Iraq, a war of liberation? (merged)

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

I am interested in reaction to this article. We have beaten to death the concepts of WMD, and Oil (please post in some other thread if you want to discuss those), so I am posting this in hopes of exploring an aspect that seems to have been lost in this discussions, that of basic liberties.

When does a “War of Liberation” make sense?

Why have we not listened to the voices of the Iraqi exiles?

Iraqis plea for west to liberate homeland

Younger generation back war but elders are more cautious

Jeevan Vasagar
Monday January 27, 2003
The Guardian

Among the hawkish chorus backing war against Iraq, there is one voice that is rarely heard; the voice of those Iraqis living in the west who believe the countries they found refuge in can save the country they fled.
Iraqi exile Sama Hadad is a passionate advocate of western intervention in Iraq.

She was born in Baghdad but deported with her mother when she was 12 hours old.

Now 22 and a medical student at a London teaching hospital, Ms Hadad believes fellow Muslims who have spoken out against war are making a mistake.

“That’s tragic because it’s a total misunderstanding of the situation,” she said. "It comes from a lack of knowledge of what Iraq is really like.

"The Iraqi people are faced with a constant struggle, an ongoing war that will never stop until Saddam Hussein has been got rid of.

“Although they have got the intention of wanting to protect the Iraqi people, by standing in the way of any intervention they will be keeping them in the hands of a system of eternal oppression and murder.”

Sama’s mother was deported to the Iranian border because she was suspected of being a member of a religious opposition group. If Saddam is removed, she will be “on the first plane” back to Iraq.

“I’ve lived for five months in Iran, six years in Syria, six years in Greece, eight years in Canada, and three years in London,” said Ms Hadad, who speaks in Canadian-accented English.

"I’m 22 and I’ve never felt at home anywhere I’ve lived. My heart is in Iraq.

“And whatever system will be there, Iraq is going to need help to stand up on its own two feet. It will need professionals and people with degrees to go back and help it.”

At the Dar Al-Islam foundation, a mainly Iraqi mosque in Cricklewood, north-west London, she was echoed by other young Iraqis.

“In the 1991 uprising we received more bombs from Saddam than we had from America,” said Ali al-Shami, 23, who left as a refugee after the uprising. “I look at it this way. We are faced with two choices. If Saddam stays for the next 20 years we will have more and more people killed. I would rather have a war now than in 10 years’ time have a million people killed.”

2

I think the world differs not on whether Saddam is good for Iraq/world or not, but on how to remove him.

The 2 methods tried so far, economic sanctions and military hardware, have both only managed to hurt the iraqi civilians. Saddam Hussain and his proteges still stand tall, with their palaces and all. And even now, the concept of exile is being dangled in front of him by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, just to get him out of the way (meaning, he will still retain his billions, which he can enjoy in exile)

American technological edge over Iraq is such that it can take Saddam out with one bullet or missile, without harming anything within 2 feet of him. Then why are they so hell-bent on creating shiploads of dead Iraqi civilians (most of them children and women), all in the name of the ever-so-disgraceful concept of collateral damage?

If Saddam is taken out, his regime will collapse. He has not allowed any of his deputies to rise up enough to be able to challenge him, or even replace him, if he leaves. So it should be a simple concept of shoot-and-go.

War, the way america has planned it, will in no way bring happiness to Iraq anytime soon. Instead, it will bust up the whole mideast, with tempers flaring across the landscape, and anti-american sentiments high everywhere. They are in fact, inciting sentiments, in order to force common people to take matters into their own hands, which in turn will enable them to label them as terrorists, and somehow justify their continued military presence in the arabian peninsula.
Its not rocket science.

Sama's mother was deported to the Iranian border because she was suspected of being a member of a religious opposition group. If Saddam is removed, she will be "on the first plane" back to Iraq.

I hope Sama's mother realizes how many Iraqis already living in Iraq will have to give their lives in order for her to be able to board the first plane back to Iraq. Its easy making such catcalls while sitting on the sidelines. Shes lucky she managed to get out. One would expect some sanity from her.

