Originally Posted by ermitonto
The United States [2] does not belong in Iraq and should immediately withdraw all military forces from the country. Far from liberating Iraq, the invasion installed a puppet dictatorship that has retained many of the trappings of Saddam Hussein??s old dictatorship. US intervention in Iraq only brings death & destruction, while perpetuating imperialism. All the excuses used to justify continued US presence in Iraq are wrong and most are generic excuses that could be used to justify support for the British against America??s own war for independence or any other kind of imperialism. The possibility of Iraq being taken over by fundamentalists, becoming a terrorist base or experiencing a civil war if the US pulls out are greatly exaggerated by supporters of the war and, even if they were true, still would not justify the presence of US military forces in Iraq.
Imperialism? We want out! Wait till their troops are trained THEN we'll pull out. If they really wanted us to go they could request it and we'd pull out.
If you recall WW2 a lot of the old government people were used to run the new government to start. Who else is trained?
I. Puppet Government
Bush claims to have handed over ??full sovereignty? to the Iraqis. However, Iraqi independence exists only on paper. The Iraqi government is an American puppet government, with less independence than the average Soviet satellite state did during the Cold War. Iraq??s Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, is a CIA agent (and ex-Baathist). He studied in Britain during his youth and later started working for Britain??s MI6 (the British version of the CIA), eventually forging ties with the CIA and Saudi intelligence. [3] In 1990 he co-founded the Iraqi National Accord, a terrorist organization that also ??has close ties to the CIA.? [4] From 1992 to 1995 Allawi??s organization was involved in a series of car bombings in Iraq, one of several terrorist campaigns sponsored by the CIA against Iraq. As one American intelligence officer noted, ??no one had any problem with sabotage in Baghdad back then.? [5] Prime Minister Allawi is the most powerful man in the interim government (the Presidency is a symbolic position).
If you recall, Allawi was far from our first choice. The Iraqis that we initially put in appointed him...sure not us. I thought Allawi was replaced after the OPEN ELECTIONS? :rolleyes:
The heads of the Iraqi government (including Allawi) were not elected but were selected by the now-disbanded Iraqi governing council, which was made up of individuals appointed by the United States. Everyone on that council gave themselves positions in the new government. [6] The constitution of the interim government was written by the US and US-appointed governing council. Prior to the ??handover,? US officials admitted that the US would still maintain real control after the ??handover.? [7] American troops still control the country, without them the interim government would rapidly collapse. The United States is also constructing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. [8] All this means real power is held by the United States.
Open elections happened! Over 8 million voted against the threats of death...remember?
At least 97 edicts imposed by the occupation authority prior to June 28th stay in effect even after the ??handover.? This puts the interim government in a straightjacket, forcing it to act within a US imposed framework. Part of this is the extension of Order 17 (which grants US troops immunity to Iraqi laws and courts) beyond June 28th. Another of these edicts gives a seven-member election commission the power to disqualify candidates and political parties from running in the elections scheduled for January.
Sure, it would have been nice to see a member from the Bathist party, or maybe some other terrorist sector.
The occupation authority also appointed several government officials with multi-year terms. Some officials appointed by Allawi will also have multi-year terms, including Iraq??s intelligence chief and national security adviser. [9] This will give the US de-facto control over Iraq??s state bureaucracy (or the majority of it) even after elections are held since pro-US bureaucrats are guaranteed to be in several top positions no matter who wins the elections.
Allawi again?? Damn, thought he was voted out....may have to do another google search.
The American embassy in Iraq is the biggest and most powerful in the world. John Negroponte, who was involved in Iran-Contra and helped organize Central American death squads as ambassador to Honduras, has been appointed US ambassador to Iraq. When the ??transfer of sovereignty? occurred $20 billion of Iraq??s oil revenues were unaccounted for by the US. [10] For all these reasons, the Iraqi government is an American puppet. The occupation of Iraq continues in fact, if not in name.
Considering that after the invasion oil dropped from 2.5 mb/d to .9 mb/d I find it VERY hard to believe that this would be $20 billion. Must have been some HIGHGRADE shit!!
II. Invasion
The original invasion that created this mess was completely illegitimate. The pretexts invented to justify the invasion were always false and have been further discredited since the invasion. No weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. If Saddam actually had them he??d have used them to save his regime. If he wasn??t willing to use WMDs even to save his own regime (which is very unlikely) then he would never have used them offensively and was not the threat Bush made him out to be. Even if Iraq did have WMDs the invasion would still have been wrong. The United States has thousands of WMDs (and has used them); it??s a double standard to ban Iraq from having any WMDs while the United States has thousands.
Tell that to the 5,000 dead Kurds and 100,000 dead Shi'ites. Saddam wouldn't do that.....
