Watching Iraq’s news on TV or reading about it nowadays is an unpleasant experience. It’s not unpleasant because of the pain. It’s unpleasant because I hardly feel any pain watching the death and carnage nowadays. I’ve become emotionally numb. Meanwhile most of those around me who aren’t so emotionally apathetic feel rage… a strong burning inferno of rage and too often the bad situation is all blamed solely on America.
I go into deep modes of thought during such low moods. “Liberation, my foot” would usually be a thought but there were other ones that came into mind too. America did liberate Iraq. Bush did liberate Iraq.
It’s true! Hold up for a second, have a glass of cold water and try to relax. I think there’s something many of us are conveniently forgetting. A few years ago, when the American army arrived in Baghdad, they weren’t greeted with many bombs and bullets, some but not many. They were generally welcomed by Baghdadis. And when Saddam’s statue fell, everyone cheered and celebrated. It was a very symbolic moment… a media spectacle, sure, yes, but nonetheless a powerful symbolic moment. So, there you go, America did liberate Iraq. I emphasize the word “did” though. It’s past tense. I don’t see any “liberation” now. All I see is blood and death. So what happened between now and then?
Here’s what happened. Rumsfailed failed to maintain order and security. Baathists were sacked and the mother of disasters happened, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. It was the main event in my opinion, which caused anti-Americanism in Iraq and the region to shoot up sky high and in effect helped give rise to the current situation. A new government unfortunately seeking revenge was also brought into power. The bad news just kept coming and coming. America screwed up. Bush screwed up. Dickhead Cheney screwed up. Rumsfailed screwed up. They mismanaged the war badly but the terrorists and militias went beyond that. They started terrorizing and spilling the blood of their own people. I can understand if they only fought the invading forces. I can’t be mad at them for that. After all that’s legitimate resistance and nobody would like someone to invade his or her home. They didn’t fight legitimately and today the vast volume of innocent blood is spilled by them, not the Americans or coalition forces. On the contrary, the American forces are trying to help maintain security but everyday we still see the terrorists persisting.
I’m not sure, how badly the Iraqi state of affairs will continue to deteriorate or whether things will improve anytime soon but I am sure of one thing. If, I repeat if, order and security is back and if Iraqis start seeing peace, prosperity and justice in the coming years, then I believe Bush will go down in history as a liberator. If that doesn’t happen, then he will forever be remembered as an evil warmonger and will go down in history as one of the worst presidents in modern times.
Meanwhile, just remember and try not to forget that America did liberate Iraq… but only very briefly. At the moment, things are a mess.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 1 trackback }
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
In 2003, I was an opponent of the war and invasion who, as soon as Baghdad fell, was willing to give this the benefit of the doubt.
And it’s true: If public order had been upheld, so the reconstruction had truly gained momentum and the Americans had made themselves popular, things could have been a lot better.
But they screwed up from the very beginning, and the days where American soldiers stood guarding Saddam’s monuments while thugs were looting the hospitals and museums (and what-not), I think they lost it.
And I think they lost it because the whole thing was botched from the very beginning, simply because the “upper echelons” in government didn’t really care for the Iraqi people or it’s well-being. The American State Department had, it turns out, detailed plans as how to proceed immediately in making things better for Iraqis - but none of this was implemented, seemingly because Cheney etc. were more occupied securing fat contracts for private contracters they co-own.
So, while it’s true the Americans did so liberate Iraq, I think the invasion was very misguided and the actual implementation was botched from the very beginning; botched, not through malice and not through incompetence, but through sheer and complete indifference.
And the Iraqi people are paying a very high price for this today.
Nicely said Carsten. I too vehemently opposed the war from the start as I didn’t believe the reasons were as sincere and obvious as what was being said. However when the crowd celebrated after Saddam’s statue fell, I was quite speechless. I realized that the Iraqis hated Saddam more than they hated the Americans. For a short my stance started shifting a little. Afterall, America did defeat Nazism and communism. Moreover after WW2 America helped lift up Europe.
Unfortunately, bad news started arriving and the whole world began to see how badly the plans were laid.
“And the Iraqi people are paying a very high price for this today.”
True, thanks to both America’s war mismanagement and the damn terrorists. Not only America as many Muslims and Arabs like to point out. And not only the terrorists as many in the American right like to point out too. Both parties are responsible, but frankly if you ask me, I’m a lot angrier at the terrorists right now.
You must remember that the American government did not want to liberate Iraq. People get the government they deserve.
