Washington's Wars and Occupations:
Month in Review #30
October 26, 2007
These days even pro-war figures admit that things in Iraq are
messy and difficult. Gone are slogans like "Mission
Accomplished" and pronouncements that "we'll be greeted as
liberators" and "we'll create a model pro-Western democracy in
the Middle East."
Instead, the people who spread those fantasies (and baited
dissenters as "helping the terrorists") have retreated to
Argument B: Yes, things are bad over there, they concede. And
maybe Bush administration mistakes are partly to blame. But the
real problem is failure, incompetence and "age-old hatred" among
Iraqis themselves. Things will be even worse if the U.S. gets
out: right now it's only our military presence that's standing
between Iraq and genocidal civil war. Further, an
"irresponsible" withdrawal will give heart to terrorism
worldwide and threaten the security of people at home.
These fallback arguments are aimed especially at the millions in
this country for whom Iraq has become a center-stage issue only
in the recent past. It is crafted to appeal to a wide political
spectrum: People who only questioned the war when the U.S.
stopped "winning"; others who are sympathetic to Iraqi hardships
but don't follow events there closely; still others who may be
intensely critical of Bush and the war but believe that at
bottom the U.S. is a force for good with the capacity to solve
problems in other countries.
All these constituencies can be convinced that the best course
for both Iraqis and the U.S. people is for the U.S. to withdraw
immediately and totally. But this will require patient,
respectful arguments. In addition to protest, mobilization and
direct action, we must be prepared to reargue our case for
withdrawal again and again. (For information about this
weekend's urgent protests in 11 cities, go to:
http://www.oct27.org )
U.S. MILITARY: SOLUTION OR PROBLEM?
It is an agonizing time for all people of conscience in this
country. We are appalled by the horrific events occurring in
Iraq each day, and inevitably fearful about what may happen
tomorrow. There are no guarantees. None of us can predict the
future with certainty.
But we do have a guide to help us make our best estimate of
future possibilities: the four-year track record of the U.S
invasion and occupation. This record provides overwhelming
evidence that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is a central
feature of the disaster there rather than part of a solution.
Take a few news reports from the last few weeks as examples:
*Revelations that U.S. snipers regularly set "bait" for Iraqis,
leaving an item on the ground and then shooting to kill anyone
who stops to pick it up - man, woman or child.
*Stories about U.S.-employed "security contractors" -
unaccountable to any law whatsoever - opening fire and killing
Iraqi civilians without provocation.
*Heightened use of air power - including in densely populated
SadrCity - with dozens of civilians killed as a result.
Add these to the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib and the grim
statistics accumulated over the last four years: Up to one
million Iraqis killed. Almost four million forced to flee from
their homes, half to neighboring countries and half displaced
within Iraq. Reconstruction projects all behind schedule and
mired in corruption while U.S. firms such as Halliburton and
DynCorp make millions.
There's nothing in that track record showing that the U.S.
occupation prevents violence in Iraq or fosters respectful
treatment of the Iraqi people. To the contrary: everything
indicates that Washington's presence is a source of violence and
brutality.
IRAQIS WANT U.S. OUT
The majority of Iraqis themselves have reached exactly that
conclusion. As early as August 2003, just five months after the
invasion, a Zogby poll showed two-thirds of Iraqis wanted U.S.
and British troops to leave within a year. Two years later,
two-thirds of Iraqis wanted foreign troops out either
immediately or as soon as the new Iraqi "sovereign" government
was established. The latest BBC/ABC poll - taken months after
the start of the U.S. "surge" - shows that big majorities think
the surge has worsened the security situation and reduced
opportunities for dialogue across sectarian lines. Now nearly
50% of Iraqis want immediate withdrawal and more than ever
before - 57% - say that violence against U.S. troops is
acceptable.
Since Iraq belongs after all to the Iraqi people themselves, it
would seem only fair - as well as sensible - to heed their
opinion. Unfortunately, the U.S. people are bombarded day after
day with propaganda that demeans the intelligence and humanity
of Iraqis and hypes the notion that "America knows best." But
Iraq is home to one of the oldest civilizations in the world,
and it is a terrible mistake to underestimate the sophistication
of Iraqi political actors and the Iraqi environment. True, by
causing so much destruction and spurring the exodus of a high
percentage of Iraq's educated classes the U.S. has probably
reduced that sophistication (at least in forms of politics that
U.S. people recognize). But as a Jordanian who worked for the
U.S. Embassy recently told a delegation of U.S. visitors, "I
believe the U.S. must leave completely. Iraq will have a
difficult and bloody rebirth; it may take 10 or 15 years. But
Iraq has enough heritage to recover, to stand on its own two
feet. There is no other way."
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SECTARIAN WAR?
But isn't it true that Iraqis are now engaged in a bitter
sectarian war? Aren't Sunni insurgents and Shia death squads
both killing civilians? Don't many Iraqis of both forms of Islam
now look to the U.S. for protection? Here the elements of truth
need to be carefully separated from the mountains of distortion.
There is a sectarian civil war underway in Iraq. Many of the
organized forces involved have reactionary social agendas that
offer nothing positive to the Iraqi people as a whole. And it is
true that in some specific instances, U.S. troops have prevented
specific killings or massacres from taking place. No doubt many
U.S. soldiers and officers sincerely see this as a key part of
their mission.
