Imperialist Watch
2006-12-11 14:02:23 UTC
Staticide, Not Civil War in Iraq
by Sarah Shields
December 8, 2006
CommonDreams.org
Calling the tragedy in Iraq a "civil war" is not only inaccurate. It is
morally indefensible, laying the blame for the horrific violence and the
destruction of a country and a society upon the victims of an illegal,
aggressive war. It allows pundits like Thomas Friedman to claim that the
country has been dysfunctional for a millenium, ignoring a long historical
context of international support for Iraq's brutal dictator, debilitating
and murderous sanctions by the United Nations, and a catastrophic and
unprovoked US-led invasion of a sovereign state. More important, if
Americans believe that Iraq is in "civil war," liberals would argue that the
United States must remain in order to prevent an even worse outbreak of
violence.
Iraq is not undergoing a civil war. The country is in the throes of an
anti-occupation struggle. Having declared, with the installation of the
current government, that Iraq is no longer occupied, the US government and
media can hardly frame the current violence as a struggle against a
continuing occupation. Nonetheless, what is being cast as civil war is the
latest example in a long line of peoples' fighting against occupation,
struggles in which those groups who collaborate with an occupier are
themselves targeted by those seeking to end an occupation. Algerians
fighting the French also attacked the those indigenous forces who had allied
themselves with France. Moroccans targeted the goumiers, local troops who
worked with the French in suppressing a rebellion against foreign control.
The Vietcong fought not only Americans, but also the Vietnamese who
collaborated with the occupation. Zulu Inkatha were targeted for working on
behalf of South Africa's white government. Irish nationalists linked
Protestants with the British occupiers. The occupiers tried to present each
as an example of the intrinsic and intractable violence of these societies,
which provided yet another example of their continuing need for the
benevolent protection of the occupation.
Framing the Iraq tragedy as civil war forces the US media to ignore the
clear inconsistencies. Shi'ite forces under Muqtada al-Sadr attack the
forces of a Shi'ite-led government. News reports day after day describe
terrible attacks against civilian populations, with no coverage at all of
violence against American forces. Where are our mounting casualties coming
from? The BBC writes that eighty percent of attacks are against the
occupation forces, not against civilian targets. Iraqi targets are often
people either directly collaborating or trying to collaborate with the
occupation (local police and military recruits), and people whose continuing
work allows the current government to function. The apparent contradiction
in which Iraqis would attack those who allow the hospitals, schools, and
services to continue is comprehensible only in the context of an
anti-occupation struggle where an insurgency tries to prevent the
functioning of a government installed by an occupation army.
The United States exacerbated ethnic conflict in Iraq in order to refocus a
growing anti-occupation insurgency, beginning with our arming Shi'ites to
help us attack Sunni forces in Fallujah. Even then, some Shi'ites came to
the aid of the Sunnis in a clear rejection of US efforts to divide the
country. The militias introduced into the Iraqi Interior Ministry during the
era of John Negroponte (accused of eliciting the same behavior in 1980s
Honduras) have unquestionably engaged in sectarian killings. It is
impossible to argue that sectarian violence has no history in Iraq;
nonetheless, despite Saddam Hussein's efforts to expel some Shi'ites during
the 1980s, Sunnis and Shi'is continued to marry each other, to be members of
the same tribes, and to live in the same neighborhoods.
Sectarian violence has increased dramatically during the United States
occupation of Iraq. The occupation has only exacerbated the violence. The
reasons are consistent with countless historical examples. Occupiers try to
divide the country in order to keep their opposition weak. And those who
would resist occupation invariably attack those who would collaborate with
the occupation. Iraqis will only become more and more divided the longer the
United States remains in their country. The notion that we could stabilize
Iraq and leave a viable government is absurd when looked at historically.
Governments in power during occupation, collaborators with occupation
forces, are most often overthrown when the occupiers leave. Whenever US
forces leave, Iraqis will have to struggle to create their own state. The
sooner we leave, the fewer people will have been compromised by their
connection with our occupation. Had we ended our occupation at the end of
2003 before the siege of Fallujah, or had we left Iraq in February 2006
before the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraqis could have begun
to reconstruct their own government and infrastructure without the horrific
inter-communal violence that is now escalating daily. Our occupation has
hardly prevented chaos and civil war, and leaving today would not
miraculously end the violence that has been building over the past three
years. But our immediate departure would allow Iraqis to get on with
reconstruction without the polarizing presence of a continuing occupation.
If we insist on staying, we will preside over the remainder of the
annihilation of the state we have worked, for decades, to destroy.
Sarah Shields teaches the history of the Middle East at the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
-
Many Americans are so unsophisticated that they refuse to believe anything
bad about their country. They regard acceptance of unpalatable truths as
disloyalty. This failure of American character is why Bush has been able to
get away with transgressions that scream out for his impeachment and trial
as a war criminal.