What USA wanted was to remove a threat and cause economic, tactical and socio-political changes that were supposed to change the Middle East through a sort of a domino effect.
Well, goal #1 was achieved. The threat was lifted - Saddam is no longer funding, training and directing terrorists all over the world, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iraq is no longer on the agenda, chemical weapons are no longer threatening American interests.
Tactical goals were also achieved. Iran is effectively surrounded by Coalition forces. The said forces control the important routs and passages. Moreover, the domino effect can be seen in the recent actions of the Gulf states and in twitchings of various ethnic and political forces in these states. The waves this war caused are still moving around the world and are still shaking up the Middle East.
Economic and socio-political goals are the problematic ones - simply because they take longer to achieve. Iraq itself is a lost case… but, say, Kurdistan? Can you imagine the effect a democratic, free, independent and powerful Kurdistan will have in the Middle East? And I am not just taking about the Kurdish minorities in Iran and Turkey - it will give hope to all those who need hope. And unless the Democrats succeed in their psychotic media-playing and leave the Kurds to the dogs, an independent Kurdistan will be a reality in the near future.
Oh, and let us not forget the stabilization of the oil market, the shift in economic priorities, the change of attitude towards alternative energy sources… these are all heavily affected by this war.
The whole liberation of Iraq thing is a secondary objective at best - an aid in achieving some of the above objectives, but not absolutely necessary. Iraq can (and does) crash and burn, from the point of view of American interests. The humanist attitude of Western thought has a say in this, of course - nor the soldiers nor their backers back home would have agreed to just letting Iraq tear itself to pieces in a blood frenzy.
But this minor, secondary objective - almost an afterthought - is the lens through which most people view success or failure of this war. Thank the media for this - as always, undermining the sane and cheering for the psychotic murderers.
Rome was not built in a day. And Middle East will not be lifted from millenia of tribal warfare and barbarism in a day
One bad factor in Iraq was that the US government wanted to keep the country’s occupation low-key, to minimize media fallout, to guard the ‘liberator’ image.
That was a huge mistake.
Raccoon, in terms of tactical objectives a failure in Iraq will have fatal consequences. Kurdistan will be effectively under siege from all sides, which will result in its quick collapse. Eventually Sadr will rise, do to Iraqi Kurdistan much the same that Saddam did, and we’ll be back to square one in everything except the priority of the the Sunni states.
That’s what we call a “victory in points”, man (you know where I take that reference from). You know, where not a single of your main goals is achieved and you only manage to balance out a little by mistake.
It should be relatively easy to keep a strong Coalition force in Kurdistan (like in, say, Kirkurk after it has been cleansed and secured) + several large fortressed bases in Iraq proper, overseeing major routes and other vital national arteries. The Iraqis can continue killing each other for as long as they wish while Coalition makes sure no psychopath wins and that the fighting doesn’t spill into vital areas.
Moreover, the Peshmerga are fearsome warriors, uninhibited by political correctness and toughened by decades of constant war. Their mountains will be safe if they’ll have a steady supply of weapons and political backing in the outside world. Don’t forget - we’ve survived for some 60 years and I doubt even the Kurds will be besieged like we are. And we don’t have shitloads of oil.
So don’t hasten to discount the Kurds… these guys were waiting and fighting for their independence for many, many years. They are not going to just give it up without a fight - and a fight with the Kurds is the one thing you don’t want.
I more or less agree with you, Drima, but there are some semantic issues.
“I can understand if they only fought the invading forces. I can’t be mad at them for that. After all that’s legitimate resistance and nobody would like someone to invade his or her home.”
Terrorism is _never_ “legitimate resistance”.
There are certain rules that have to be followed in a war, and terrorism, the use of violence against civilians in order to create terror and to cause a change in politics is _not_ allowed under those rules (although the UN makes exceptions for Arabs for some reason, not that I am bitter).
The reason terrorism is illegal under the rules of war is because it is thought that a war will have the same result whether both sides use only method set A or only method set B. Method set A includes things like “kill as many soldiers as is necessary to make the others surrender” and “destroy tank factory” (and “destroy nuclear facility to avoid the construction of nuclear weapons”). Method set B includes things like “target and kill civilians to make soldiers surrender” and “destroy hospitals on purpose”.
It is here important to note that method set B also includes acts like “hide among civilians so that you cannot be targeted without affecting civilians” and “use hospitals as your base”.
Terrorists use method set B and thus act outside the rules of war, and that is _not_ legitimate. The political goal doesn’t matter. It’s about the methods used, not the goal promoted.
