What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
Did Oprah Pick Another Fibber?
Truth and Fiction in Elie Wiesel's Night
In his special
report Alexander Cockburn interviews former Wiesel colleague
and Holocaust survivor Eli Pfefferkorn. What Raul Hilberg, the
Holocaust's greatest historian, really thinks about Wiesel's
"Night". Also
in this special issue: Is Hugo Chavez Hitler or Father Christmas?
Larry Lack tells the full story of Venezuela's hand-outs to Uncle
Sam's Shivering Poor. Plus, Jeffrey St Clair profiles the Endangered
Visigoth and traces the rise and possible fall of Rick Pombo,
destroyer of nature.CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please
support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
Three years ago, at one of the huge
demonstrations that preceded the invasion of Iraq, I ran into
a 16-year-old friend, visibly excited by the size of the crowd
and the sense of common purpose. "They can't go to war now,
can they?" he said, "Not after this ... " Well,
they did, and three years later the fears of the protesters have
been born out many times over. Yet the size of the protests has
diminished.
This is not because the reasons to protest have gone away. On
the contrary, the threat of a new war against Iran, the dispatch
of more than 3,000 UK troops to the unfinished war in Afghanistan
and, above all, the continuing injustice and destructiveness
of the occupation of Iraq should provide more than sufficient
motivation for people to join the marches being held this Saturday
in London and around the world.
That the aftermath of the invasion has been disastrous is now
conceded nearly universally, but there's a confusion about this
disaster's nature and causes and the remedy for it. In Britain,
coverage of violence in Iraq focuses on suicide attacks and bomb
blasts targeting civilians. These have increased in number and
are indeed horrifying, but they account for only a small proportion
of the lethal violence convulsing Iraq.
According to the US military, there were 34,000 insurgent attacks
in 2005 - up 30% on 2004. The US Government Accountability Office
recently reported to Congress that there were 2,500 "violent
confrontations" in December 2005 (more than 80 a day and
"almost 250%" more than in March 2004). Significantly,
about 80% of these attacks targeted occupying forces, 10% targeted
Iraqi armed forces and about 10% Iraqi civilians. Suicide attacks
with car bombs rose to 411 in 2005 from 133 in 2004, but still
comprised only 1.2% of the total.
For Iraqis, the daily threat of violence comes from many sources:
guards at checkpoints, armed vehicles on patrol, criminal gangs,
death squads working with government and police, and, not least,
concerted US-British military operations. Scarcely reported in
this country, the occupiers have been escalating their air war
against alleged insurgent strongholds. In the last six months
of 2005, US forces conducted more than 400 air strikes,
involving bombers, gunships or unmanned drones. The tactics used
in Falluja in November 2004 - which left more than two-thirds
of the city's buildings uninhabitable and took thousands of civilian
lives - have been repeated elsewhere. In Ramadi, Al-Qaim, Haditha,
Baiji and elsewhere, hi-tech assaults against densely populated
areas have killed and injured civilians, destroyed hospitals,
schools and homes, and turned tens of thousands of Iraqis into
refugees in their own land. Seymour Hersch in the New Yorker
reports that, since March 2003, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing
alone has dropped more than 500,000 tonnes of ordnance on Iraq,
compared to the 2m tonnes dropped by all US forces in the entire
course of the Vietnam war.
The US foreign aid agency says Iraq is suffering a "social
breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".
Since the occupation began, more than 300 educators, scientists
and intellectuals have been assassinated. The Iraqi minister
of replacement and migration has admitted that it is now unsafe
for Iraqis to return from abroad. Amnesty International says
"the human rights situation in the country remains dire".
Occupying forces have detained without charge or trial more than
35,000 Iraqis. Currently, at least 15,000 are being held in US
or British camps - a 300% increase over March 2004. An unknown
number of detainees have been tortured and some killed. According
to the former UN human rights chief in Iraq, every month in Baghdad
alone hundreds of Iraqis are tortured to death or summarily executed
by death squads working from the ministry of the interior.
After three years of occupation, "virtually every measure
of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage
sectors has fallen below pre-invasion values", according
to the New York Times. A poll conducted for the MoD last year
showed that 71% of Iraqis rarely get clean water, 47% never have
enough electricity, and 70% say their sewerage system rarely
works. Reconstruction is at a standstill and the only new funds
earmarked by the US are for prisons. Oil production fell in January
to half its prewar levels.
A study conducted by IMF and the United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) revealed that the number of Iraqis below the poverty line
has increased since the fall of Saddam Hussein to one-fifth of
the population, with 2 million Iraqi families currently living
on less than $1 per day per person. Causes for increasing poverty
were given as "the rise in unemployment, violence and the
decline in public sector and civil service jobs". Another
UNDP study reported that acute malnutrition among Iraqi children
has nearly doubled since the invasion of 2003. Yet last month,
the Iraqi government slashed allocations for food rations by
25%. On the orders of the IMF, it also cut fuel subsidies, leading
to a fivefold increase in prices.
