SSD’s first film screening last night went very well, and the discussion period, generally speaking, could not have gone better. Around twenty or so people turned out for the film, and most everyone stuck around afterwards to drink coffee and participate in the discussion. While a considerable section of those in attendance were there for extra credit, the fact that many people stayed afterwards, I would think, indicates an interest that moved beyond bonus points.
The discussion covered the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the roots of terrorism, and the role of the US in the Middle East. A lot of really interesting points were raised and I think that there’s a potential that we were able to get some serious contacts.
One of the most important things that we need to be able to do in organizing events like this is presenting people with a concrete, practical way to put what they learned into action. As several of us discussed last night, once we get a permanent meeting place set up and our film screenings finalized that sort of practical suggestion will be a bit more readily accessible.
-RP
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Paradise Now at CSU
Tomorrow night, SSD will show the Palestinian film "Paradise Now" in Room 254 at the Davidson Student Center. While the film starts at 8, it would be great if some people could get there a bit early to help set everything up. We have the room reserved from 6 to 11, so after the movie we will have time for coffee and discussion.
We are also need to begin to plan for Feb 17 and for the "Dissident Dinner" after the film tomorrow night.
Hope to see everyone there!
-RP
We are also need to begin to plan for Feb 17 and for the "Dissident Dinner" after the film tomorrow night.
Hope to see everyone there!
-RP
Why Palestine Matters
Much of the information presented in the mainstream media is done so in such a manner that avoids context. It is presented in a manner that paints global affairs as a collection of disparate events with no history or precedent. Nowhere is this more true than with the coverage of the conflict in and over Palestine. US support for Israel is not presented in the context of its wider policies in the region. Each policy decsion in the region and each relationship is viewed independently and not part of any sort of grand strategy. The situation in Palestine is doubly worse than the other instances because the conflict there is presented in such a way as to make it almost mystical, like some sort of cosmic battle. US support for Israel is not considered in the context of its geographic location at the heart of the oil producing region of the world. It is also not considered in the context of the historical role that it has served as a broker for US power in the region. Furthermore, those who criticize Israel and its policies are either ignored or, as in the case of former President Jimmy Carter, villified.
US support for Israel exists within the context of American imperial interests in the Middle East. The same is true for its relationship with any of the other states in the region. This includes its occupation of Iraq and belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Despite the claims made by US leaders and their apologists, American activity in the region has little to do with humanitarian issues and more to do with economic and political concerns. The US is a state that acts in its own interest, just like any other state. When these interests coincide with the needs of a particular population, that is all fine and well, but when they don’t, it is simply not an issue. Morality is not a part of the equation. Put simply, this is the nature of international relations and it is within this framework that US policy towards Israel must be understood.
Historically, Israel has served as a crucial ally to the US in the region. A 1953 editorial in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz articulated its position in the region, “Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog… Israel [can] be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.” Still in the process of proving it’s value, in 1967 it helped to put down a nationalist movement that was sweeping the Arab world. The Arab nationalists sought to break away from both sides in the Cold War and chart their own independent path. In helping to crush this rebellion, Israel helped to secure continued American dominance. It was also at this time that it occupied several territories, most importantly the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, that made up what was left of Palestine. Viewed as an imperial outpost from the start, Israel’s existance provided a key motivation that allowed the nationalist movement to develop, and its expansion into new territories only furthered the anger in the region. The value of Israel as a strategic ally would mean, however, that its expansion would be supported despite its destabilizing influence. The exploitation of the issue of Palestine would also continue to serve as a means in which despotic rulers in the region could win support at home and abroad.
The criminal, racist treatment of the occupied population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to this day, giving lie to the myth of US benevolence and enflaming passions in the region. The importance of Israel as a strategic ally of the US in the region has, however, created a political culture in the US in which criticism of this support is akin to political suicide. Indeed, this past summer, as Israeli bombers, in the words of Defense Minister Dan Halutz, “set Lebanon back 20 years,” leading liberal politicians in the US lined up behind the war. Congress even voted to send emergency military aid to assist in the assault after the Israeli Defense Forces announced that they were in danger of running out of bombs. Deviation from this sort of blind support, as has been seen with the recent denunciations of Jimmy Carter, is greeted with jeers and ironic accusations of bigotry.