If the US and Britain used the same method set as the terrorists, Iraq would be gone by now.
Read that sentence again, it is important.
If both sides used only method set A, the US would win.
If both sides used both method sets A and B, the US would win.
The idea that the two sides can both refrain from using method set B and get the same war result without destroying useful resources (people and infrastructure) in the process. It’s a brilliant idea.
The reason method set B “works” is that the US refuses to use it, but the terrorists do not. (Pagans don’t fear G-d’s punishment.)
A “resistance” is only legitimate IF
a) the population actually supports it.
b) it targets military targets (of the enemy) only.
c) the legitimate government has not signed a surrender document.
It turns out most terrorism is not “legitimate resistance”, not only because it fails on b) but also because it fails on c). (For example the PLO has signed a treaty with Israel acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over the Palestinian territories until a final agreement is concluded. There cannot be “legitimate resistance” against a situation you agreed to. Breaking a treaty is _not_ legitimate either.)
In the case of Iraq the “resistance” violates all three points.
Did George Bush make any mistakes that caused anything bad without the terrorists being involved?
The Abu Ghraib scandal was certainly not George Bush’s plan, nor would he have approved of it, I am sure. It hurt him more than anything else. It was hardly his fault that it happened.
” Iran is effectively surrounded by Coalition forces. The said forces control the important routs and passages.”
Indeed. I very much believe that that was part of the idea. It also surrounded Syria and removed a possible link between Syria and Iran, that would have made weapons transports to the Lebanese and Israeli front even easier.
“Can you imagine the effect a democratic, free, independent and powerful Kurdistan will have in the Middle East? ”
I would assume it will have the same effect on Kurds as a democratic, free, independent, and powerful Israel had on Jews.
Kurdistan will also be under siege by those who traditionally dislike ethnic minorities and democracy. Kurdistan will go through what Israel goes through.
Drima, I am not sure what you mean by liberate in this case. I might follow your line of reasoning if the United Nation was involved and this “liberation” had backing UN or world community. But this Invasion which is what it is, has caused nothing but havoc for majority of Iraqi people you are free to ask 2 million Iraqi refugees.
Raccon, I think most your comments in your #1 has either been discarded or no proof has been found… it is all smokescreen.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jHnSPsZshyM
those are the main reasons given before the war…
Every couple of months the governement has different reason why US troops are in Iraq.
This Invasion and its consequences has been a major disaster for the Iraqi people as anyone can see with their own eyes. The reason this is the case is because the lives, interest and plight of Iraqi people was never part of the American(excuse I meant “coalition”) equation.
The reality is Oil interest (remember “why we fight”
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0319-26.htm
Drima, anyway, I congratulate you for using the term “legimate resistance.” I was getting tired of hearing “insurgent” I think George Orwell would have something to say about how language is been used in this invasion. I mean if the French could have “resistance” against the Germany invasion and puppet governement why not the Iraqis.
But look
“Drima, anyway, I congratulate you for using the term “legimate resistance.””
See what the problem is with that term? You get all sorts of weird people nod approvingly.
“I was getting tired of hearing “insurgent””
So was I. The correct term for people who kill random civilians and bomb mosques is “terrorist”.
“I think George Orwell would have something to say about how language is been used in this invasion.”
Yes, rename “terrorists” “insurgents” and people will believe that their acts are somehow legitimized. It worked.
“I mean if the French could have “resistance” against the Germany invasion and puppet governement why not the Iraqis.”"
Equating the French resistance against the Nazis with a group of thugs that kill innocent civilians, bomb mosques, and try to bring down the elected government of Iraq is probably the most disgusting piece of fascist propaganda I have heard in a while.
I’ll give you something to think about:
1. The terrorists in Iraq (the “insurgents”, sorry, the “legitimate resistance” against the elected government) fight to re-institute Ba’ath rule.
2. The Ba’ath party is an Arab national-socialist party whose politics have always been anti-Semitic and against ethnic minorities in general. They also want a dictatorship and wage war on neighbouring countries and their own country’s non-ruling groups.
3. The Ba’ath party was founded by Michel Aflaq who was a fan of Vichy France.
4. The French resistance fought against the Vichy government and for an elected French government.
5. The “legitimate resistance” in Iraq fights on the side of the national-socialist party founded by a fan of the regime that the French resistance opposed.
