The situation in Iraq is fast approaching the tipping point of failure for the big US dreams. The resistance fighters know that if they can break the backbone of occupiers through deterring Iraqis joining the US to consolidate occupation, they can prevent the US from establishing a Karzai kind of puppet regime which will ensure American interest even if the US forces are gone.
It is highly unlikely that the US forces will leave Iraq. Iraqis resisting the occupation know that the so-called transfer of authority to an Iraqi government is nothing more than a ploy to which many Afghans have already succumbed. Those who are close to the power circles in Kabul know how the whole world was duped in the meetings in Germany whereby a pre-appointed Karzai was appointed to rule Afghanistan. He was re-appointed after six months and will be appointed once more after some fake elections later this year. He will keep on reappointing and re-"electing" like Mubarak for as long as the US wants him there.
All resistance fighters are Iraqis, whether they are the so-labelled Baathists or Islamists. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times would make us believe that once “authority is in Iraqi hands, the Baathists and Islamists have a real problem: They can’t even pretend to be fighting the U.S. anymore.” There is no need for anyone to pretend to fight the US. They are not pretending. Sacrificing their lives to defeat the occupation forces might be their "pretending" to Friedman because he was expecting a red carpet welcome for the occupiers. Plenty of red coffins makes these advocates of war more desperate than ever.
According to Friedman, those who are engaged in resistance to US occupation are “fighting against the freedom and independence of Iraq.” The US is not there for freedom or independence of Iraq. The cowboy president just wanted to settle score. Removing Saddam was the first objective; establishing a solid base in the oil rich country, the second; and to cow rest of the Muslim countries, the ultimate objective.
To start with Saddam, it was necessary to make “life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people [so that they are encouraged] to remove President Saddam Hussein." And then the US waited for it to happen.
To bring about the present “liberation,” the US used epidemic and famine as tools of its foreign policy. The US did it to cause suffering for bringing “freedom and independence” at low cost to the US. The US however miserably failed to force the Iraqis to do the regime change for the US because the cost was too heavy for them. And the cost increased 10 fold between 1992 and 1999. A World-Trade-Center’s worth of Iraqi children continued to die every month.
Thomas Friedman now comes to convince the world that the resistance to the US bloodletting is the result of some “lunatic ideologies.” We need to ask impartial international experts, rather than the advocates of war, to understand if Iraq is under occupation, or it enjoys freedom and independence. The resistance is a simple case of tit for tat. You invade someone’s house; he has every right to throw you out. It matters little if you call it an invasion for his liberation, or blame his justified reaction the result of some “lunatic ideology.”
Now that the US bull is sitting in Baghdad, the strategy of resistance is very straightforward. It is to resist irrespective of who the next American president may be. The objective is not to let the US succeed in consolidating occupation at any cost.
For the outside world, change in guard at Capital Hill matters very little. Bush-I engineered and went for Gulf War, and put genocidal sanctions in place. Clinton had to maintain these sanctions to avoid looking weak throughout his presidency. He did not need any Friedman’s sermon to keep on killing at least 3000 children a month in Iraq.
Now that the war-promoters see Bush on the way out, their spokesmen, such as Friedman (February 15 column), are desperately trying to convince the newcomer for sustaining and consolidating the inhuman occupations in the name of democracy and freedom.
Instead of listening to the preachers of war, who cannot think of anything but war for everything from ideas to promotion of values or removal of the unacceptable-to-them dictators, Senator Kerry would do well to understand the fact that there are no Islamo-fascists or die-hard Baathists in operation in Iraq.
If we believe in Friedman’s theory and assume that the present chaos is only due to Islamo-fascists and their "lunatic ideology," the question arises: why didn’t they risk their lives for taking power from much weaker Saddam? Why are they standing up to the mighty America? Similarly, Baathists can do anything but not sacrifice their lives in a situation in which they do not see any worldly gain.
Saddam is gone forever. The dead Baathist ideology gives Baathists no inspiration for taking their lives for something that is highly unlikely. As power worshipers, they would prefer to lick American boots rather than dying for nothing.
Iraqis are not slaughtering each others for the sake of slaughtering. Why they didn’t do so before the US occupation? Those who are supporting occupation forces in Iraq might seem to be struggling to build their government. However, many Iraqis see them as assistants to occupiers who have been sucking their blood for the past 12 years. The more the US gets time to settle down, the more the chances are that there would be another Karzai in place for almost ever to come.