While one could raise issue with the conduct of his presidency, in the past several months Carter has helped to thrust the issue of Palestine and the realities of life under the occupation into the national spotlight. His best-selling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has made him a target more of mean-spirited personal attacks than of actual criticisms of his work. The mainstream media has lined up in this attack. For example, many of the recent articles about the former president tout the fact that fourteen members of the board of the Carter Center resigned in protest of the book. The articles regularly fail to mention that the board has nearly three hundred members and membership is largely a symbolic gesture of gratitude for financial contributions. Commenting at a recent speaking engagement, he lamented, “This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist.” Explaining the thesis of his book, he argued, “The alternative to peace is apartheid… And there [under the occupation], apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers.”
The dubious nature of the occupation of Palestine, accepted because of the role that Israel serves for US interests in the region, is part of the same regional policies that lead to the war on Iraq and US threats against Iran and Syria. With Israel functioning as a s a “watchdog” for US power in the region, the fate of the people of Palestine and those of Iraq are intimately linked. The repressive policies enacted against them are connected. It is part of the drive for US dominance in the region. Just as Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat, US support for Israel does not continue because of humanitarian concerns, but because of what the US can get out of the deal. Talk of an Israeli assault on Iran further illustrates this point. Despite the seemingly disjointed picture of world affairs presented in the media and by our political leaders, reality is far different. For those of us concerned about the conduct of the US in Iraq, we must understand that it is part of a wider policy. We must understand that the hand behind the violence in Baghdad is the same that is behind the repression in Jerusalem or Gaza City.
-RP
US support for Israel exists within the context of American imperial interests in the Middle East. The same is true for its relationship with any of the other states in the region. This includes its occupation of Iraq and belligerence towards Iran and Syria. Despite the claims made by US leaders and their apologists, American activity in the region has little to do with humanitarian issues and more to do with economic and political concerns. The US is a state that acts in its own interest, just like any other state. When these interests coincide with the needs of a particular population, that is all fine and well, but when they don’t, it is simply not an issue. Morality is not a part of the equation. Put simply, this is the nature of international relations and it is within this framework that US policy towards Israel must be understood.
Historically, Israel has served as a crucial ally to the US in the region. A 1953 editorial in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz articulated its position in the region, “Israel helps the Western powers maintain equilibrium and stability in the Middle East. Israel is to become the watchdog… Israel [can] be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.” Still in the process of proving it’s value, in 1967 it helped to put down a nationalist movement that was sweeping the Arab world. The Arab nationalists sought to break away from both sides in the Cold War and chart their own independent path. In helping to crush this rebellion, Israel helped to secure continued American dominance. It was also at this time that it occupied several territories, most importantly the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, that made up what was left of Palestine. Viewed as an imperial outpost from the start, Israel’s existance provided a key motivation that allowed the nationalist movement to develop, and its expansion into new territories only furthered the anger in the region. The value of Israel as a strategic ally would mean, however, that its expansion would be supported despite its destabilizing influence. The exploitation of the issue of Palestine would also continue to serve as a means in which despotic rulers in the region could win support at home and abroad.
The criminal, racist treatment of the occupied population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip continues to this day, giving lie to the myth of US benevolence and enflaming passions in the region. The importance of Israel as a strategic ally of the US in the region has, however, created a political culture in the US in which criticism of this support is akin to political suicide. Indeed, this past summer, as Israeli bombers, in the words of Defense Minister Dan Halutz, “set Lebanon back 20 years,” leading liberal politicians in the US lined up behind the war. Congress even voted to send emergency military aid to assist in the assault after the Israeli Defense Forces announced that they were in danger of running out of bombs. Deviation from this sort of blind support, as has been seen with the recent denunciations of Jimmy Carter, is greeted with jeers and ironic accusations of bigotry.