Here’s one of the great victories of the “legitimate resistance”:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/samarra-mosque.htm
And here’s some pictures from pre-disaster Iraq:
http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
http://www.9neesan.com/halapja/
Ask the Iraqi refugees why they fled Iraq. I doubt they fled because of the Americans. They fled your “legitimate resistance”. It is the “legitimate resistance” that makes life hell in Iraq, not American soldiers.
Imagine a group of old Nazis and other trouble makers, some of them foreigners.
Imagine that group had in the late 1940s and early 1950s bombed churches and killed random people in Germany.
Imagine the group opposed the democratically elected new government of Germany.
Would that group be
a) “legitimate resistance”?
b) “insurgents”?
c) “terrorists”?
Today’s media would call them “insurgents”. I would tend to call them “terrorists”.
Incidentally, before the allied invasion Germany was really quiet like. It was the invasion that caused the country to collapse.
Neo-Nazis blame the Americans for the collapse of Germany. I blame the Nazis.
Yes, I made a mistake in discounting the Kurdish spirit. My bad. I just hope the US stays there long enough for them to build their army, as Turkey is getting too nervous for my liking.
Andrew Brehm, it is little strange to equate Iraqi resistance with Neo-Nazi?
Or Even Germany? There is no relation for any objective person.
Iraq did not invade America or any countries in the so called coalition..
I believe any person under foreign occupation has the right resist.. I know you do not like hearing this but innocent iraqi did die from American bombing they just call them “collateral damage.”
Before this heavy sectrian violence started most of Iraqi resistance was targetted at the Invading army- like I said before I would not be surprised if the US was instrumental in igniting Shia-Sunni violence. Divide and Conquer! US just didn’t expect to get this bad. They just want the Iraqi resistance to stop killing their solidiers.
Anyway, a divided and weak Iraq is to the best interest of US.
I do not know what your issue is Pan-Arabism? If the Arabs had some unity they would not be pawns of west’s geopolitics. I am not an Arab but as an African, I am definitely a Pan-Africanist, although we african are far behind on the subject of unity. The Arabs and African have a lot to learn from the Chinese on the subject of Unity.. Even Europe is uniting..
I like how the Chinese attiutude to the West. “Let’s do business, on politics get lost”.
Jonah, pan-Arabism was, and still is, a supremacist nationalist ideal. Thus the comparison to Germany, I believe. Or perhaps you weren’t familiar with Saddam’s policies regarding anyone who wasn’t a Sunni Arab, the pan-Arabist ideal? The Kurds and Turkemens he bombed, and the Shi’a he forcibly resettled to Kurdish areas, both to be rid of them in the prosperous cities and to breed out the Kurds.
Sectarianism? It was there all along. It was just official policy. Now it isn’t.
Anyway, a divided and weak Iraq is to the best interest of US.
Care to back that theory?
“Andrew Brehm, it is little strange to equate Iraqi resistance with Neo-Nazi?”
As long as the “resistance” is fighting on the side of the Ba’ath Nazis, the equation is valid.
“Or Even Germany? There is no relation for any objective person.”
How do you know that? Both countries used to have a national-socialist government and both countries were invaded by the US and Britain. They were both occupied and democracy was imposed.
“Iraq did not invade America or any countries in the so called coalition..”
Germany did not invade the US either. Iraq did invade Kuwait, which is how Iraq came to be at war with the US. Iraq _could_ have kept the cease-fire, but Iraq decided to shoot at US aircraft and slaughter Shi’ites by the hundreds of thousands instead.
“I believe any person under foreign occupation has the right resist..”
Your belief is misguided, to say the least. “Resistance” is not a holy term that makes anything you do morally all right. Bombing a mosque is a crime, no matter whether you are a Nazi calling your act “resistance” or whether you are a fundamentalism Islamist who just happens to hate those Muslims of another sect.
There is NO right to “resist” foreign occupation after the surrender. None. There never has been. On the other hand Iraqis do have a duty to keep the law. And the foreign terrorists have absolutely no right even to come to Iraq, let alone “resist” the Iraqi government and its foreign allies.
“I know you do not like hearing this but innocent iraqi did die from American bombing they just call them “collateral damage.”
Which is why it so important that the terrorists are stopped. If they were not the scum they are, they wouldn’t hide among civilians.
“Anyway, a divided and weak Iraq is to the best interest of US.”
Wrong. A stable and democratic Iraq is. Do you even think about your words before yo say them? The best thing for George Bush would be if Iraq _wasn’t_ in flames. A divided Iraq is the worst thing that can happen to the US and the terrorists know it, which is why they bomb mosques to incite violence between the sects.
“I do not know what your issue is Pan-Arabism?”
