[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [Ufpj-disc] "Out Now!" - Why Now?

[Morton K. Brussel]

Aside from leaving out the U.S motives, or contractual presence, to  
establish worldwide control of resources in the middle east, this is  
a good summary of why "we" ought to leave Iraq now, totally.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Max Elbaum <maxie at igc.org>
> Date: October 26, 2007 12:29:47 PM CDT
> To: ufpj-disc at lists.mayfirst.org
> Subject: [Ufpj-disc] "Out Now!" - Why Now?
> Reply-To: Max Elbaum <maxie at igc.org>
>
> **Please see footer for list protocol**
>
> Washington's Wars and Occupations:
> Month in Review #30
> October 26, 2007
> By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras
>
> "OUT NOW!" - WHY NOW?
>
> These days even pro-war figures admit that things in Iraq are
> messy and difficult. Gone are slogans like "Mission
> Accomplished" and pronouncements that "we'll be greeted as
> liberators" and "we'll create a model pro-Western democracy in
> the Middle East."
>
> Instead, the people who spread those fantasies (and baited
> dissenters as "helping the terrorists") have retreated to
> Argument B: Yes, things are bad over there, they concede. And
> maybe Bush administration mistakes are partly to blame. But the
> real problem is failure, incompetence and "age-old hatred" among
> Iraqis themselves. Things will be even worse if the U.S. gets
> out: right now it's only our military presence that's standing
> between Iraq and genocidal civil war. Further, an
> "irresponsible" withdrawal will give heart to terrorism
> worldwide and threaten the security of people at home.
>
> These fallback arguments are aimed especially at the millions in
> this country for whom Iraq has become a center-stage issue only
> in the recent past. It is crafted to appeal to a wide political
> spectrum: People who only questioned the war when the U.S.
> stopped "winning"; others who are sympathetic to Iraqi hardships
> but don't follow events there closely; still others who may be
> intensely critical of Bush and the war but believe that at
> bottom the U.S. is a force for good with the capacity to solve
> problems in other countries.	
>
> All these constituencies can be convinced that the best course
> for both Iraqis and the U.S. people is for the U.S. to withdraw
> immediately and totally. But this will require patient,
> respectful arguments. In addition to protest, mobilization and
> direct action, we must be prepared to reargue our case for
> withdrawal again and again.  (For information about this
> weekend's urgent protests in 11 cities, go to:
> http://www.oct27.org )
>
> U.S. MILITARY: SOLUTION OR PROBLEM?
>
> It is an agonizing time for all people of conscience in this
> country. We are appalled by the horrific events occurring in
> Iraq each day, and inevitably fearful about what may happen
> tomorrow. There are no guarantees. None of us can predict the
> future with certainty.	
>
> But we do have a guide to help us make our best estimate of
> future possibilities: the four-year track record of the U.S
> invasion and occupation. This record provides overwhelming
> evidence that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is a central
> feature of the disaster there rather than part of a solution.
> Take a few news reports from the last few weeks as examples:
>
> *Revelations that U.S. snipers regularly set "bait" for Iraqis,
> leaving an item on the ground and then shooting to kill anyone
> who stops to pick it up - man, woman or child.
>
> *Stories about U.S.-employed "security contractors" -
> unaccountable to any law whatsoever - opening fire and killing
> Iraqi civilians without provocation.
>
> *Heightened use of air power - including in densely populated
> SadrCity - with dozens of civilians killed as a result.
>
> Add these to the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib and the grim
> statistics accumulated over the last four years: Up to one
> million Iraqis killed. Almost four million forced to flee from
> their homes, half to neighboring countries and half displaced
> within Iraq. Reconstruction projects all behind schedule and
> mired in corruption while U.S. firms such as Halliburton and
> DynCorp make millions.	
>
> There's nothing in that track record showing that the U.S.
> occupation prevents violence in Iraq or fosters respectful
> treatment of the Iraqi people. To the contrary: everything
> indicates that Washington's presence is a source of violence and
> brutality.