The claim that the United States should invade Iraq to ??liberate? Iraqis from Saddam??s tyranny, to bring them ??freedom and democracy? and improve human rights, was also never credible. The United States supports numerous dictatorships with horrible human rights records including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and many others. If the American government??s real goal were to promote ??freedom & democracy? they would stop supporting these dictatorships. The famous toppling of Saddam??s statue in Baghdad, hyped up in American media as a sign of liberation, was a sham staged by Army Psyops for propaganda purposes, not some spontaneous celebration by jubilant Iraqis. [11] The numerous human rights abuses (including the tortures at Abu Ghraib) and other dictatorial actions by the US after the invasion further discredit the ??liberation? argument. The US is imposing a new dictatorship on Iraq, not liberating it.
Imposing a new dictatorship on Iraq? ELECTIONS, CONSTITUTION...this asswipe should really pick up a paper or at least watch the damn news!
What happened at Abu Ghraib isn't even close to how they treat their own...or ours! Remember the beheadings?
Nor was there ever any credible evidence of ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Saddam was a secular dictator; fundamentalists like Bin Laden regard him as an infidel. In January 2004 Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted, ??I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection? between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. [12] A report from British intelligence leaked prior to the invasion said there were no links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. [13] Even the 9-11 commission came to the same conclusion. And even if there was such a link (which there wasn??t) it??s very hypocritical to invade Iraq for allegedly sponsoring terrorism against the United States when the United States has a history of sponsoring terrorism against Iraq.
That's right, AFTER the fall of saddam and with 160,000 allied troops in the country Zarqawi thought this would be a prime chance to build a terrorist training camp. Maybe we built it for him??? :rolleyes:
III. Occupation
The continued occupation of Iraq is even less justified than the invasion. The invasion at least toppled a brutal dictator, but the occupation goes against the wishes of the majority of Iraqis, is opposed by popular resistance, strengthens American imperialism and is leading to the creation of a new dictatorship. Every US occupation of a ??third world? country has resulted in some combination of dictatorship, massive poverty and/or endemic corruption, often all three. The same is happening in Iraq.
Going against the wishes of the majority? 20% of the population is Sunni, Saddams chosen people. Now lets see, whats the greater amount...20% or 80%? Have to check my old math books!
Advocacy of withdrawing from Iraq is often met with laments that ??we can??t cut and run? and must ??stay the course? because ??we don??t want to be seen as quitters? and ??our reputation would be ruined.? To demand that thousands of people die because ??we don??t want to be quitters? is absurd and atrocious. Not being seen as a ??quitter? is not worth killing or dying for. Few of those who repeat this justification would be willing to give their lives for it - instead they demand others die. There is nothing wrong with quitting a venture that should never have been started in the first place. It is the occupation of Iraq that is ruining ??our? reputation and angering billions of people around the world. Withdrawing will not ruin ??our? reputation but will more likely improve it. And even if it didn??t, defending a reputation is hardly sufficient justification to kill thousands. All of these same excuses could be used to defend the British during America??s war for independence. One could argue that the British should not have withdrawn because they ??didn??t want to be seen as quitters? or it would ??ruin Britain??s reputation.? That excuse is wrong in America??s war of national liberation and it??s equally wrong in Iraq??s war of national liberation.
Comparing the Revolutionary war to this? What the fuck kind of logic is that?
IV. Resistance
Along with these laments, the Bush administration has attempted to demonize the resistance, claiming they are all ??Saddam remnants,? ??Islamic fundamentalists,? and ??foreign terrorists.? This is not true; the resistance is actually made up of a number of different groups with different ideologies. This is a partial list of groups involved in the insurgency:
*Al-Anbar Armed Brigades
*Al-Faruq Brigades
*Armed Vanguards of Mohammad's Second Army
*Army of Mohammad
*Black Banner Organization
*General Command of the Armed Forces, Resistance and Liberation in Iraq
*General Secretariat for the Liberation of Democratic Iraq
*Harvest of the Iraqi Resistance
*Iraqi Communist Party-Al Cadre
*Iraqi National Islamic Resistance
*Iraqi Resistance Brigades
*Jihad Cells
*Liberating Iraq's Army
*Mahdi Army
*Mujahideen Battalions of the Salafi Group of Iraq
*Mujahideen of the Victorious Sect
*Muslim Youth
*Nasserites
*National Front for the Liberation of Iraq
*National Iraqi Commandos Front
*Patriotic Front
*Political Media Organ of the Ba??ath Party
*Popular Resistance for the Liberation of Iraq
*Saddam's Fedayeen
*Salafist Jihad Group
*Sharila
*Snake Party
*Sons of Islam
*Unification Front for the Liberation of Iraq
*Wakefulness and Holy War
*White Flags [14]
I do believe that these groups aren't considered as being political parties. So what do we call them? There are radical groups in all sections. Hell, we got em' in the states!