It’s merely the fact that Pan-Arabists tend to slaughter minorities, invade neighbouring countries without warning, start wars with Persia, and try to destroy Israel all the time; which is pretty much the Arab equivalent of what the Nazis tried to do to Europe. Otherwise I am as fine with Arab nationalism as I am with German nationalism.
“If the Arabs had some unity they would not be pawns of west’s geopolitics. I am not an Arab but as an African, I am definitely a Pan-Africanist, although we african are far behind on the subject of unity. The Arabs and African have a lot to learn from the Chinese on the subject of Unity.. Even Europe is uniting..”
It depends on how and why you unite. Europe is now uniting as a club of independent countries and nations. The previous attempt to unite Europe under Pan-Germanism was quite more like Pan-Arabism, I’m afraid.
African unity is good and I suppose Pan-Africanists do not advocate the slaughter of minorities or other undesirables. But Pan-Arabists did not show that much decency and that is why Pan-Arabism is as evil a movement as German fascism was.
There was a saying in Germany: Hitler didn’t die but fled Germany swimming, and then re-appeared in Egypt as “Nasser” (”nasser” is the German word for “wet person”).
Pan-Arabism was founded by sympathizers of Nazi Germany (Michel Aflaq is perhaps the most visible of those) and co-operated with Nazi Germany in trying to take over Iraq from the British and Syria from the Free French. Heck, even the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was organizing SS units for Hitler in Bosnia. He was also Arafats uncle. Surprise? I don’t think so.
So why am I comparing the Iraqi “resistance” to German Neo-Nazis? It’s simple: they are Nazis. Their movement was founded by Nazi sympathisers, they co-operated with the Nazis in World War II, they introduced the same policies towards Jews and minorities in Arab countries that Hitler introduced in Europe, and they show complete disregard for monotheistic religion by destroying mosques, synagogues, and churches. (Hitler only didn’t destroy mosques because there were none in Germany at the time, I am sure.)
You can support them if you like. But be aware that you are supporting people who bomb mosques, who are anti-Semites, who have gased Kurds and slaughtered Shi’ites, who were founded by Nazi sympathizers, and who were fighting on the Nazis’ side. They are also responsible for hundreds of thousands of people leaving Iraqi because they fear the violence the “resistance” has brought.
All-in-all you are supporting the scum of the earth.
Did you take a look at the pictures of pre-invasion Iraq I linked to?
BTW, I grew up in occupied territory.
And I did never believe that I had the right to “resist”.
And if I had blown up a church, it would not have been called “resistance”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mufti_of_Jerusalem
What nutters!
The one fired by Abbas in 2006 is a very interesting weirdo. (And I suppose he is a very good example for my paganism theory of many modern Islamic clerics.)
The famous one is of course the guy who received Nazi support for his policies which he deemed very compatible with the Nazis’ own plans for the world. He can be connected to the Ba’ath via Syrian Pan-Arabism and via Yassir Arafat.
Do supporters of Pan-Arabism (as advocated by Nasserists and the Ba’ath party) not realise what Pan-Arabism is really about or do they agree with those goals?
It seems like Hamas are the only Palestinian group of influence that didn’t have close ties to the Nazis. But I think I have to check the history of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to find out.
After some little research I found the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and his grandson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan
It seems to me like the Muslim Brotherhood was indeed founded to be an Islamic group (set up against the secular Pan-Arabism nationalist movement) but apart from the odd problem with the Syrian and Egyptian governments, the MB have quickly joined their secular nationalist “opponents”. The MB sent volunteers to kill Jews in Palestine and founded Hamas.
They gave up their Islamic non-nationalist idealism for the usual anti-religious Pan-Arabism ideology. Sad, that. When the synagogues in Gaza were burned down, it was very clear what Hamas’ (and the MB’s) attitude towards the one true G-d is.
Wow!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Azhar
“Ali Gomaa’, the Egyptian Grand Mufti who is associated with Al Azhar, has also declared that insurgents who kidnap and kill civilians in Iraq are the ones which Islam has authorized to thwart and eradicate since they wreak havoc on Earth.”
However, it is questionable how much we can trust that guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Gomaa
[begin quote]
Question: “Is it permitted to kill an Israeli traveling outside the borders of his land?”
Sheikh Gum’a: “Yes, it is permitted to kill him, because he is a Harbi and the Harbi spreads corruption throughout the face of the earth.”
[end quote]
Question: is the legal killing of believers (as Jews are per the Qur’an) an Islamic tradition or a pagan tradition?