While one could raise issue with the conduct of his presidency, in the past several months Carter has helped to thrust the issue of Palestine and the realities of life under the occupation into the national spotlight. His best-selling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, has made him a target more of mean-spirited personal attacks than of actual criticisms of his work. The mainstream media has lined up in this attack. For example, many of the recent articles about the former president tout the fact that fourteen members of the board of the Carter Center resigned in protest of the book. The articles regularly fail to mention that the board has nearly three hundred members and membership is largely a symbolic gesture of gratitude for financial contributions. Commenting at a recent speaking engagement, he lamented, “This is the first time that I've ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist.” Explaining the thesis of his book, he argued, “The alternative to peace is apartheid… And there [under the occupation], apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights. Their land has been occupied and then confiscated and then colonized by the Israeli settlers.”
The dubious nature of the occupation of Palestine, accepted because of the role that Israel serves for US interests in the region, is part of the same regional policies that lead to the war on Iraq and US threats against Iran and Syria. With Israel functioning as a s a “watchdog” for US power in the region, the fate of the people of Palestine and those of Iraq are intimately linked. The repressive policies enacted against them are connected. It is part of the drive for US dominance in the region. Just as Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat, US support for Israel does not continue because of humanitarian concerns, but because of what the US can get out of the deal. Talk of an Israeli assault on Iran further illustrates this point. Despite the seemingly disjointed picture of world affairs presented in the media and by our political leaders, reality is far different. For those of us concerned about the conduct of the US in Iraq, we must understand that it is part of a wider policy. We must understand that the hand behind the violence in Baghdad is the same that is behind the repression in Jerusalem or Gaza City.
-RP
Friday, January 19, 2007
Mass Politics or How to End a War
As the occupation of Iraq enters its fourth year, the Bush Administration and the supporters of the war in Washington are finding themselves increasingly isolated. While the presidential election in November 2004 saw an electorate split on the issue of the war, a decisive shift occurred in the intervening two years. In the fall of 2006, the so-called “Republican Revolution” ended. Given the limitations of the two-party system, the Democrats reaped the benefits of public’s rejection of the war. While the election demonstrated a firm sense of opposition, the newly elected leaders have given little indication that they will act on the wishes of their constituents. The Bush Administration responded to the election first by sacrificing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then by rejecting much of the findings of the Iraq Study Group (ISG) Report and announcing an escalation of the war. The newly triumphant Democrats have relied more on pushing for a new approach to winning the war based on the ISG prescriptions than calling for an end to the occupation.
Both parties have an interest in seeing the occupation succeed, and, baring pressure from below will not budge on this point. Public opinion is solidly against the war, but so long as this is just the opinion of isolated individuals, it can be safely ignored. Only when this opinion becomes crystallized and channeled into organized, collective opposition that those in power can be compelled to act. Writing in the aftermath of the selection of George W. Bush as president in the fall of 2000 the radical historian Howard Zinn observed, “[T]he really critical thing isn’t who is sitting in the White House but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens.” Even a brief look at American history indicates this much. The basis of any sort of meaningful reform has come on action from below, from ordinary people organizing and taking to the streets to demand their rights. Women’s right to vote and an end to Jim Crow was not brought about by decree; it was won through mass action, through collective struggle. This same sort of movement is what will be needed to bring about an end to the Iraq war.
The invasion of Iraq was launched nearly four years ago on what has been shown to be wholly false pretenses. The administration, leaders of both parties, and the media argued that the Iraqi regime possessed banned weapons and had links with al-Qaeda terrorists. They said that Saddam Hussein represented a direct, imminent threat to the US, and ignored or vilified all those who voiced their dissent. From their posh offices in the capital, they sent hundreds of thousands of men and women our age to fight and die to defend America from this “threat.”
Since 2003, more than 3,000 Americans have died with more than 20,000 maimed. Iraqis have fared far worse. Publishing their report last fall, a study conducted by teams from Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad estimated that 650,000 people died violent deaths because of the occupation. Tens of thousands of soldiers who escaped the physical scars of the war have come home with the emotional wounds of combat. Millions of Iraqis will bare the emotional scars of the daily horrors that they endure and their children grow up in.
