Listening to the Voice of the Insurgent's Violence"Tomorrow I'm going to deliver a third in a series of speeches about the situation in Iraq. During Saddam Hussein's brutal rule he exploited the ethnic and religious diversity of Iraq by setting communities against one another. And now the terrorists and former regime elements are doing the same -- they're trying to set off a civil war through acts of sectarian violence. But the United States and our Iraqi forces cannot be defeated militarily. The only thing the Iraqi insurgents, as well as the terrorists, can possibly do is to cause us to lose our nerve and retreat, to withdraw." -- Bush discusses Iraq following cabinet meeting in the
Rose GardenIt's a national disgrace to have such an ignorant man in charge of our military. Bush has reduced the violence in Iraq to "insurgents" trying to "cause us to lose our nerve and retreat, to withdraw." Nothing in his feinted mind can imagine any other reasons there might be for the violence than a test of wills with Americans?
Notice how he groups the "United States and Iraqi forces". There will not be an Iraqi government force that will be able to stand up to the type of widespread resistance from the population that we see today, or any other challenge for that matter, without the U.S. soldiers backing them up. These folks don't like the ruling authority they've been offered and they're set to upset it. The bulk of the violence is mainly a result of power struggles among rival sects. There will be no peace in Iraq unless they somehow come together and lead Iraqis to reconcile and share Iraq.
But, the sticking point in all of that is the U.S. installation of the initial authority after our invasion and occupation, the subsequent installation of the unpopular Allawi, and the apparent interference that the U.S. is now engaged in with the formation of a Parliament and the appointment of a leader, does not lay a proper foundation for any form of democracy that has been known to man in the entire history of governments. Democracy cannot be imposed from the top down. Nothing 'unifying' will come out of the formation of Iraq's new ruling authority as long as the heavy hand of the American military is still seen by Iraqis as manipulating events and stifling opposition.
Our 'nerve' is not the issue in Iraq, though Bush's own countenance is his number-one obsession. He cries, "bring them on" as he struts and blusters behind the young soldiers he uses as mercenaries of his new imperialism. You're "either with us, or, against us" he pouts as he flails our military around the world, slap-fighting with his eyes closed.
But, what about the message of the 'insurgents'? We no longer wish to hear the voice of these bomber's violence. But, listening . . .
You have to wonder about these Iraqis - educated, ambitious, motivated nationalists. What would their reaction have been to a less arrogant approach by Bush? The goal of the Bush regime was to intimidate actors in that region with the massive display of military power. Less concern was given to the after-effects of such a heavy-handed invasion and the likely resulting resistance to an occupation.
We rightly condemn these bombers for their barbarous slaughter of innocents, as well as anyone who aided them in their attack. Violence as a means of political expression or for anything other than legitimate defense should be condemned.
But these perpetrators did not act out of a vacuum filled with their own unattributable hatred, or evil, as Bush and others like to brand all violent acts against the U.S. and our agents. These men were reportedly angered by a war of opportunity against a country which had nothing to do, at all, with the participants and perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Center.
The invasion of Iraq was calculated to, as Tony Blair admitted a week before the London bombings, "draw a line in the sand". It was meant to send a message of 'shock and awe' throughout the world to bolster the weak images of Bush and Blair following the devastating attacks in New York. Here at home, we were led by the hand through the niceties of the administration's pre-war justifications.
Saddam was an evil-doer and madman bent on our destruction, we were told. The Iraqis, Bush warned, were enemies who had "no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality."
"The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East," the educator-in chief told us. "It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda."
However, Osama Bin Laden, the ringleader of the 9-11 attacks, was not in Iraq. The rebel leader, in fact shunned and denounced the leadership of Saddam Hussein as a betrayal of fundamental Islam. The terrorist group, al-Qaeda, did not have a foothold in Iraq before Bush and Blair invaded. They do now. There are now daily attacks on our soldiers and Iraqi citizens by an Iraqi resistance - possibly aided by some outside terror network. This didn't happen in a vacuum either.