If it is an Islamic tradition, I don’t think I can respect Islam.
If it is a pagan tradition, I fear that the Grand Mufti of Egypt might be a pagan.
(By “pagan” I mean those who reject the one true G-d and who believe in idolatry instead.)
And a last one:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001421.html
This should give a good overview over what the “legitimate resistance” is fighting for (by bombing mosques), why the word “liberation” is really a good term to describe the invasion, and why many people fear Pan-Arabism and the Ba’ath party.
I really wonder whether supporters of Pan-Arabism know about these things?
Andrew, the Egyptian Mufti is doing his best to stay on everyone’s good side. The Iraq answer is for Mubarak, while the Israel answer is for the MB. He’s too focused on survival to be an idealist of any sort, be it good or bad.
Andrew, I don’t have much time right now to go into great details but I want to highlight something.
If the people fighting against US troops are exactly the same people who bomb and terrorize their own innocent people, then they’re terrorists.
However, if the people fighting against US troops are *not* involved in any terrorists activities against innocent civilian lives, then they’re not terrorists. In that case they’re carrying out legitimate resistance.
In the current context it’s more complex though since the elected Iraqi government gave permission for US troops to stay and as such it’s not completely accurate to say that Iraq now is a country under occupation. That’s of course only true if you view the current government as legitimate and elected fairly, which many peolpe in Iraq don’t.
“If the people fighting against US troops are exactly the same people who bomb and terrorize their own innocent people, then they’re terrorists.”
True.
“However, if the people fighting against US troops are *not* involved in any terrorists activities against innocent civilian lives, then they’re not terrorists. In that case they’re carrying out legitimate resistance.”
It depends.
If those people hide among civilians, they are violating the Geneva Convention and that makes them illegitimate.
If they fight according to the law of war, they would not be terrorists but guerillas. However, resisting a country’s government is hardly legal, and most likely not legitimate if the government is a democratic one.
It just happens so that the majority of Iraqis want the current government (or a better one, but either way an elected one) and the “resistance” do not. What exactly makes them legitimate if they are merely fighting to impose their will rather than stand for election?
Would it be “legitimate resistance” if in occupied West-Berlin a minor group without much popular support would attack allied forces rather than stand for election and be elected? I doubt it.
Once violence becomes legitimate for anything but self-defence the idea of “government” will have lost its meaning. Remember that the Iraqi government (and its agents and allies as appointed by that government) has a monopoly on the use of force in Iraq? How can a “resistance” be legitimate when it violates that principle?
And the “resistance” is not self-defence either. Without them “resisting” nobody would know who they are and nobody would do anything to them. The fact is that these terrorists (or assuming they are guerillas) simply don’t like the current regime. But the regime hasn’t done anything to them so they are not acting in self-defence. They are acting in defence of one of two violent ideologies, Ba’ath national-socialism and Muslim fundamentalism (or as I call it: pagan fundamentalism), or rather they are trying to impose those ideologies.
A “legitimate resistance” would only exist if the elected government would not want the foreign troops to be there AND the “resistance” fight as guerillas rather than terrorists. But neither point is here given.
Saddam’s Republican Guard was a “legitimate resistance” (assuming they didn’t hide among civilians). Terrorists bombing mosques and guerillas hiding among civilians while fighting are not.
“In the current context it’s more complex though since the elected Iraqi government gave permission for US troops to stay and as such it’s not completely accurate to say that Iraq now is a country under occupation.”
It would be wrong to say that Iraq is under occupation. It is not. Iraq is a sovereign country. They just happen to be too weak to defend themselves and require foreign help. They are de-jure free to do as they like, but de-facto depend on the US and Britain.
“That’s of course only true if you view the current government as legitimate and elected fairly, which many peolpe in Iraq don’t.”
Not quite true. A government is legitimate if it can uphold its monopoly on the use of force, which this one can better than all alternatives (the terrorists have less power than the government + allies, not more), and respects the rights of its citizens, which this one does (better than the terrorists). It doesn’t have to be elected fairly. (The King of Jordan was not elected at all but his government is completely legitimate.)
It was perhaps not elected fairly (although I have heard no reliable reports about large-scale election fraud in Iraq), but it was elected MORE FAIRLY than the terrorist leaders, which means that it is still the best choice for “legitimate and elected fairly”.
Of all possible authorities in Iraq, the current government plus its western allies is the one that most closely fits the image of a legitimate and elected government. That and the fact that its opponents bomb mosques and civilians should tell us whose side is the good guys here.