The damage done by the invasion and occupation has not meant improved conditions for the Iraqi people. A recent poll conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies found that only five percent of the population thought that they were better off than in 2003. Unemployment ranges from an average of 30 percent to as high as 70 percent in some areas. Electricity also remains a rarity with an average of eleven hours per day in much of the country with Baghdad lagging behind at around six. On top of its economic problems, the country has descended into civil war combined with the guerilla war. A recent United Nations report found that more than 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006. The sordid state of affairs has also lead to a massive, if ignored, refugee crisis with the UN reporting an estimated 1.6 million refugees with a 100,000 people fleeing the country each month. With such a grim situation, even people like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a sort of foreign policy guru, have called the war unwinnable.
As Bush announced his decision to escalate the war, many soldiers were preparing for a second, third, or even fourth tour of duty while others were gearing up for an extended stay. While supporters of the war often tout the slogan “Support the Troops,” one might ask whether a more effective way of showing this support would be working to ensure their safety rather than sending them into harm’s way again and again. Echoing this point, antiwar writer Anthony Arnove argued, “A clear majority of active-duty U.S. troops want to come home, as a much-ignored Zogby International poll found in early 2005, with 72 percent saying they wanted to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War are pushing for immediate withdrawal, as well as reparations.” Commenting from Iraq on the situation of US soldiers, Sgt. Ron Cantu said, “It’s a belief of the soldiers I’ve talked to that any troop increase over here, it’s just going to be more sitting ducks, more targets. Everything we’re doing is reactive.”
The vast majority of the Iraqi people want all foreign troops out of their country. They are very clear on this point, and virtually every poll conducted there since the start of the occupation has indicated as much. Any meaningful commitment to democracy must mean allowing the people of Iraq the right to determine their own future. The US did not invade out of self-defense or to liberate the Iraqi people. It invaded to secure its own interests at the region, and, in this case, those interests are not the best interests of either the people of Iraq or the US. Far from being a stabilizing force in the country, the occupation is the principle source of instability. The US has destroyed Iraq, and it must leave immediately before it does more damage.
The American people voted against the war and the Bush Administration last November. The message sent to both parties and the administration was a clear rejection of the war. On that same note, seven out of ten people oppose the administration’s escalation. Both parties, however, are in the process of snubbing their noses to American public opinion. The Democrats were elected to oppose the war and with their control over its finances, they could end it if they wanted to. Despite their criticisms of the administration’s plans, they are not making any real effort to oppose them. They will continue to ignore American public opinion so long as people remain quiet and isolated from one another. Like the movement against the Vietnam War or for civil rights, it is only when people organize themselves and make public opinion impossible to ignore that those in power will act. Sharing the stage with Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1963 march on the capital, John Lewis of the Student Non-Violent Organizing Committee passionately articulated the case for mass politics. While he was instructed to tone down his speech, the points argued forcefully in his original draft hold true today. He wrote, “We cannot depend on any political party, for both the Democrats and the Republicans have betrayed the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence. We all recognize the fact that if any radical social, political and economic changes are to take place in our society, the people, the masses, must bring them about. In the struggle we must seek more than more civil rights; we must work for the community love, peace, and true brotherhood. Our minds, souls, and hearts cannot rest until freedom and justice exist for all the people.”
-RP
Both parties have an interest in seeing the occupation succeed, and, baring pressure from below will not budge on this point. Public opinion is solidly against the war, but so long as this is just the opinion of isolated individuals, it can be safely ignored. Only when this opinion becomes crystallized and channeled into organized, collective opposition that those in power can be compelled to act. Writing in the aftermath of the selection of George W. Bush as president in the fall of 2000 the radical historian Howard Zinn observed, “[T]he really critical thing isn’t who is sitting in the White House but who is sitting in--in the streets, in the cafeterias, in the halls of government, in the factories. Who is protesting, who is occupying offices and demonstrating--those are the things that determine what happens.” Even a brief look at American history indicates this much. The basis of any sort of meaningful reform has come on action from below, from ordinary people organizing and taking to the streets to demand their rights. Women’s right to vote and an end to Jim Crow was not brought about by decree; it was won through mass action, through collective struggle. This same sort of movement is what will be needed to bring about an end to the Iraq war.