The Iraqi resistance is far from monolithic. Most groups fall into one of three categories. There are the Baathists, who want to restore the old regime, the Islamists, who want to create an Islamic fundamentalist state, and the nationalists, who are against the old regime and are secular but want the US out of their country. There is no single central command. There are also small informal groups that don??t even have a name but have taken up arms against the US nonetheless. [15] In addition, there are groups resisting the occupation that are not part of the guerilla war, such as the growing labor movement. Despite all these different groups and ideologies, the US has still managed to unite all of them against America.
I don't think we were really feeling the love before this from these groups.
There probably are some foreigners in Iraq fighting against the US, but there is no evidence that they are the driving force behind the insurgency or that they make up more than a small minority of fighters. Al-Sadr is an Iraqi, as are the leaders of most other resistance groups. Of captives held as ??security threats? (alleged members of the resistance), only 2% are non-Iraqi. [16] Major General Jasim Mohammed Saleh, who was initially named to lead the US-backed security force in Fallujah, said, "the reasons for the resistance go back to the American provocations, the raids and abolishing the army, which made Iraqis join the resistance? and that, ??there are no foreign fighters in Falluja and the local leaders have told me the same.? [17] The kind of guerilla war being fought in Iraq is not possible without a substantial degree of popular support.
YUP, fighters coming in from Seria and Iran are definately Iraqis. I guess the foreigners that we catch and kill were put into the country as decoys.
Unlike the resistance, US troops are all foreign fighters. Somehow it is perfectly legitimate for foreign fighters from America to invade and occupy Iraq, but if people from neighboring countries come and help defend Iraq from foreign conquerors it is completely illegitimate and supposedly discredits the entire resistance. Bush??s rants about ??foreign fighters? battling Americans in Iraq are completely hypocritical in light of the well over 100,000 foreign troops he has stationed in Iraq.
Now that's a nice twist on words...BRAVO!!
This same excuse could be used to support the British during the American war for independence. The United States received considerable assistance from foreign fighters, specifically the French, far more than the Iraqi resistance has. Many historians argue that without French intervention on the side of the resistance England would have won the war. Yet no one argues that this discredits the independence movement.
This asswipe really loves that comparison!
Some foreign fighters have been criticized by the Iraqi resistance and have been blamed for terrorist attacks on civilians, repudiated by most of the resistance. ??If anything, ? [Iraqis] have a too-pronounced tendency to dismiss all objectionable, terroristic acts as the actions of foreigners -- but the evidence there is mostly on their side.? [18] If they are not agent provocateurs organizations like Al- Zarqawi??s group certainly act like agent provocateurs. Attacking collaborators is a standard part of every national liberation war (including America??s war for independence) but indiscriminate attacks on Churches, Mosques and other civilian targets go far beyond just attacking collaborators. Their terrorist acts, which most of the resistance does not support, are counter-productive and wrong. Sunni cleric Ahmed Abdul Ghafour Samarrae, condemning a wave of car bombs that killed many Iraqis in late June (allegedly carried out by Al-Zarqawi), declared, ??We do not need anyone from outside the borders to stand with us and spill the blood of our sons in Iraq. Which religion allows anyone to kill more than 100 Iraqis, destroy 100 families and destroy 100 houses? Who says so? Who are those people who do this? Where did they come from? ... It is a conspiracy to defame the reputation of the Iraqi resistance by wearing its dress and using its name falsely. These people hurt the Iraqis and Iraq, giving the occupier an excuse to stay longer.? Representatives of the groups fighting in Fallujah, who deny there are any foreign fighters in Fallujah, said, "We know that this talk about Zarqawi and the fighters is a game that the American invader forces are playing to strike Islam and Muslims in the city of mosques, steadfast Fallujah." The Mahdi Army has condemned foreign terrorists and a spokesperson differentiated between legitimate resistance that targets the occupation and terrorism that targets the Iraqi people. [19] This differentiation is entirely correct. The rebels are not ??thugs? or ??terrorists,? they are defending themselves from foreign aggression. The United States is not some benevolent Uncle of Iraq; it is an invading conqueror that should be defeated like all other conquerors.
3000 of Zarqawi's people were captured and killed in Fallujah. Torture rooms, ammunitions in schools, etc...... This cat is on top of this shit!!
V. Democracy and Fundamentalism
Given the role of Islamic fundamentalism within the resistance some justify the occupation on the grounds that it is necessary to bring ??democracy? to Iraq and prevent a fundamentalist state from coming to power. Tony Blair warns that, ??The hope of freedom and religious tolerance in Iraq would be snuffed out? [20] if the US (and allies) withdrew. This objection is wrong because the US is imposing a dictatorship on Iraq as bad as any fundamentalist state. In addition, those who voice this objection tend to overstate the influence of Islamic fundamentalism within the resistance and ignore or underestimate the role of the more secular groups, although fundamentalism does play a major role. Even some of the openly religious groups are motivated more by nationalism than fundamentalism. What would happen within Iraq after a US withdrawal is pure speculation ?? it might result in a fundamentalist state or it might result in something else.