Watching Iraq’s news on TV or reading about it nowadays is an unpleasant experience. It’s not unpleasant because of the pain. It’s unpleasant because I hardly feel any pain watching the death and carnage nowadays. I’ve become emotionally numb. Meanwhile most of those around me who aren’t so emotionally apathetic feel rage… a strong burning inferno of rage and too often the bad situation is all blamed solely on America.
I think the mistake you make is watching news on TV, and reading about it in mainstream media. All of it is politicized; none of it can be trusted.
There is way too much inconsistency in all these news reports to deem them as accurate. The fact remains that the infrastructure in Iraq continues to be working very well, despite sporadic violence. It does not make sense that a country wracked in paralyzing violence continues to enjoy ever-increasing export income. Something is simply left out of the grand Main Stream Media narrative.
What also must be remembered is that the measures used to quantify the problems in Iraq are the same measures westerners use for their own countries. In other words, the values are imposed on others.
How, then, should one read the news? The best way of arriving at any kind of an idea of what is really going on is to glean from the news, that is, learn to pick up details provided by bigoted journalists that point to exactly the opposite of what they are trying to imply. (For example, a bombing at a busy market seems to point to thriving trade). Comparative reading is also useful, as when several news sources report on the same incident. Unfortunately, too often news sources rely on single sources like the AP or Reuters, which are known to be tainted.
Perhaps the best indicator of what is going on is to rely more on the writings of bloggers who live in the areas of interest. Journalists are part of an industry that needs to create drama in order to survive. Bloggers do not have such needs, though they might exhibit personality quirks and preferences. Nevertheless, I think I’ve learned more about the Muslim world from a few trusted bloggers I’ve read than from any journalist reporting on the Muslim world.
If the media report bad things about a country it means two things:
1. Journalists escape alive.
2. Journalists are allowed to report bad news.
I grew up in West-Berlin in the middle of East-Germany. I watched both eastern and western television.
Western television informed me about unemployment, corruption, crime, and how the school system is underfunded.
Eastern television informed me about the great economic successes of the east, the miracles of socialism, an excellent education system, and how there was no corruption and almost no crime.
Five years later East-Germany collapsed, and West-Germany remains one of the great economic powers in the world.
Bad news meant good things.
Andrew your response tends to be off tangent.. maybe you should narrow it instead of placing too many of those hit-and-miss posts.
. I got the impression you have issue with Pan Arabism. To be honest, you seem to be borderline Anti-Arab.
Pan Arabism does not have to made anything negative.
The reality is Arab countries are divided and they could have better international presence if they unity under a common platform.. they could form their own version of European community… there is power and strength in unity. China is demostrating this all developing non-western societies or countries.
But after reading your posts(too many and largely unnecessary), I saw a statement you made that got me laughing hard…
“There is NO right to “resist” foreign occupation after the surrender.”
Well, if we extend this type of reasoning, most of independent african or asian countries would not exist and still be occupied.
i am still laughing…
Jonah, your meaning of pan-Arabism is simply “unity”. The version that has been alive since Nasser, and under Hafez el-Assad and Saddam Hussein, was that of militant, secular Arab supremacist nationalism. That what we have a problem with. Your definition is out of touch with the reality of the past few decades.
“Andrew your response tends to be off tangent.. maybe you should narrow it instead of placing too many of those hit-and-miss posts.
I got the impression you have issue with Pan Arabism. To be honest, you seem to be borderline Anti-Arab.”
I do have an issue with Pan-Arabism, just as I have an issue with German nationalism and for the same reason. I thought I was very clear about that. I do not believe that all Germans are Nazis and I do not believe that all Arabs are the Arab equivalent of a German Nazi. If you believe that all Arabs are neccessarily followers of the ideology I have a problem with, I must assume that you believe that ethnicity dictates behaviour, which is something I simply do not believe.
“Pan Arabism does not have to made anything negative.”
You have argued in favour of terrorists who are trying to impose a murderous nationalist ideology. And now you are trying to defend that position by saying that nationalism doesn’t have to be negative? Well… maybe not, but the fact remains that the particular brand of nationalism the Ba’ath terrorists support _IS_ negative.
My posts did depend on you reading and understanding them. So I suppose they could be qualified as “hit-and-miss”. I am shooting at a moving target here. Perhaps you could explain what is so great about Pan-Arabism apart from the “unity” it apparently promises.
Unity can be reached without nationalism, as the European Union and the United States have proven. You yourself listed the EU as an example without apparently realising that the EU is NOT an example of nationalism at all.
