an occupying army?