We're not imposing shit and if they decide to go far "right" with the Islam, that will be their choice.
This same argument could just as easily be used to justify British imperialism in America and suppression of the independence movement. The leaders in America??s war for independence believed women and non-whites were inferior, advocated overt rule of the wealthy over everyone else and owned slaves. While a less authoritarian ideology would be preferable, this in no way justifies British imperialism. Just as the reactionary beliefs of America??s founding fathers did not make British imperialism in America okay, the reactionary beliefs of sections of the Iraqi resistance does not make American imperialism in Iraq okay. Unlike America??s leaders during the war for independence, the leaders of Iraq??s resistance aren??t slave owners. It would be better for the resistance to have more libertarian leanings, but the absence of such ideas does not justify imperialism in Iraq anymore than it does in America.
The whole fucking world considered women and non-whites inferior at that time! What a fuck!!
The fear of a repeat of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which resulted in an Islamic fundamentalist state, in Iraq is sometimes voiced. This is certainly a possibility, although there is no reason to assume it will automatically result if the US pulls out. Even if a regime similar to the Iranian theocracy did come to power in Iraq, it would probably be better than an American puppet dictatorship. Prior to the revolution Iran was ruled by a US puppet dictatorship put into power by a CIA coup in 1953. The dictatorship was brutal. In the mid-70s Amnesty International claimed that Iran had the worst human rights record in the world. The theocracy that came to power in 1979 still commits many human rights abuses, but it??s no longer the worst in the world. An independent theocracy, although deeply flawed, would therefore probably be better for Iraq than a puppet government, as it was in Iran.
The American government has no real intention of bringing ??democracy? to Iraq or of combating fundamentalism. The US supports many dictatorships, including fundamentalist states. Saudi Arabia is the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world and has been consistently supported by the US for sixty years. The claim that the US is going to ??liberate? Iraq and stop fundamentalism is not credible, if that were the goal they would not be supporting the fundamentalist dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. Politicians may talk about bringing ??democracy? to Iraq & other countries (and may even delude themselves into believing it), but that??s just rhetoric. The USSR claimed it was bringing ??democracy? to its satellite states, too.
The US is entirely willing to impose a fundamentalist state on Iraq if that helps maintain control and is already moving towards doing so. Iraq??s (rather contradictory) interim constitution, written by the US and US-appointed governing council, says, ??Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation.? Thus the US is already heading towards imposing a fundamentalist state. The US has fired on demonstrations, conducted countless arbitrary searches, imposed censorship, arrested Iraqis without charges or trial, conducted retaliatory house demolitions & other forms of collective punishment, raped & tortured prisoners, ??disappeared? Iraqis and imposed many other dictatorial measures. [21] Shortly before the ??handover of power? Prime Minister Allawi personally executed six prisoners in cold blood. [22] Allawi has publicly considered imposing martial law [23] and Bush has said he would support this decision. [24] The first major act of the interim government was to decree a new security law allowing the government to declare martial law, set up checkpoints, ban meetings, protests & political groups, intercept letters & phone conversations, impose curfews and grant police & soldiers wide powers to arrest anyone. [25] Allawi has banned the Arab news network Al-Jazeera [26] and created a committee to censor the media. [27] Prior to the fake ??transfer of sovereignty? the occupation authority decreed a law banning all resistance leaders from the elections, effectively rigging them in favor of pro-US candidates. [28] The US is in the process of imposing a new dictatorship on Iraq, subordinated to Washington, not liberating Iraq. If the US wins the war Iraq will have a new dictatorship, probably of a fundamentalist or semi-fundamentalist character, but if the US loses then what kind of society they??ll have is completely up in the air. It could be an independent dictatorship or it might be something better.