Last year, an Islamic scholar in the U.S. got life in prison for encouraging followers to fight American soldiers. (He) was accused of telling a group of young Muslim men just days after the attack that an apocalyptic battle between Muslims and nonbelievers was at hand and that Muslims were obligated to engage in holy war. He told the group that defense of the Taliban was a requirement and that U.S. troops were a legitimate target, according to court testimony.
But, there was another U.S. citizen who also encouraged attacks on our troops: "There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is 'bring them on'," Bush told reporters in the White House Roosevelt Room in July 2003.
It was Bush with his blustering who, by inviting attacks on our soldiers in Iraq, fueled the groundswell of resistance to our occupation and encouraged would-be attackers to cross the border into Iraq to challenge our troops, mindless of the effect his taunting would have on the behavior of those who might be inclined to actively oppose his bloody military expansionism into the Middle East.
Bush apparently believed that those who would violently oppose the U.S. would cower from our overwhelming military offensive in Iraq. Yet, each offensive has had the effect of encouraging more resistance. The random exercise of our military strength and destructive power will not serve as a deterrent to these rouge, radical terrorist organizations who claim no permanent base of operations. The wanton, collateral bombing and killing has undoubtedly alienated any fringe of moderates who might have joined in a unified effort of regime change which respects our own democratic values of justice and due process.
Our oppressive posture has pushed the citizens of these sovereign nations to a forced expression of their nationalism in defense of basic prerogatives of liberty and self-determination, which our false authority disregards as threats to our consolidation of power. It has also, apparently, pushed sympathizers within our Western refuges to violent reprisals. They end their own troubled lives attempting to blow up as many others as they can along with them.
Innocent lives are lost in their attacks. Their morality is lost with the commission of their desperate act. We no longer wish to hear the voice of these bomber's violence. But, if there is a message they want to send to the U.S. military and Bush, it's plain enough: 'Leave us and our country alone.' After all, Bush just invited himself in, and he's never been welcomed to stay. There's no call from Iraqis for the U.S. to reform our own political system which makes a mockery of the democracy Bush claims to be defending abroad. Although, I'm certain that regime change in America isn't their last thought.
We can remember a time when most of the world community stood in solidarity with us as we grappled with the mindless aggression of 9-11. They cheered us and followed all the way to Afghanistan as we pursued bin Laden. They averted their gaze as we obliterated men, women, and children in Afghanistan who we claimed belonged to the Taliban, who we punished for associating with the 9-11 bombers. They turned their backs as we installed our puppet there. They lost interest as we lost the target of our hunt.
But the world's ears pricked up as Bush and Blair began their bleating about Saddam. They listened as Bush claimed to have no designs on Iraq, just on their hapless leader, Saddam, the evil one. Many declined to do anything else but watch in quiet fear for their own sovereign nations as we flexed our military muscles. And, as we proceeded with our indiscriminate bombings, our search and destroy missions, and shootings of innocent civilians by our misguided, defensive soldiers, they were either to be emasculated; accept our imperialism and resign themselves to our dominance in silence, or resist.
"Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?" Patrick Henry spoke those words June 5, 1788, in the Virginia Convention, called to ratify the Constitution of the United States. He continued:
"A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment? In what situation are we to be? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, unbounded and unlimited--an exclusive power of legislation, in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, etc. What resistance could be made? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies; their garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country."We occupy Iraq and Afghanistan with our military, yet, Bush and his regime claim that we have freed these once sovereign nations and their citizens. Until Bush relinquishes that military control over these Middle Eastern countries there will continue to be those who violently resist.
"We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice." Bush remarked in a speech before he invaded.
"We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people."Those of us who abhor and resist violence need to find a way to convince Bush to get on with it to keep the more desperate among Iraq's population from trying to take their country back with more violence of their own.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