>
> IRAQIS WANT U.S. OUT
>
> The majority of Iraqis themselves have reached exactly that
> conclusion. As early as August 2003, just five months after the
> invasion, a Zogby poll showed two-thirds of Iraqis wanted U.S.
> and British troops to leave within a year. Two years later,
> two-thirds of Iraqis wanted foreign troops out either
> immediately or as soon as the new Iraqi "sovereign" government
> was established. The latest BBC/ABC poll - taken months after
> the start of the U.S. "surge" - shows that big majorities think
> the surge has worsened the security situation and reduced
> opportunities for dialogue across sectarian lines. Now nearly
> 50% of Iraqis want immediate withdrawal and more than ever
> before - 57% - say that violence against U.S. troops is
> acceptable.
>
> Since Iraq belongs after all to the Iraqi people themselves, it
> would seem only fair - as well as sensible - to heed their
> opinion. Unfortunately, the U.S. people are bombarded day after
> day with propaganda that demeans the intelligence and humanity
> of Iraqis and hypes the notion that "America knows best." But
> Iraq is home to one of the oldest civilizations in the world,
> and it is a terrible mistake to underestimate the sophistication
> of Iraqi political actors and the Iraqi environment. True, by
> causing so much destruction and spurring the exodus of a high
> percentage of Iraq's educated classes the U.S. has probably
> reduced that sophistication (at least in forms of politics that
> U.S. people recognize). But as a Jordanian who worked for the
> U.S. Embassy recently told a delegation of U.S. visitors, "I
> believe the U.S. must leave completely. Iraq will have a
> difficult and bloody rebirth; it may take 10 or 15 years. But
> Iraq has enough heritage to recover, to stand on its own two
> feet. There is no other way."
>
> BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SECTARIAN WAR?
>
> But isn't it true that Iraqis are now engaged in a bitter
> sectarian war? Aren't Sunni insurgents and Shia death squads
> both killing civilians? Don't many Iraqis of both forms of Islam
> now look to the U.S. for protection? Here the elements of truth
> need to be carefully separated from the mountains of distortion.
>
> There is a sectarian civil war underway in Iraq. Many of the
> organized forces involved have reactionary social agendas that
> offer nothing positive to the Iraqi people as a whole. And it is
> true that in some specific instances, U.S. troops have prevented
> specific killings or massacres from taking place. No doubt many
> U.S. soldiers and officers sincerely see this as a key part of
> their mission.
>
> But the majority of Iraqis on both sides of the Sunni-Shia
> divide want the U.S. out because they recognize that
> fundamentally foreign occupation drives sectarian conflict and
> fosters the growth of the most reactionary elements. It doesn't
> heal divisions or promote democracy.
>
> The current civil war is not the result of "age-old hatred"
> between Shia and Sunni, who have lived peacefully in mixed
> neighborhoods (and religiously mixed families) for centuries.
> Rather, it is the result of 20^th century relations or power and
> privilege, all shaped by Western colonialism with its
> divide-and-conquer tactics. After 2003, Sunni-Shia violence was
> fueled by the decision of the U.S. "Provisional Authority" to
> set up its client government on a sectarian basis; by U.S.
> collective punishment of entire Sunni cities (such as Fallujah)
> for the insurgent activities of initially small groups; and by
> the U.S. training and supplying Shia death squads in its initial
> attempts to crush the mostly Sunni insurgency. More recently,
> the barrage of U.S. propaganda against Iran - Washington raising
> the danger of a "dangerous Shi'ite crescent" even while backing
> a mostly-Shi'ite and sympathetic-to-Iran government in Baghdad -
> has compounded the problem. And as long as Washington backs its
> client regime no matter what, the political figures who lead
> that regime have no incentive to compromise with their political
> opponents.
>
> Even with Washington behaving this way, the majority of Iraqis
> call for national reconciliation. And in contrast to
> administration distortions, the vast majority of armed attacks
> in Iraq are against U.S. troops or their Iraqi collaborators,
> not against Iraqi civilians (though these are often the most
> publicized and spectacular).