Message of the resistance in Iraq must be clear to the next US president. It says: “Mr. Kerry! If you listen to the war-promoters in the US, we also want you to understand that we want the US out –” whether it happens out of the US fear or the use of reason, logic and some sense of justice. If Israel could not consolidate its occupation of the Arab lands in the last 37 years, the US will never do so till next Ramadan in Iraq. We will be dead but you will still suffer. Which part of that sentence don’t you understand?
"We are not terrorists or lunatics. We are ordinary Iraqis who lost our loved ones to your sanctions, invasion and occupation of the terrorists and lunatics. We are forced to live under the boot of your GIs. We want an Iraq free of the US intervention because it’s the best way to save American and Iraqi lives. Mr. Kerry, we identify so strongly with our oppressed brothers and sisters. The worst way to spoil their dreams of freedom and independence is to suggest to the American promoters of war that there is no daylight between you and President Bush –” that if he won’t succeed in consolidating occupation, you will. The only way for the US to give us every chance to produce our own representative government is to pull out completely and unconditionally.
"We do not trust the US administration because it has persistently lied about our weapons of mass destruction since 1991. It is not only the war that came as a result of such lies but the genocidal sanctions were the result of the same lies. Mr. Kerry, if you want to win, you need to defeat the advocates of war around you and in your media. If you followed your vote for war and Friedman’s advice to “enlist every American in this war,” you will not only doom your presidency but will drag the US into the bottomless pit of humiliation and loss. You need to wage a war on these warriors for war in the US.
“Mr. Kerry, you need to defeat the ideas of war from these advocates of persistent war. Don’t let yourself lost in the illusions which pushed Bush-I and II into wars and infamy. The advocates of war are now turning the undue fears that they used for pushing Bush into invading Iraq into justifications for a war for democracy and supremacy of Western ideas. For that purpose, why did they choose Iraq? Is Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or Pakistan less authoritarian than what we witnessed in Iraq?
"The advocates of war may force you to commit yourself to pay any price and bear any burden to try to build a ‘decent Iraqi regime in the heart of the Arab world.’ However, that was not the reason for 12 years long sanctions and subsequent occupation. Furthermore, let Friedman go for establishig regimes, but regimes can never be decent except to their masters in Washington. The reason for going to war is the filth of outright lies that cannot be covered with anything less than the fine slogans of freedom and democracy. Usage of the word ‘regime’ speaks volumes of the mentality of your self-appointed advisers.
“Fear mongers like Friedman might scare you for your not committing to a perpetual war with comments such as: ‘Failure to make that commitment would have horrific consequences for U.S. foreign policy.’ But tell them you are not there to be fooled by the language of ‘decent regime’. The picture of Iraq since the US occupation is enough to prove every word they uttered before pushing Bush into war as utterly wrong. Mr. Kerry, if you do not believe us, search any achieve and find out their justifications for sanctions and war, and their twisting the same justifications into new ruses since the US forces are dying at least one a day in the occupied lands.
“Your commitment to end the illegal and illegitimate US stay in Iraq and handing over the country to Iraqis will not be considered as your running away from Iraq. Thomas Friedman may try to make you believe to the contrary, but that is how they keep the killing machine going.
“Your and your country’s future lies in ending the US occupations as well as stop supporting the US-sponsored Israeli occupation. In the end it matters little if you consider it leaving Iraq and Afghanistan in obligation to international laws and all norms of decency, or running from there. All that counts is if the US survives as the super power and leader of the ‘civilized world.’ For that you need good deeds, not new TV channels that would simply make your deeds just look good. “
Notes:. PAUL LEWIS, “After The War; U.N. Survey Calls Iraq’s War Damage Near-Apocalyptic” Special to The New York Times, March 22, 1991, Friday, Late Edition –” Final Page A1, Column 6, Foreign Desk . "These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more that 46,900 children died between January and August 1991." New England Journal of Medicine in 1992. Special Article: Effect of the Gulf War on Infant and Child Mortality in Iraq. For the full article, see http://www.endiraqsanctions.org/NEJM24sep-92.html. For related articles, see http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/327/13/931. . That report mentioned in reference 2 was virtually ignored in the US, so that by 1999 UNICEF had to report on 500,000 excess Iraqi children’s deaths. See: http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm and http://www.scn.org/ccpi/infrastructure.html#hall_pr