All this talk of bringing ??democracy? to Iraq is further undermined by the fact that most Iraqis do not want US troops in their country. If the US really wanted democracy they would follow the will of the majority and pull out. Many supporters of the war like to claim that most Iraqis are grateful to the US for liberating them and that the rebellions in Iraq are ??not a popular uprising? but the work of a small minority but this is not true. The rebellion in southern Iraq is ??a broad-based Shiite uprising that goes well beyond supporters of one militant Islamic cleric who has been the focus of American counterinsurgency efforts, United States intelligence officials said,? contradicting the claims of the White house. [29] Military officials admitted to the associated press that the insurgency is much larger than the Bush administration claims, has a large degree of popular support and is almost exclusively made up of Iraqis (not foreign fighters). The associated press also reported that most rebels want a secular society, not a Taliban-style state, and ??are motivated by Islam in the same way religion motivates American soldiers, who also tend to pray more when they're at war.? [30]
Even surveys carried out by western organizations show that most Iraqis want US troops out of the country, have major disagreements with the US on many issues and are becoming increasingly hostile to America. A Gallup/CNN/USAToday survey conducted in late March 2004 found that 57% of Iraqis wanted foreign troops to immediately leave Iraq, 52% said US-UK military action in Iraq cannot be justified, 71% considered US (and allied) troops to be occupiers and only 19% considered them liberators. Fifty-five percent of Shiites and 57 percent of Sunnis approved of attacks against US forces (the Sunni and Shiite areas of the country ?? the south and center ?? is where the majority of fighting is taking place). [31] Another poll, conducted for the occupation authority, found that 82 percent of Iraqis disapprove of US and allied forces in Iraq. [32] A poll partially funded by the State Department conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies (ICRSS), which is regarded as reliable by the US occupation authority, found that more than half of Iraqis want US troops to leave, 88 percent regard US forces as occupiers not liberators and that 68% support rebel cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr (leader of the Mahdi army). [33] Another poll by the ICRSS found that over 80% of Iraqis want US troops to stop patrolling their cities, 41% would feel safer if US troops left the country versus 32% who would feel less safe and 43% would be most likely to vote for a party that called for foreign forces to leave versus 16% who would not. [34] A more recent poll found that some Iraqis consider the US liberators: 2 percent. Ninety-two percent regard US (and allied) troops as occupiers. [35]
Of course these polls were taken by western organizations, or organizations funded by westerners, under an occupation in which opponents of the occupation are being censored, shot at and otherwise attacked. These factors will tend to slant the polls in a direction favorable to the occupation, so actual Iraqi opinion may be even more hostile to the US. In addition, the lack of accurate & detailed demographic information on Iraq and the difficulty of conducting a poll in a war zone will decrease the accuracy of these numbers. Nonetheless, these polls still show that the US is not terribly interested in bringing democracy to Iraq, since the fact that these polls consistently show major disagreement with the occupation has been consistently ignored by the US. They also show that the resistance is not some tiny minority without significant support among the general population.
Besides, American-style ??democracy? is not the idyllic system its proponents make it out to be. Despite a great deal of rhetoric to the contrary, America is not a very free society. The United States has more people in prison, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of population, than any other country in the world. Civil liberties are low compared to many other ??first world? countries, especially since 9-11. There are at least 100 political prisoners in the US and police brutality (against dissidents and, to a greater degree, people of color) is common. Economic inequality is atrocious. The United States is the richest country in the world yet also has more poor people than any other ??first world? country. The US government (supposedly a ??democracy?) has a long history of committing atrocities and genocide. This includes slavery, genocide against the native population, internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, the occupations of the Philippines, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua & many other countries, setting up concentration camps in many of those occupied countries, backing genocide in East Timor, secret wars on Laos and Cambodia, supporting, arming, funding & training death squads in Central America and many other atrocities.
The banning of Iraqi resistance leaders from elections isn??t too surprising, since something very similar is done in the United States. Elections are set up so that only two almost identical parties can win; all other parties are excluded. Historically, when third parties have had a chance of winning power the government has used various underhanded, undemocratic tactics to prevent them from taking power. The greater the possibility of a third party winning the greater the manipulations used to suppress them. On the extreme end of the scale was the suppression of the Socialist Party, USA. Socialists elected to congress were barred from taking the position they had won, socialist newspapers were closed down, socialist activists jailed, the Socialist candidate for President in the 1920 election was jailed for criticizing World War One (he still managed to get a million votes anyway), and election laws manipulated to prevent socialists from winning elections. Most third parties can be stopped without that degree of suppression, but it shows the lengths they will go to maintain their monopoly of power.
VI. Terrorism
It is often argued that the US must stay in Iraq because if the US pulls out it will become a base for terrorists to strike against the United States. This is pure speculation ?? there??s no real evidence to support it. When the US pulled out of Vietnam it didn??t become a base to launch terrorist attacks against the United States, so why should we assume Iraq would? Hypothetically, any country in the world could be used to launch terrorist attacks on the United States ?? that doesn??t mean every country in the world should be occupied. This logic could also have been used to argue that America should not have become independent because the United States might become a base from which terrorists could strike England or its colonies. Whatever minor threat an independent Iraq might pose to the United States is dwarfed by the overwhelming military superiority of the United States over not only Iraq, but also every other country in the world.
Having a pro-US government in place won??t necessarily stop such attacks, either. Many Saudi Arabian terrorists have attacked the United States even though the Saudi government is staunchly pro-US. Terrorists have operated within the United States itself to attack American targets in the past.