>
> One can perhaps imagine in the abstract an international force
> that - if it had the support and active cooperation of most
> Iraqis - could help suppress the sectarian violence spawned by
> invasion and occupation. But the U.S. military - the invading,
> occupying and day-to-day repressive power - is not that force.
> The U.S. could not play such a role even if its
> Commander-in-Chief were more concerned about Iraqi lives than
> about U.S. control of Middle East oil. The bottom line was well
> expressed in the most recent New Yorker (Oct. 22), where author
> Lawrence Wright captured the reality perceived BY IRAQIS rather
> than the make-believe view from the U.S.: "The presence of
> American troops is itself a goad to insurgency and an impediment
> to the creation of legitimate civil authority. As long as we
> remain in Iraq, the Iraqi people will feel themselves to be
> subjugated by a foreign power."
>
> THE REGIONAL PICTURE
>
> What about the argument that the U.S. presence in Iraq is
> necessary for "regional stability?"
>
> The very opposite is true. The close-to-two-million Iraqi
> refugees bring tremendous economic and political strains to
> neighboring countries. The occupation-driven civil war spreads
> Sunni-Shia tensions across Iraqi borders. U.S. troops occupying
> an Arab country fuel anti-U.S. sentiment in a region where it is
> already at record highs. Frustrations with the actions of
> northern-Iraq-based Kurdish rebels conducting armed actions in
> Turkey and Iran threatens to spread war to those countries.
>
> And with each day U.S. troops stay in Iraq the Bush
> administration ramps up its latest rationalization for war
> against Iran: the accusation that Iran is responsible for the
> death of U.S. soldiers there.
>
> Washington's desperation to stay in Iraq reinforces every
> backward aspect of its policy region-wide. To make sure massive
> anti-occupation sentiment among Arab populations does not
> influence (or overthrow) pro-U.S. governments, Washington ups
> its aid to police-state governments in Egypt, Saudi Arabia,
> Pakistan and elsewhere. To head off a friendly
> Iraq-Iran-Afghanistan relationship that might lead to regional
> cooperation outside of U.S. control (like what's happening in
> Latin America), Washington fans Sunni-Shia tensions. All on top
> of Bush's blank-check for Israel, whose occupation of
> Palestinian land has long been at the pivot of Arab and Muslim
> vs. U.S. conflict.
>
> FULFILLING U.S. MORAL RESPONSIBILITY
>
> For all these reasons, immediate U.S. withdrawal is an
> absolutely necessary condition for Iraq to move toward peace and
> self-determination. But it is not sufficient. In the wake of its
> invasion and occupation, the U.S. does have a moral
> responsibility to the Iraqi people. How can this country best
> fulfill that responsibility? By committing itself to pay for the
> reconstruction of Iraq under Iraqi control, and by supporting
> regional diplomatic efforts to bring peace and development to
> the Middle East. Even better would be a larger turnabout in U.S.
> policy, replacing reliance on military force and support for
> repressive regimes with diplomacy, backing for
> self-determination and respect for international law (especially
> concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict).
>
> Much damage has been done. Even if Washington agreed to all
> those demands tomorrow the Iraqi people would have many
> difficult days ahead. There are no guarantees. But only if the
> U.S. takes this kind of approach can the voices in Iraqi society
> that speak for nonviolence, reconciliation and development be
> heard. Only such a course allows Iraqis the chance of a decent
> future. Every day that the U.S. as a foreign occupier continues
> to abuse and kill Iraqis, and inevitably sparks violent
> resistance, digs us all in deeper. Each day brings more Iraqi
> and U.S. casualties, increases the chances of regional war, and
> simultaneously strengthens every pro-torture, anti-civil
> liberties, racist and militarist force in U.S. political life.
>
> For all these reasons, this is the time to say more loudly than
> ever: "Out Now!"
>
> War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of
> the Center for Third World Organizing. Donations to War Times
> are tax-deductible; you can donate on-line at http://
> www.war-times.org [2] or send a check to War Times/Tiempo de
> Guerras, c/o P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville, CA94662.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071026/3910e018/attachment.htm