- Paul Craig Roberts
by Sarah Shields
December 8, 2006
CommonDreams.org
Calling the tragedy in Iraq a "civil war" is not only inaccurate. It is
morally indefensible, laying the blame for the horrific violence and the
destruction of a country and a society upon the victims of an illegal,
aggressive war. It allows pundits like Thomas Friedman to claim that the
country has been dysfunctional for a millenium, ignoring a long historical
context of international support for Iraq's brutal dictator, debilitating
and murderous sanctions by the United Nations, and a catastrophic and
unprovoked US-led invasion of a sovereign state. More important, if
Americans believe that Iraq is in "civil war," liberals would argue that the
United States must remain in order to prevent an even worse outbreak of
violence.
Iraq is not undergoing a civil war. The country is in the throes of an
anti-occupation struggle. Having declared, with the installation of the
current government, that Iraq is no longer occupied, the US government and
media can hardly frame the current violence as a struggle against a
continuing occupation. Nonetheless, what is being cast as civil war is the
latest example in a long line of peoples' fighting against occupation,
struggles in which those groups who collaborate with an occupier are
themselves targeted by those seeking to end an occupation. Algerians
fighting the French also attacked the those indigenous forces who had allied
themselves with France. Moroccans targeted the goumiers, local troops who
worked with the French in suppressing a rebellion against foreign control.
The Vietcong fought not only Americans, but also the Vietnamese who
collaborated with the occupation. Zulu Inkatha were targeted for working on
behalf of South Africa's white government. Irish nationalists linked
Protestants with the British occupiers. The occupiers tried to present each
as an example of the intrinsic and intractable violence of these societies,
which provided yet another example of their continuing need for the
benevolent protection of the occupation.
Framing the Iraq tragedy as civil war forces the US media to ignore the
clear inconsistencies. Shi'ite forces under Muqtada al-Sadr attack the
forces of a Shi'ite-led government. News reports day after day describe
terrible attacks against civilian populations, with no coverage at all of
violence against American forces. Where are our mounting casualties coming
from? The BBC writes that eighty percent of attacks are against the
occupation forces, not against civilian targets. Iraqi targets are often
people either directly collaborating or trying to collaborate with the
occupation (local police and military recruits), and people whose continuing
work allows the current government to function. The apparent contradiction
in which Iraqis would attack those who allow the hospitals, schools, and
services to continue is comprehensible only in the context of an
anti-occupation struggle where an insurgency tries to prevent the
functioning of a government installed by an occupation army.
The United States exacerbated ethnic conflict in Iraq in order to refocus a
growing anti-occupation insurgency, beginning with our arming Shi'ites to
help us attack Sunni forces in Fallujah. Even then, some Shi'ites came to
the aid of the Sunnis in a clear rejection of US efforts to divide the
country. The militias introduced into the Iraqi Interior Ministry during the
era of John Negroponte (accused of eliciting the same behavior in 1980s
Honduras) have unquestionably engaged in sectarian killings. It is
impossible to argue that sectarian violence has no history in Iraq;
nonetheless, despite Saddam Hussein's efforts to expel some Shi'ites during
the 1980s, Sunnis and Shi'is continued to marry each other, to be members of
the same tribes, and to live in the same neighborhoods.
Sectarian violence has increased dramatically during the United States
occupation of Iraq. The occupation has only exacerbated the violence. The
reasons are consistent with countless historical examples. Occupiers try to
divide the country in order to keep their opposition weak. And those who
would resist occupation invariably attack those who would collaborate with
the occupation. Iraqis will only become more and more divided the longer the
United States remains in their country. The notion that we could stabilize
Iraq and leave a viable government is absurd when looked at historically.
Governments in power during occupation, collaborators with occupation
forces, are most often overthrown when the occupiers leave. Whenever US
forces leave, Iraqis will have to struggle to create their own state. The
sooner we leave, the fewer people will have been compromised by their
connection with our occupation. Had we ended our occupation at the end of
2003 before the siege of Fallujah, or had we left Iraq in February 2006
before the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, Iraqis could have begun
to reconstruct their own government and infrastructure without the horrific
inter-communal violence that is now escalating daily. Our occupation has
hardly prevented chaos and civil war, and leaving today would not
miraculously end the violence that has been building over the past three
years. But our immediate departure would allow Iraqis to get on with
reconstruction without the polarizing presence of a continuing occupation.
If we insist on staying, we will preside over the remainder of the
annihilation of the state we have worked, for decades, to destroy.
Sarah Shields teaches the history of the Middle East at the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
-
Many Americans are so unsophisticated that they refuse to believe anything
bad about their country. They regard acceptance of unpalatable truths as
disloyalty. This failure of American character is why Bush has been able to
get away with transgressions that scream out for his impeachment and trial
as a war criminal.
- Paul Craig Roberts