The invasion of Iraq was launched nearly four years ago on what has been shown to be wholly false pretenses. The administration, leaders of both parties, and the media argued that the Iraqi regime possessed banned weapons and had links with al-Qaeda terrorists. They said that Saddam Hussein represented a direct, imminent threat to the US, and ignored or vilified all those who voiced their dissent. From their posh offices in the capital, they sent hundreds of thousands of men and women our age to fight and die to defend America from this “threat.”
Since 2003, more than 3,000 Americans have died with more than 20,000 maimed. Iraqis have fared far worse. Publishing their report last fall, a study conducted by teams from Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad estimated that 650,000 people died violent deaths because of the occupation. Tens of thousands of soldiers who escaped the physical scars of the war have come home with the emotional wounds of combat. Millions of Iraqis will bare the emotional scars of the daily horrors that they endure and their children grow up in.
The damage done by the invasion and occupation has not meant improved conditions for the Iraqi people. A recent poll conducted by the Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies found that only five percent of the population thought that they were better off than in 2003. Unemployment ranges from an average of 30 percent to as high as 70 percent in some areas. Electricity also remains a rarity with an average of eleven hours per day in much of the country with Baghdad lagging behind at around six. On top of its economic problems, the country has descended into civil war combined with the guerilla war. A recent United Nations report found that more than 34,000 civilians were killed in 2006. The sordid state of affairs has also lead to a massive, if ignored, refugee crisis with the UN reporting an estimated 1.6 million refugees with a 100,000 people fleeing the country each month. With such a grim situation, even people like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a sort of foreign policy guru, have called the war unwinnable.
As Bush announced his decision to escalate the war, many soldiers were preparing for a second, third, or even fourth tour of duty while others were gearing up for an extended stay. While supporters of the war often tout the slogan “Support the Troops,” one might ask whether a more effective way of showing this support would be working to ensure their safety rather than sending them into harm’s way again and again. Echoing this point, antiwar writer Anthony Arnove argued, “A clear majority of active-duty U.S. troops want to come home, as a much-ignored Zogby International poll found in early 2005, with 72 percent saying they wanted to be out of Iraq by the end of 2006. Groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War are pushing for immediate withdrawal, as well as reparations.” Commenting from Iraq on the situation of US soldiers, Sgt. Ron Cantu said, “It’s a belief of the soldiers I’ve talked to that any troop increase over here, it’s just going to be more sitting ducks, more targets. Everything we’re doing is reactive.”
The vast majority of the Iraqi people want all foreign troops out of their country. They are very clear on this point, and virtually every poll conducted there since the start of the occupation has indicated as much. Any meaningful commitment to democracy must mean allowing the people of Iraq the right to determine their own future. The US did not invade out of self-defense or to liberate the Iraqi people. It invaded to secure its own interests at the region, and, in this case, those interests are not the best interests of either the people of Iraq or the US. Far from being a stabilizing force in the country, the occupation is the principle source of instability. The US has destroyed Iraq, and it must leave immediately before it does more damage.
The American people voted against the war and the Bush Administration last November. The message sent to both parties and the administration was a clear rejection of the war. On that same note, seven out of ten people oppose the administration’s escalation. Both parties, however, are in the process of snubbing their noses to American public opinion. The Democrats were elected to oppose the war and with their control over its finances, they could end it if they wanted to. Despite their criticisms of the administration’s plans, they are not making any real effort to oppose them. They will continue to ignore American public opinion so long as people remain quiet and isolated from one another. Like the movement against the Vietnam War or for civil rights, it is only when people organize themselves and make public opinion impossible to ignore that those in power will act. Sharing the stage with Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1963 march on the capital, John Lewis of the Student Non-Violent Organizing Committee passionately articulated the case for mass politics. While he was instructed to tone down his speech, the points argued forcefully in his original draft hold true today. He wrote, “We cannot depend on any political party, for both the Democrats and the Republicans have betrayed the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence. We all recognize the fact that if any radical social, political and economic changes are to take place in our society, the people, the masses, must bring them about. In the struggle we must seek more than more civil rights; we must work for the community love, peace, and true brotherhood. Our minds, souls, and hearts cannot rest until freedom and justice exist for all the people.”