Occupying Iraq actually has the opposite effect; it makes anti-US terrorist attacks more likely. The occupation of Iraq is a blatant act of aggression that angers much of the world, especially Iraqis and others living in the same region. This gives anti-US terrorists many more recruits and increases the number of people willing to engage in terrorist attacks against the US. Withdraw from Iraq and anti-US terrorists will have fewer recruits.
Furthermore, the ??Iraq could become a terrorist base? argument is extremely hypocritical. The United States has served as a base for numerous terrorist attacks against many other countries. After the Cuban revolution the American government launched several terrorist campaigns against Cuba and allowed anti-Castro terrorists to use the United States as a base to launch terrorist attacks on Cuba. This included the hijacking of airplanes and boats, bombings of ships, civilian airlines, cane fields and sugar mills, sabotage of oil refineries, chemical plants and railroad bridges, and attacks on fishing boats and merchant ships. [36] After the Gulf War the United States sponsored several terrorist campaigns against Iraq, including car bombings and other acts. Former CIA officer Robert Baer told the New York Times one of these bombings in Iraq, "blew up a school bus; schoolchildren were killed." He could not recall which of the CIA-sponsored terrorist organizations was responsible for it. [37] The US Army maintains a terrorist training camp in Georgia called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly known as the School of the Americas) whose graduates have engaged in countless terrorist actions. Other acts of US-sponsored terrorism include the 1953 CIA coup in Iran, the 1954 CIA coup in Guatemala, the 1973 CIA coup in Chile, the (failed) 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela, sponsorship of the Contra terrorists against Nicaragua, and several decades of terrorist campaigns against the Soviet Union and East Europe.
All of this would be labeled terrorism and used as justification for a military assault if carried out by another country against the US. If a country is justified in occupying another country because that country might sponsor terrorism against it then Cuba, Iraq, Guatemala, etc. would all be justified in occupying the United States to insure the US is not used as a base to sponsor terrorism against them. The whole ??Iraq could become a terrorist base? argument is based on a double standard. The possibility that Iraq might serve as a base for terrorism against the United States is justification to occupy Iraq, yet when the United States serves as a base for terrorism against Iraq, Cuba, etc. they??re just supposed to sit there and take it.
The threat of anti-US terrorism against the average American is greatly over-exaggerated. In 2001 almost 3,000 people died from the 9-11 attacks. In that same year, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 700,000 Americans died of heart disease, 557,768 died of cancer, 43,788 died due to car accidents, 32,238 died from blood poisoning, 30,622 died from suicide, 20,306 were murdered, 14,078 died by accidental poisoning and 3,021 died due to complications arising from medical care. [38] Far more people are killed by these other causes than by anti-US terrorism. You??re ten times more likely to die at your own hands than at the hands of Al-Qaeda. The ??threat? of anti-US terrorism is just a bunch of scare mongering that over-exaggerates the actual danger.
VII. Civil War?
The Bush administration has promoted the idea that Iraq will descend into civil war and chaos without the occupation. This argument is no more credible than the ??terrorist base? argument. Even mainstream critics of the Bush administration accept this idea and commonly use it to justify the occupation despite the fact that there is very little evidence to support it. The country is uniting against the occupation. [39] In a powerful show of unity, on March 19th Sunnis and Shiites held a large joint demonstration in Baghdad against the occupation. They called for unity of all Iraqis and denounced the occupation. [40] In early April, ??the Sunni-led resistance forces publicly declared their support for? the Shiite rebellion in the south led by Al-Sadr. [41] ??Neither the Sunni nor the Shia clerics or the secular forces of Sunni and Shia origin are talking in terms other than the unity of Iraq against the colonial occupier. Ayotollah Sistani has had meetings with Sunni leaders to stress his belief in a united country and in private he has insisted that the Iranian model of clerical rule would be a disaster for Iraq. Moqtada Al-Sadr speaks of liberating Iraq, not the Shia.? [42]
At the Abu Hanifa mosque in Al-Adhamiyah in Baghdad (the center of Iraq??s Sunni power) Imam Muad Al- Adhamy told Inter Press Service (IPS), ??What is happening is happening to all of Iraq. There is no difference now between Sunni and Shia, Arab and Kurd. We have all been invaded.? In a sermon Sheikh Al-Daraji, a leader in Al-Sadr??s movement, said, ??We have come here to prove that the forces of evil will never be able to detract from Sunni-Shia unity.? His congregation echoed that sentiment, one telling IPS, ??there is no Sunni or Shia now, we are all together against the Americans.? Imam Kutaibia Ama'ash said, ??The actions of the U.S. are uniting the Sunni and Shia. The U.S. actions via the Governing Council are an attempt to divide us, but the result has been the opposite ? all of the people of this mosque are supporting the people of Fallujah, Najaf, and Kerbala. We give full support to the people resisting the Americans.? Across the country, national unity against the United States is setting in. [43]