But the majority of Iraqis on both sides of the Sunni-Shia
divide want the U.S. out because they recognize that
fundamentally foreign occupation drives sectarian conflict and
fosters the growth of the most reactionary elements. It doesn't
heal divisions or promote democracy.
The current civil war is not the result of "age-old hatred"
between Shia and Sunni, who have lived peacefully in mixed
neighborhoods (and religiously mixed families) for centuries.
Rather, it is the result of 20^th century relations or power and
privilege, all shaped by Western colonialism with its
divide-and-conquer tactics. After 2003, Sunni-Shia violence was
fueled by the decision of the U.S. "Provisional Authority" to
set up its client government on a sectarian basis; by U.S.
collective punishment of entire Sunni cities (such as Fallujah)
for the insurgent activities of initially small groups; and by
the U.S. training and supplying Shia death squads in its initial
attempts to crush the mostly Sunni insurgency. More recently,
the barrage of U.S. propaganda against Iran - Washington raising
the danger of a "dangerous Shi'ite crescent" even while backing
a mostly-Shi'ite and sympathetic-to-Iran government in Baghdad -
has compounded the problem. And as long as Washington backs its
client regime no matter what, the political figures who lead
that regime have no incentive to compromise with their political
opponents.
Even with Washington behaving this way, the majority of Iraqis
call for national reconciliation. And in contrast to
administration distortions, the vast majority of armed attacks
in Iraq are against U.S. troops or their Iraqi collaborators,
not against Iraqi civilians (though these are often the most
publicized and spectacular).
One can perhaps imagine in the abstract an international force
that - if it had the support and active cooperation of most
Iraqis - could help suppress the sectarian violence spawned by
invasion and occupation. But the U.S. military - the invading,
occupying and day-to-day repressive power - is not that force.
The U.S. could not play such a role even if its
Commander-in-Chief were more concerned about Iraqi lives than
about U.S. control of Middle East oil. The bottom line was well
expressed in the most recent New Yorker (Oct. 22), where author
Lawrence Wright captured the reality perceived BY IRAQIS rather
than the make-believe view from the U.S.: "The presence of
American troops is itself a goad to insurgency and an impediment
to the creation of legitimate civil authority. As long as we
remain in Iraq, the Iraqi people will feel themselves to be
subjugated by a foreign power."
THE REGIONAL PICTURE
What about the argument that the U.S. presence in Iraq is
necessary for "regional stability?"
The very opposite is true. The close-to-two-million Iraqi
refugees bring tremendous economic and political strains to
neighboring countries. The occupation-driven civil war spreads
Sunni-Shia tensions across Iraqi borders. U.S. troops occupying
an Arab country fuel anti-U.S. sentiment in a region where it is
already at record highs. Frustrations with the actions of
northern-Iraq-based Kurdish rebels conducting armed actions in
Turkey and Iran threatens to spread war to those countries.
And with each day U.S. troops stay in Iraq the Bush
administration ramps up its latest rationalization for war
against Iran: the accusation that Iran is responsible for the
death of U.S. soldiers there.
Washington's desperation to stay in Iraq reinforces every
backward aspect of its policy region-wide. To make sure massive
anti-occupation sentiment among Arab populations does not
influence (or overthrow) pro-U.S. governments, Washington ups
its aid to police-state governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan and elsewhere. To head off a friendly
Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan relationship that might lead to regional
cooperation outside of U.S. control (like what's happening in
Latin America), Washington fans Sunni-Shia tensions. All on top
of Bush's blank-check for Israel, whose occupation of
Palestinian land has long been at the pivot of Arab and Muslim
vs. U.S. conflict.
FULFILLING U.S. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
For all these reasons, immediate U.S. withdrawal is an
absolutely necessary condition for Iraq to move toward peace and
self-determination. But it is not sufficient. In the wake of its
invasion and occupation, the U.S. does have a moral
responsibility to the Iraqi people. How can this country best
fulfill that responsibility? By committing itself to pay for the
reconstruction of Iraq under Iraqi control, and by supporting
regional diplomatic efforts to bring peace and development to
the Middle East. Even better would be a larger turnabout in U.S.
policy, replacing reliance on military force and support for
repressive regimes with diplomacy, backing for
self-determination and respect for international law (especially
concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict).
Much damage has been done. Even if Washington agreed to all
those demands tomorrow the Iraqi people would have many
difficult days ahead. There are no guarantees. But only if the
U.S. takes this kind of approach can the voices in Iraqi society
that speak for nonviolence, reconciliation and development be
heard. Only such a course allows Iraqis the chance of a decent
future. Every day that the U.S. as a foreign occupier continues
to abuse and kill Iraqis, and inevitably sparks violent
resistance, digs us all in deeper. Each day brings more Iraqi
and U.S. casualties, increases the chances of regional war, and
simultaneously strengthens every pro-torture, anti-civil
liberties, racist and militarist force in U.S. political life.
For all these reasons, this is the time to say more loudly than
ever: "Out Now!"
War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of
the Center for Third World Organizing. Donations to War Times
are tax-deductible; you can donate on-line at http://
www.war-times.org [2] or send a check to War Times/Tiempo de
Guerras, c/o P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville, CA94662 |