“But after reading your posts(too many and largely unnecessary), I saw a statement you made that got me laughing hard…”
Sometimes the truth is hard to accept. Did you even follow the links about your precious Pan-Arabism?
““There is NO right to “resist” foreign occupation after the surrender.”
Well, if we extend this type of reasoning, most of independent african or asian countries would not exist and still be occupied.”
Ghandi extended this type of reasoning. Most of the other independent African or Asian countries had either fallen to communism (and death for thousands) or were released into an independence that didn’t seem to help them as much as it should have.
“i am still laughing… ”
You were supposed to follow the links and think about Pan-Arabism’s crimes, not laugh at the issue.
Now, let’s look at the examples:
1. European Union: not nationalist.
2. China: unity under communism, murdered millions, occupies Tibet and a huge part of Mongolia.
3. Independent African countries: not united, civil wars, AIDS etc.
4. India: independence not through violent resistance but through moral superiority, since then divided between India and Pakistan with several wars.
5. Other Asian independent countries: communism did its bit here, usually supported by the Chinese.
Can you tell me where exactly nationalism a la Pan-Arabism and a violent “resistance” a la terrorism in Iraq have done the good you expected?
Perhaps you should read the articles I linked to. Once you realise what Pan-Arabism is and what the “legitimate resistance” in Iraq is fighting for, you might change your mind and support the elected government (with a Kurdish president and an Arab prime minister).
Until then realise that if I hated Arabs, I would support Pan-Arabism. Nothing has killed more Arabs on a regular basis than Pan-Arabist movements.
“Jonah, [...] Your definition is out of touch with the reality of the past few decades.”
Pan-Arabism always was a secular militant supremacist racist ideology, especially when it was created in the 1940s and when it took over countries in the 1950s.
I have as much respect for an Arab supporting Pan-Arabism as I have for a German supporting German national-socialism, and for the same reasons.
Perhaps I hate Germans too?
In fact, I also disrespect and despise American national-socialists (”America for whites only” and the like). So, technically, if we continue assuming that ideology and ethnicity are the same, I am anti-American as well.
And anti-Russian, since I dislike Stalinism. And anti-Chinese since I didn’t care for Mao. And anti-Japanese because they were allied with Nazi Germany. The list goes on and on.
Perhaps ideology has nothing to do with ethnicity? Can I hate Nazis without hating Germans? I’ll try.
“Jonah, your meaning of pan-Arabism is simply “unity”.”
Pan-Arabism can never be unity in a general sense. As the name implies, it represents unity of _Arabs_. It is racist in concept and violent in implementation.
Let us not be confused by comparisons to the European Union. Pan-Arabism does not intend to unite different peoples with different languages and different traditions. Anybody who thinks that Pan-Arabism stands for a union of middle-eastern peoples (Arabs, Jews, Kurds etc.) and not for Arab nationalism is ignoring history.
The EU’s attitude towards its member countries and its neighbours is one of co-operation between nations. Minorities are protected by law, and the languages and cultures of the member nations are respected (to a higher degree than I find justified, but that is another matter).
Does anybody think that Pan-Arabists advocate a middle-eastern union that publishes its laws in Arabic, Hebrew, and Kurdish?
Does anybody believe that Pan-Arabists have a good record on protecting minorities?
The EU does advocate such a type of union and has an excellent track record of protecting minorities. EU members similarly have national laws to protect minorities.
The only laws Arab countries run by Nasserists and Ba’athists have concerning minorities are not laws to protect them but laws that allow discrimination against them.
Jews did not flee the Arab countries because Pan-Arabism brought them unity and justice. The Kurds were not gased by Saddam because Pan-Arabist ideology was like the EU’s ideals. Israel was not attacked because Pan-Arabism wanted unity among different peoples, like the EU does.
Pan-Arabism was and is a racist supremacist ideology which has brought suffering and death to millions, especially to Arabs.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/03/iraq.school.bomb/index.html
The “legitimate resistance” has apparently decided that a girls school is a symbol of evil western imperialism.
And the occupation has, again, forced its will on the Iraqi people and is removing the bombs from the school.
What was the argument for an American withdrawal again?
Question to Arab nationalists:
Did Arab nationalists EVER help ANYONE?
Did anybody ever benefit from pan-Arabism except for your local dictator, his family and cronies, and his tribe?
If people did benefit, do these benefits outweigh the suffering of the Jews, Kurds, other Arabs that the nationalists attacked?
Why?
Leave a Comment