Shiite and Sunni rebels have begun fighting together, side by side. Nimaa Fakir, a member of the Mahdi army, told the New York Times, ??we have orders from our leaders to fight as one. We want to increase the fighting, increase the killing and drive the Americans out. To do this, we must combine forces.? Shiites lined up by the thousands to donate blood to wounded Sunnis during the fighting in Fallujah. Shiites also donated food and humanitarian supplies to Sunni rebels in Fallujah. ??Both Sunnis and Shiites have seen their homes attacked and their religious sites desecrated. Up against a shared enemy, they are beginning to bury ancient rivalries and join forces against the occupation. Instead of a civil war, they are on the verge of building a common front.? [44]
Unlike the United States, Iraq has never had a full-fledged civil war. There have been various revolts and revolutions, but never a full-fledged civil war on the scale of the American civil war. This propaganda about the inevitability of civil war if the US pulls out plays off stereotypes and prejudices many Americans have about ??third world? peoples ?? that ??they? are extremely unstable, have lots of civil wars, frequent coups and major ethnic tensions. Such stereotypes simply do not apply to Iraq. Except for a ten-year period following the 1958 revolution Iraq??s government has been relatively stable. Iraq has experienced periods of major unrest, but so has the United States. Ethnic tensions in Iraq aren??t much worse than in America. This is not to say that a civil war in Iraq is impossible, there??s a first time for everything, but there is no reason to assume that this will automatically be the case if the US pulls out. The United States might theoretically have another civil war in the future, that doesn??t make it okay for Iraq (or some other country) to take the United States over. The same is true of the United States taking Iraq over.
Using the possibility of civil war as justification for continuing the occupation of Iraq, and thus the war, is also internally contradictory and self-refuting. Fighting a war in order to stop a war is self-defeating; it brings about the very thing it is supposed to prevent. Iraq has already descended into chaos because the American military is occupying it; there is good reason to expect a US pullout to stabilize the country. It is the presence of foreign troops that is causing all this fighting and causing the Iraqi people to rebel. End the war, pullout and let the resistance take over, and Iraq may very well become less chaotic because there would no longer be a war against foreign invaders on its soil. In the south Basra deputy governor Salam Uda al-Maliki has begun talking about secession as a response against the Iraqi puppet government and US occupation. [45] It is the occupation and puppet government that is the cause of all this. Ending them will not cause chaos; it will probably decrease chaos.
The ??civil war? argument also assumes that a US goal in Iraq is to prevent a civil war, but this is not necessarily true. The American government is entirely willing to promote and encourage civil wars in other countries when this serves their interests. Yugoslavia is a recent example of this. If Iraq was not resisting the US presence then it would probably be in the interests of the US government to prevent a civil war because this would disrupt US control of the country and interfere with US plans for it. However, this is not the case. Getting Iraqi to fight Iraqi would be beneficial to the US position in the current circumstances since it would take the heat off of US troops and make it easier to defeat the rebellion. The US is already taking preliminary moves towards this by trying to build up an Iraqi army and police force and use them to suppress the insurgency. So far this has not worked, half the soldiers & police have mutinied, deserted, defected or otherwise refused to fight their fellow Iraqi. [46] However, the US may eventually be able to build up an Iraqi force that will fight Iraqi insurgents. Such an army might be more effective at suppressing the insurgency (since the soldiers would know the country better and would not offend nationalist sentiment as much) and they would take the heat off of American troops. The United States has done the same thing to suppress rebellions in many other countries it invaded ?? Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and many others. US actions are actively promoting a civil war by attempting to build up an Iraqi force that would fight other Iraqis. Technically, this would be more of a war of national liberation against a US puppet government than a genuine civil war, but it would still be Iraqi against Iraqi and at least as bad as a real civil war.
All this talk of ??civil war? and ??chaos? could also be used to justify support for the British in the American war for independence. It??s possible that the United States might have experienced civil war after the British pulled out (eventually the US did have a civil war). The thirteen colonies could go to war with each other, or different ethnic groups could have warred among each other or there could even be a civil war over slavery. Just as this possibility didn??t justify British domination of the United States, it does not justify American domination of Iraq. Indeed, this excuse could be used to justify the occupation of any country at any point in history as all of them might theoretically experience a civil war after the occupiers leave. By this logic the Nazis should not have been driven out of France, the Japanese out of China & Korea, the French out of Algeria, etc.
The ??threat of chaos? and need to maintain ??order? is a standard rationalization used to excuse tyranny and oppression for centuries. When Monarchies dominated the Western world it was commonly thought that without a powerful King you would have chaos. Democracy was a synonym for chaos. In more recent times numerous military dictatorships have justified their actions by claiming they were ??keeping order? and that democracy would bring ??chaos.? Even the evil empire in Star Wars uses this justification. It was wrong in all those cases and it is still wrong today.