Meanwhile, corruption (involving occupying forces, Iraqi officials
and multinational corporations) is rampant. In its 2005 report,
Transparency International, an independent monitor, warned that
postwar Iraq could be "the biggest corruption scandal in
history".
All of this - the violence, the human rights abuses, the poverty,
the social and economic breakdown, the plunder - is happening
not in spite of but because of the occupation. Which is why Iraqis
themselves have consistently demanded an end to it. In a poll
commissioned by the British Ministry of Defence, 82% said they
were "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition
troops and 67% felt less secure because of the occupation. Crucially,
less than 1% believed coalition forces had improved security.
These views have been confirmed by other polls and by the large
anti-occupation demonstrations repeatedly staged in various cities,
but rarely reported here. What's more, nearly all the groups
that took part in the elections last year have called for a timetable
for withdrawal. The US and Britain insist they know better.
The brutal realities of the occupation, under-reported as they
are, ought to be enough to get anyone out on Saturday morning.
Yet many still hesitate, troubled by the nature of the resistance,
the fear of civil war, and not least a sense of futility about
political protest.
There should be no surprise that a violent resistance has arisen
in answer to a violent occupation. And no surprise that this
resistance has proved a complicated, multi-faceted and evolving
phenomenon. The "Zarqawi" wing of it is indeed utterly
ruthless, reactionary and sectarian, but was responsible for
only a few hundred of the 34,000 insurgent attacks last year.
It is unpopular in the extreme among the Iraqi population, the
vast majority of whom (including nearly all religious figures)
condemn its brutal methods. But the resistance as a whole is
a very different matter. Most factions are driven by a desire
to end foreign occupation, and most routinely distance themselves
from suicide bombers who target mosques and civilians. The recent
GAO Congressional testimony cites a senior US military officer
saying that "almost all" of ''the various insurgent
groups ... are an intrinsic part of Iraq's population" -
which is why resistance has been sustained despite the ferocity
of the US-British counter-insurgency.
The spectre of civil war seems to be the most favoured current
excuse for prolonging the occupation. It's true that sectarian
tensions and violence have been rising, especially since the
bombing of the Shia mosque in Samarra. However, the hundreds
of thousands who demonstrated in Iraqi cities after that atrocity
not only repudiated sectarian division but laid the blame for
it squarely on the occupiers, and not without reason. The US
and Britain have pursued a reckless divide-and-rule strategy,
insisting Iraqis be represented in religious or ethnic blocks,
and playing off one group against another. In addition, an unknown
proportion of the sectarian attacks are actually carried out
by groups sponsored by the US and Britain. Sectarian and ethnic
division certainly existed in Iraq prior to the invasion, but
the occupation has widened and inflamed it. Far from preventing
civil war, the US-British presence makes it more likely. The
occupying forces lack legitimacy, their motives are widely suspect
and they cannot therefore act as effective peacekeepers, even
if they wanted to.
The notion that the occupation can bring stability, democracy
or justice to Iraq ignores how and why the US and British troops
got there in the first place, and the abiding priorities of the
governments that sent them there. These remain to secure a pro-western
government and control over the region's resources. Those aims
are simply not compatible with the interests of Iraqis. The same
disrespect for Iraqis' right and capacity to determine their
own future that underpinned the invasion informs the occupation,
and will continue to do so. Ending the occupation will certainly
not solve all Iraq's problems, but it is a precondition for Iraqis
to unite and rebuild.
After decades of western-sponsored sanctions and war, our obligations
to the Iraqi people do not end there. A massive programme of
reparations will be needed. But that cannot begin until we end
the US-British attempt to control Iraq's destiny by force of
arms.
Many who agree with all of the above will still not protest on
Saturday because they have come to believe that the Blair government
(or any government) is impervious to protest. In a sense, the
antiwar movement has been a victim of its own success. "We
marched in unprecedented numbers," people say, "and
still they went to war, still they ignored us - so what's the
point of marching again?"
I don't have a glib answer to that question. I'd like to suggest
that it's too early to judge the long-term significance of the
demonstrations held three years ago. People who took part in
the non-cooperation campaigns in India in the 20s and 30s had
to wait a long time for independence. There were eight years
of protest and more than 2 million dead before the Vietnam war
came to an end. However, I suspect my young friend, now 19 years
old, will be less than inspired by this sort of argument. What
I do know is that not protesting makes it more likely that a
wicked policy will remain in operation, and that more suffering
will flow from it. Given what's happening in Iraq, and given
our government's responsibility for it, marching on Saturday
boils down to a matter of conscience.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.