Contrary to what President Bush may say, the war in Iraq is not over. Iraq has not known peace in years and certainly does not know it today. From the first Gulf War to the decade of genocidal sanctions to the intermittent bombings carried out by the Clinton administration to the second Gulf War to today, the war has simply progressed through different manifestations. Recently, the war has entered a new phase: a war of resistance against a foreign invader.
Anna Badkhen, writing for The San Francisco Chronicle, recently profiled one resistance fighter: an ordinary, 28-year old Iraqi using the false name “Muhammad.” The man said that he and other rebels had no ties to any foreign militants or Saddam loyalists; instead, he was fighting simply because “they (the Americans) occupied our country.” This attitude is common in places where American troops have fired on protesters and where firefights often lead to innocent civilians getting caught in the crossfire. In fact, every person that Badkhen interviewed said he or she knew of or were related to someone who had been killed or wounded by U.S. soldiers during raids in the area.
Fighting a war against a popular resistance is not likely to fly with the American people, so instead we hear about the “al-Qaida infiltrators” and “Ba’ath loyalists,” not the fathers who have lost their children or the people who suffer under the occupation every day and want nothing more than control over their own destinies.
John Farrell, a member of the humanitarian group Voices in the Wilderness, spoke on campus last week as part of the Campus Antiwar Network’s national speaking tour, and he raised some interesting points. Farrell had just returned from living in Iraq, and he spoke of his many Iraqi acquaintances as friendly, open minded and optimistic people who, though happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, deeply resented the American presence in Iraq and viewed U.S. troops and U.S. bureaucracy as a direct hindrance to Iraqi democracy. Others are much more militant and want the Americans gone at all costs.
Many anti-war activists are also calling for a “troops out now” stance on the occupation of Iraq. Lou Plummer is another speaker on CAN’s speaking tour, a veteran, father of a son in the armed forces and member of Military Families Speak Out. He addressed critics of this position, saying, “We can support the troops by bringing them home.”
Critics say that chaos would ensue if the U.S. pulled out now. But chaos already exists in Iraq, and that chaos is a direct result of the U.S. presence there. The Iraqi people are smart enough and more than willing to rebuild their own country and to create their own democracy. The idea that the United States has to “give” democracy to a nation that, before the first Gulf War, was one of the most prosperous and modernized nations in the Middle East is nothing more than Kipling’s “white man’s burden.”
Critics say that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would create a vacuum that could only be filled by terrorists, but the only reason that terrorists are going to Iraq now is because there are American targets there.
Critics say that supporting a “troops out now” stance lowers morale, that it doesn’t “support the troops,” but this argument is countered by the fact that most soldiers want to come home anyway. Plummer spoke of 120 degree heat, cuts in benefits and pay, inefficient, privatized support systems, constant risk of attack, constant uncertainty about friends and foes, the dangers of depleted uranium (one out of three vets from Gulf War I are currently receiving some sort of disability assistance) and a merciless troop turnaround time — some soldiers, just back from six months in Afghanistan, spend two in the United States and are then shipped off to Iraq.
Some critics may argue for more UN intervention — for the idea that an occupation is fine as long as it exists under the flag of internationalism. But the UN is largely viewed in many parts of the world as dominated and controlled by the United States, which, for all intents and purposes, is true. Blue helmets would still be answering to Washington, and very little would change.
Some critics, some of whom were perhaps against the war before it started, are now saying that the United States has a responsibility to “finish the job.” Well, if this means paying war reparations, fine. But the “finish the job” argument is, as Plummer put it, the same thing that kept U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. The sooner the Americans get out, the more lives will be saved. Americans are the problem in Iraq, not the Iraqis.
The most important argument for bringing the troops home now is this: all people deserve a right to self-determination. The Iraqi people should be able to choose how they want to run their lives. Democracy cannot be “bestowed” upon them from above; it must be built by the people who are going to benefit from it. The United States has no right to tell the Iraqi people how to run their country, and the fact that it is doing just that should be ample evidence for any observer that it cannot be trusted to look out for the interests of the Iraqi people.
The worldwide antiwar movement that formed before the war needs to understand that resisting the war and resisting the occupation are the same thing, and as long as American soldiers remain in Iraq as an occupying force, the bloodshed and suffering will continue.
Kyle Myhre ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in English.