VIII. End the Occupation!
Even if a civil war were to occur after the end of the occupation (and there??s no grounds to assume that), there is no reason to think it would be any worse than the current war. So far, the war has killed over 37,000 Iraqi civilians, 900 American soldiers and 4,000 Iraqi soldiers (plus an unknown, probably very large, number killed by the collapse of the economy and US-imposed neoliberal reforms). [47] Continuing it will only kill more people.
Iraq has been devastated by over a decade of war and sanctions that wrecked the economy and has now driven the unemployment to 70%. [48] Foreign troops are not necessary for Iraq to rebuild, but their presence (and attempts to build a puppet government that will continue the war against the rebels) make recovery impossible. Pro-war conservatives like to emphasize American efforts to rebuild Iraq by constructing schools and other facilities, but little of this is going on. Only 2% of the funds allocated by Congress for reconstruction have been spent. None has been spent on construction, health care, sanitation or water projects and more has been spent on administration than on ??all projects related to education, human rights, democracy and governance.? [49] Part of the reason for this is the war, which is disrupting reconstruction and the economy. It also gives the US greater power over the Iraqi government, since these funds can be cut off if it becomes too disobedient. American-led ??reconstruction? is really imposing a neocolonial ??free market? model on Iraq, subordinating their economy to the needs of US investors. This same model has been forced on many other ??third world? countries and resulted in massive poverty and corruption every time. [50] So long as the war continues Iraq cannot recover. An American victory over the insurgency will only result in a phony ??recovery? that turns Iraq into an impoverished semi-colony of the United States. Continuing the war will not make any of this better but ending it will.
Even in the worst-case scenario things in Iraq wouldn??t be worse than they are now, with civil war, etc. In the better scenarios things could be considerably better, with an improving economy, fewer people dying, independence, etc. Therefore, it is better to pull out because there is a good chance that things will be much better, and even if they aren??t things won??t be any worse then they are now.
Some argue for greater UN involvement in the occupation, and that the solution is to have a truly international force in Iraq. This may help defeat the resistance and support Iraq??s new dictatorship, but it is still imperialism. The UN is not some benevolent organization; historically it has served as a collective tool for the imperialist powers, legitimizing their conquests. The main imperialist powers have a veto in the Security Council, which makes the UN powerless unless it acts in their collective interests. The UN has assisted imperialism in Zaire, Bosnia, and many other places. It was the UN that implemented the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. The UN frequently pressures weak countries not to develop ??weapons of mass destruction? yet do little to pressure strong countries to give up their ??weapons of mass destruction.? This leaves weak countries easy prey for strong countries. All an internationalized force will do is spread the benefits and costs of the occupation to additional countries (and possibly certain transnational institutions). A genuine conglomerate of nations, instead of a single nation, would dominate and exploit Iraq. That??s no improvement. Occupiers with blue helmets are still occupiers.
Beyond the (probably positive) impact on Iraq, a victory for the Iraqi resistance, resulting in the withdrawal of US troops and the fall of the US??s puppet government, would have positive results on the international situation. The more successful the Iraqi resistance is, the harder it will be for the US to completely disregard world opinion and engage in blatant aggression against other countries as it has done in Iraq. Its forces will be tied down in Iraq, making an invasion of other countries much more difficult. Thanks to the Iraqi resistance saber rattling against Iran, Syria and other countries, although still present, is not carried to the degree it was previously expected. The US is not presently building up to invade another country because the resistance in Iraq makes doing so difficult.
A victory by the resistance will push these effects against US imperialism to the maximum. It will deprive the US of bases in Iraq (strategically placed in the center of the Middle East), making invasions even more difficult and lessening US domination of the Middle East. It will provide an example to other victims of US aggression and encourage them to resist American imperialism. If the Iraqis can American aggression, then so can other countries. Defeat of the world??s most powerful nation by a bunch of ragtag guerillas would have repercussions around the world, perhaps even domestically in Britain and America. Bush??s ??pre-emptive war? doctrine would be shredded and the US would be forced to take a much less aggressive stance, if the whole empire doesn??t crumble. In short, the American empire would be dealt a major blow. As the US is the main force suppressing change around the world in any kind of libertarian or progressive direction, this would open up possibilities for positive change in many parts of the world.
The average American gains little from the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Instead we get to pay the bill, suffer from a greater likelihood of terrorist attacks, die in combat and face an increased possibility of the draft returning. The benefits, of greater power and profit, go predominantly to the American ruling class & state, not to the average American. Colonialists have invented doomsday scenarios to justify imperialism for centuries, but they have rarely come true. It is unlikely that these doomsday scenarios will come true in Iraq, and even if they did it would be no worse than perpetuating the occupation. Continuing the war will only bring more death and destruction, it??s time to end it. It??s time to get out of Iraq.