-RP
Monday, January 15, 2007
Petition on Ending the Occupation
The following is a petition that is being circulated by the antiwar movement articulating a call for an immediate withdrawal of foriegn forces from Iraq. It might be something that we could work into our tabling on campus, and something we could organize around.
RP
--
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/
--
Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq
THE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis.
Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them.
Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion.
All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion — to control Iraq's oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region — now stand revealed.
The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war.
The November elections in the United States sent a clear message that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail.
Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate Democrats, aren't about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq. Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S. goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means.
Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued U.S. intervention inside Iraq.
With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen. William Odom calling for "complete withdrawal" of all U.S. troops, the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine their own future.
We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now.
RP
--
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/OutNow/
--
Why we stand for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq
THE U.S. occupation of Iraq has not liberated the Iraqi people, but has made life worse for most Iraqis.
Tens of thousands of U.S. service people have been killed or maimed, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have lost their lives as a result of the U.S. invasion in 2003, the ongoing occupation, and the violence unleashed by them.
Iraq's infrastructure has been destroyed, and U.S. plans for reconstruction abandoned. There is less electricity, less clean drinking water, and more unemployment today than before the U.S. invasion.
All of the justifications initially provided by the U.S. for waging war on Iraq have been exposed as lies; the real reasons for the invasion — to control Iraq's oil reserves and to increase U.S. strategic influence in the region — now stand revealed.
The Bush administration has insisted again and again that stability, democracy, and prosperity are around the next bend in the road. But with each day that the U.S. stays, the violence and lack of security facing Iraqis worsen. The U.S. says that it cannot withdraw its military because Iraq will collapse into civil war if it does. But the U.S. has deliberately stoked sectarian divisions in its ongoing attempt to install a U.S.-friendly regime, thus driving Iraq towards civil war.
The November elections in the United States sent a clear message that voters reject the Iraq war, and opinion polls show that seven in 10 Iraqis want the U.S. to leave sooner rather than later. Even most U.S. military and political leaders agree that staying the course in Iraq is a policy that is bound to fail.
Yet all the various alternative plans for Iraq now being discussed in Washington, including those proposed by House and Senate Democrats, aren't about withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq. Rather, these strategies are about continuing the pursuit of U.S. goals in Iraq and the larger Middle East using different means.
Even the proposal to redeploy U.S. troops outside of Iraq, a plan favored by many Democratic Party leaders, envisions continued U.S. intervention inside Iraq.
With former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger insisting that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible and (Ret.) Lt. Gen. William Odom calling for "complete withdrawal" of all U.S. troops, the antiwar movement should demand no less than the immediate withdrawal of the U.S. military — as well as reparations to the Iraqi people, so they can rebuild their own society and genuinely determine their own future.
We call on the U.S. to get out of Iraq — not in six months, not in a year, but now.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Revenge, Not Justice
The execution of Saddam Hussein in the early morning hours of December 30 had nothing to do with justice. Like so many other killings in Iraq, it was just another act of sectarian violence. With farcical legal proceedings under the guise of a foreign occupation and a hasty execution by masked Shiite militiamen at the start of the Sunni Eid al-Adha holdiay, the US succeeded in doing what Saddam tried for nearly three decades to do. They made him into a hero in the eyes of millions throughout the Arab world. The reaction in Iraq was, however, mixed. As the head of a regime that they saw destroy their country and torture and murder hundreds of thousands of their compatriots, many Iraqis likely felt relief when they heard he was dead. A feeling of relief does not necessarily imply a sense of justice served. Revenge is not justice. Even the revenge, however, was sectarian in nature. Saddam was put to death for the murder of 148 men in 1982 while he was beginning a trial for the gasing of 5,000 Kurds. If justice was a serious concern, then every effort would have been made both to have an impartial trial, address all of his crimes, and launch procedings his co-conspirators, including foreign backers. The execution was both a rejection of justice and an assertion of dominance by Shia radicals.
