The case for military withdrawal from Iraq
SNEHAL SHINGAVI
Daily Californian (UC-Berkeley)
(U-WIRE) BERKELEY, Calif. -- Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of anti-war activists marched in cities across the United States. We called for an end to the illegal and unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq.
On Monday, Cindy Sheehan and several other prominent activists and military family members were arrested outside the White House while demanding that our troops come home from Iraq now.
However, the next day, columnist Darryl Stein advocated for "reason" and "moderation" in our approach to Iraq. He argued that the United States is fighting a different war in Iraq today than when it first invaded, that the Iraqi constitution is the best hope for the future of Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, the country will collapse. We address each of these arguments in turn.
To begin, the initial characterization of the anti-war movement at UC Berkeley is grossly inaccurate. Antiwar activism on UC Berkeley's campus did not appear out of thin air in 2003. The Berkeley Stop the War Coalition was started in 2001 and was -- and still is -- actively engaged in anti-war activism.
Moreover, people did not oppose the war in Iraq simply because it wasn't a multilateral invasion. The reasons for opposing the war were and are numerous, the most prominent being that it was an illegal, immoral and unjust occupation of a country that did not take into account the human costs of an occupation -- not to mention the absurdity of the pronouncement that troops in Humvees would be greeted as liberators.
Almost 2,000 U.S. soldiers are dead. So are countless thousands of Iraqis.
The costs of the invasion have not only produced a very convenient cover for the evisceration of social services in the United States but have also seen the whittling away of our rights under the banner of Islamophobia.
While the character of an invasion differs from an occupation, the fact of the matter is that the reasons that the invasion was wrong continue to plague the occupation. The lies used to justify the invasion have made the U.S. occupation hated; the rifles and Apache helicopters used in the invasion are still being utilized in order to bring more fear than democracy during the occupation; the privatization of Iraqi industry that took place in the immediate aftermath of the invasion holds an Iraqi future hostage to corporate America for the duration of the occupation and beyond.
As a consequence, irrespective of whether they are invading or occupying forces, American and British troops are still the single largest factor producing violence in Iraq. American and British troops pit confessional and sectarian groups against one another, while the American media ignores the reality that the lion's share of the resistance attacks target occupation forces and their collaborators, thereby giving cover to the lie that Iraq has descended into a civil war of its own making.
Moreover, to claim that our presence is helping Iraqis ignores the facts on the ground. The infrastructure destroyed during the invasion has not been rebuilt. Two years after entering the country, most Iraqis still lack running water, electricity, jobs, education and the ability to walk around freely on their own streets. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis see the Americans as occupiers, and while the history of occupations is long, the end results are often the same: Both the occupier and the occupied lose. This is certainly the case today.
Finally, the most oft-repeated argument that our withdrawal will result in the collapse of Iraq is blatantly paternalistic. It implies that Iraqis cannot figure out how to run their own country, but must be guided by their new Western allies.
The rushed Iraqi constitution, hastily hammered together in order to save an ailing Republican public image, has left all but a handful of American satraps thoroughly dissatisfied. What's more, it has, despite all fanfare to the contrary, ensured that the most conservative elements of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish societies have legal and constitutional authority.
We do agree that the occupying countries should not leave a mess for others to clean up. We do believe that the occupying countries should pay for the rebuilding of Iraq by Iraqis. But it is narrow-minded to assume that military intervention is the only way we can "clean up our mess."
Declaring that we "stay the course" is advocating the status quo, and therefore it's not saying much. Not only does it lack clear vision and imagination, but as students, we should not be afraid of really discussing how best to help the people of Iraq.
Daily Californian (UC-Berkeley)
(U-WIRE) BERKELEY, Calif. -- Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of anti-war activists marched in cities across the United States. We called for an end to the illegal and unjust invasion and occupation of Iraq.
On Monday, Cindy Sheehan and several other prominent activists and military family members were arrested outside the White House while demanding that our troops come home from Iraq now.
However, the next day, columnist Darryl Stein advocated for "reason" and "moderation" in our approach to Iraq. He argued that the United States is fighting a different war in Iraq today than when it first invaded, that the Iraqi constitution is the best hope for the future of Iraq, and that if we leave Iraq, the country will collapse. We address each of these arguments in turn.
To begin, the initial characterization of the anti-war movement at UC Berkeley is grossly inaccurate. Antiwar activism on UC Berkeley's campus did not appear out of thin air in 2003. The Berkeley Stop the War Coalition was started in 2001 and was -- and still is -- actively engaged in anti-war activism.
Moreover, people did not oppose the war in Iraq simply because it wasn't a multilateral invasion. The reasons for opposing the war were and are numerous, the most prominent being that it was an illegal, immoral and unjust occupation of a country that did not take into account the human costs of an occupation -- not to mention the absurdity of the pronouncement that troops in Humvees would be greeted as liberators.
Almost 2,000 U.S. soldiers are dead. So are countless thousands of Iraqis.
The costs of the invasion have not only produced a very convenient cover for the evisceration of social services in the United States but have also seen the whittling away of our rights under the banner of Islamophobia.
While the character of an invasion differs from an occupation, the fact of the matter is that the reasons that the invasion was wrong continue to plague the occupation. The lies used to justify the invasion have made the U.S. occupation hated; the rifles and Apache helicopters used in the invasion are still being utilized in order to bring more fear than democracy during the occupation; the privatization of Iraqi industry that took place in the immediate aftermath of the invasion holds an Iraqi future hostage to corporate America for the duration of the occupation and beyond.
As a consequence, irrespective of whether they are invading or occupying forces, American and British troops are still the single largest factor producing violence in Iraq. American and British troops pit confessional and sectarian groups against one another, while the American media ignores the reality that the lion's share of the resistance attacks target occupation forces and their collaborators, thereby giving cover to the lie that Iraq has descended into a civil war of its own making.
Moreover, to claim that our presence is helping Iraqis ignores the facts on the ground. The infrastructure destroyed during the invasion has not been rebuilt. Two years after entering the country, most Iraqis still lack running water, electricity, jobs, education and the ability to walk around freely on their own streets. An overwhelming majority of Iraqis see the Americans as occupiers, and while the history of occupations is long, the end results are often the same: Both the occupier and the occupied lose. This is certainly the case today.
Finally, the most oft-repeated argument that our withdrawal will result in the collapse of Iraq is blatantly paternalistic. It implies that Iraqis cannot figure out how to run their own country, but must be guided by their new Western allies.
The rushed Iraqi constitution, hastily hammered together in order to save an ailing Republican public image, has left all but a handful of American satraps thoroughly dissatisfied. What's more, it has, despite all fanfare to the contrary, ensured that the most conservative elements of Sunni, Shia and Kurdish societies have legal and constitutional authority.
We do agree that the occupying countries should not leave a mess for others to clean up. We do believe that the occupying countries should pay for the rebuilding of Iraq by Iraqis. But it is narrow-minded to assume that military intervention is the only way we can "clean up our mess."
Declaring that we "stay the course" is advocating the status quo, and therefore it's not saying much. Not only does it lack clear vision and imagination, but as students, we should not be afraid of really discussing how best to help the people of Iraq.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home