Putting former leaders on trial and organizing truth commissions are an important part of a transition from dictatorship to democracy. It acknowledges and condemns past crimes, bringing those responsible to justice. In doing so, it provides the basis for a new government based on the rule of law. The trial and execution of the Iraqi dictator met none of these critera. The trial was roundly condemned by human rights groups and international legal experts.
Few outside of the US believe the trial to have been anything more than a farce. One judge resigned in protest of interference, while another was forced from the case after he openly announced his bias. Three members of the defense team were assassinated, while the occupation forces and Iraqi government refused to provide them with security. The use of secret testimony from anonymous witnesses prevented the defense from effectively challenging evidence against their client. Citing a report by Human Rights Watch, independent journalist Nir Rosen argues, “the Iraqi judges and lawyers involved in prosecuting Saddam were ill prepared and relied on their American advisers. American minders shut off the microphones and ordered the translators to halt whenever they disapproved of what was being said by the defendants.” Furthering this point, author and journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote, “The US made every effort to portray the trial of Saddam as an Iraqi-run affair, but the former leader was right in seeing it as orchestrated by Washington. If confirmation of this were needed, it came when the date for announcing his death sentence was moved to November 5, so it could be the leading item on the news the day before the US midterm elections.”
The execution of Saddam at the start of Eid al-Adha for the murder of 148 Shiites when he was on trial for the murder of 5,000 Kurds was an assertion of dominance by the newly triumphant Shia radicals. In Sunni Islam, Eid al-Adha, a holiday traditionally marked with celebrations and temporary truces, begins on December 30, while for the Shia it begins on the 31. The timing was a diliberate affront, confirmed by anti-Sunni chants during the execution. With Sunni being the denomination of the vast majority of people in the region, this affront transcended national borders and helped make him into a martry. The decision to begin a series of trials with the crimes committed at Dujail was also a sectarian move. The murders in 1982 came following an attempt on Saddam’s life by Dawa activists. Dawa is now one of three major political parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite political bloc that dominates the Iraqi government. The murders in Dujail, while serious, pale in comparison to the dictator’s other crimes. His hanging after this one trial also prevents other groups of Iraqis from, albiet in a rigged trial, feeling like their grievances were being addressed.
The prevention of future trials also precludes any hope of bringing Saddam’s collaborators to justice. While noticeably absent from the coverage of the trial and execution, the bulk of the dictator’s most serious crimes came at a time when he was a staunch US ally. Indeed, in 1982 the US removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld served as President Ronald Reagan’s special presidential envoy to Iraq to renew diplomatic relations with Saddam over the course of the next several years. Throughout the 1980s the US also provided Iraq with funds and logistical support both in its war against Iran and later in the genocidal campaign against the Kurds from 1988-9. The first President Bush even went so far as to veto a bill that would have cut funding to Iraq in protest of the genocide. Saddam’s execution therefore may also serve as to avoid a series of inconvinient trials that would implicate former and current US officials. Commenting on this point, Iraq expert Michael Swchartz recently wrote, “Given a chance to defend himself, Saddam made it clear that his defense would include fully documenting American complicity in his use of chemical weapons, the tacit (or maybe explicit) endorsement by the Bush Sr. administration of his invasion of Kuwait, and the general complicity of all manner of foreign governments in his various crimes.”
The execution of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with justice, and will do nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. It is merely one of an ever increasing number of “turning points” in the occupation. The Bush Administration has argued that the death of Saddam will help to difuse an important section of the Iraqi resistance and help the occupation forces in their fight against al-Qaeda. The reality of the situation is far different and much more complex than the adminstration admits. Saddam has long been irelevant to the resistance movement and while their domination of the headlines may indicate a different picture, al-Qaeda fighters, by virtually all accounts, number in the hundreds and only represent a tiny faction of the anti-occupation forces. The Iraqi resistance is predominantly native in origin with varrying degrees of nationalist and religious motivations. The execution of Saddam will not undermine the movement against the occupation. It will only serve to inflame sectarian tensions and anti-American sentiment both in Iraq and the region as a whole.
-RP
Putting former leaders on trial and organizing truth commissions are an important part of a transition from dictatorship to democracy. It acknowledges and condemns past crimes, bringing those responsible to justice. In doing so, it provides the basis for a new government based on the rule of law. The trial and execution of the Iraqi dictator met none of these critera. The trial was roundly condemned by human rights groups and international legal experts.
Few outside of the US believe the trial to have been anything more than a farce. One judge resigned in protest of interference, while another was forced from the case after he openly announced his bias. Three members of the defense team were assassinated, while the occupation forces and Iraqi government refused to provide them with security. The use of secret testimony from anonymous witnesses prevented the defense from effectively challenging evidence against their client. Citing a report by Human Rights Watch, independent journalist Nir Rosen argues, “the Iraqi judges and lawyers involved in prosecuting Saddam were ill prepared and relied on their American advisers. American minders shut off the microphones and ordered the translators to halt whenever they disapproved of what was being said by the defendants.” Furthering this point, author and journalist Patrick Cockburn wrote, “The US made every effort to portray the trial of Saddam as an Iraqi-run affair, but the former leader was right in seeing it as orchestrated by Washington. If confirmation of this were needed, it came when the date for announcing his death sentence was moved to November 5, so it could be the leading item on the news the day before the US midterm elections.”
The execution of Saddam at the start of Eid al-Adha for the murder of 148 Shiites when he was on trial for the murder of 5,000 Kurds was an assertion of dominance by the newly triumphant Shia radicals. In Sunni Islam, Eid al-Adha, a holiday traditionally marked with celebrations and temporary truces, begins on December 30, while for the Shia it begins on the 31. The timing was a diliberate affront, confirmed by anti-Sunni chants during the execution. With Sunni being the denomination of the vast majority of people in the region, this affront transcended national borders and helped make him into a martry. The decision to begin a series of trials with the crimes committed at Dujail was also a sectarian move. The murders in 1982 came following an attempt on Saddam’s life by Dawa activists. Dawa is now one of three major political parties in the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite political bloc that dominates the Iraqi government. The murders in Dujail, while serious, pale in comparison to the dictator’s other crimes. His hanging after this one trial also prevents other groups of Iraqis from, albiet in a rigged trial, feeling like their grievances were being addressed.
The prevention of future trials also precludes any hope of bringing Saddam’s collaborators to justice. While noticeably absent from the coverage of the trial and execution, the bulk of the dictator’s most serious crimes came at a time when he was a staunch US ally. Indeed, in 1982 the US removed Iraq from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism. Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld served as President Ronald Reagan’s special presidential envoy to Iraq to renew diplomatic relations with Saddam over the course of the next several years. Throughout the 1980s the US also provided Iraq with funds and logistical support both in its war against Iran and later in the genocidal campaign against the Kurds from 1988-9. The first President Bush even went so far as to veto a bill that would have cut funding to Iraq in protest of the genocide. Saddam’s execution therefore may also serve as to avoid a series of inconvinient trials that would implicate former and current US officials. Commenting on this point, Iraq expert Michael Swchartz recently wrote, “Given a chance to defend himself, Saddam made it clear that his defense would include fully documenting American complicity in his use of chemical weapons, the tacit (or maybe explicit) endorsement by the Bush Sr. administration of his invasion of Kuwait, and the general complicity of all manner of foreign governments in his various crimes.”
The execution of Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with justice, and will do nothing to improve the situation in Iraq. It is merely one of an ever increasing number of “turning points” in the occupation. The Bush Administration has argued that the death of Saddam will help to difuse an important section of the Iraqi resistance and help the occupation forces in their fight against al-Qaeda. The reality of the situation is far different and much more complex than the adminstration admits. Saddam has long been irelevant to the resistance movement and while their domination of the headlines may indicate a different picture, al-Qaeda fighters, by virtually all accounts, number in the hundreds and only represent a tiny faction of the anti-occupation forces. The Iraqi resistance is predominantly native in origin with varrying degrees of nationalist and religious motivations. The execution of Saddam will not undermine the movement against the occupation. It will only serve to inflame sectarian tensions and anti-American sentiment both in Iraq and the region as a whole.
-RP
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)