Somehow we only hear from politically motivated iraqi exiles... we never hear from the commoners. Then again, no commoner ever left Iraq. Only those politically vindicated were forced to leave. And their motives for supporting a war on Iraq are, well, political as well.

But this issue is 99% humanitarian, and 1% political. They should realize that.

3

yeah sure.. 'liberate' the handful of dissidents at the expense of the millions already living in the country..

great 'liberation' propaganda cuz the oil and WMD myths aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

why the heck can't the US say.. "cuz we can".. it's simple.. just walk in .. get the oil .. 'liberate' whoever survives the carpet bombing and be done with it.

4

Why have we not listened to the voices of the Iraqi exiles? <<<<

One of this Iraq lady writer in exile is living in UK. She was tortured for writing against the government. She is against Saddam Hussain ** but she is against the War **. Will you listen to her or the Iraqi opposition who has been living in better condition in the Europe or America?

5

The motivation for war is not weaponry, oil, or morality. It is simply academic. The parties responsible for this even being a debate topic strongly believe that the world is based on theories like Realpolitik. The goal, in their view, is to ‘tame’ the Muslim populations around the world. The United States cannot pursue terrorist organizations in a way that makes good TV - ie: a way that sates an anxious public - no one can. The USA cannot punish Saudi Arabia or Indonesia any such states for numerous reasons. Therefore Iraq becomes the only available target. Please understand that I am not saying their goal is an attack on Islam, for it is not. It is merely classical balance of power.

I had some good resources on this analysis.. have to dig them up. In the meantime read An Unnecessary War (Foreign Policy mag) for a clear rebuttal to the major arguments raised in favor of this war and try the Stratfor.com site for good analyses on many topics (subcription reqd).

6

>>Why have we not listened to the voices of the Iraqi exiles?<<

**

Another great piece by Seumas Milne. Just posting the final excerpts.

The recolonisation of Iraq cannot be sold as liberation, The Guardian, 30 January 2003

Nor is there any evidence that most Iraqis, either inside or outside the country, want their country attacked and occupied by the US and Britain, however much they would like to see the back of the Iraqi dictator. Assessing the real state of opinion among Iraqis in exile is difficult enough, let alone in Iraq itself. But there are telling pointers that the licensed intellectuals and club-class politicians routinely quoted in the western media enthusing about US plans for their country are utterly unrepresentative of the Iraqi people as a whole.

Even the main US-sponsored organisations such as the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord, which are being groomed to be part of a puppet administration, find it impossible directly to voice support for a US invasion, suggesting little enthusiasm among their potential constituency. Laith Hayali - an Iraqi opposition activist who helped found the British-based solidarity group Cardri in the late 1970s and later fought against Saddam Hussein’s forces in Kurdistan - is one of many independent voices who insist that a large majority of Iraqi exiles are opposed to war. Anecdotal evidence from those coming in and out of Iraq itself tell a similar story, which is perhaps hardly surprising given the expected scale of casualties and destruction.

The Iraqi regime’s human rights record has been grim - though not uniquely so - over more than 30 years. If and when US and British occupation forces march down Baghdad’s Rashid Street, we will doubtless be treated to footage of spontaneous celebrations and GIs being embraced as they hand out sweets. There will be no shortage of people keen to collaborate with the new power; relief among many Iraqis, not least because occupation will mean an end to the misery of sanctions; there will be revelations of atrocities and war crimes trials.

All this will be used to justify what is about to take place. But a foreign invasion which is endorsed by only a small minority of Iraqis and which seems certain to lead to long-term occupation, loss of independence and effective foreign control of the country’s oil can scarcely be regarded as national liberation. It is also difficult to imagine the US accepting anything but the most “managed” democracy, given the kind of government genuine elections might well throw up.

The danger of military interventions in the name of human rights is that they are inevitably selective and used to promote the interests of those intervening - just as when they were made in the name of “civilisation” and Christianity. If war goes ahead, the prospect for Iraq must be of a kind of return to the semi-colonial era before 1958, when the country was the pivot of western power in the region, Britain maintained military bases and an “adviser” in every ministry and landowning families like Ahmad Chalabi of the INC’s were a law unto themselves. There were also 10,000 political prisoners, parties were banned, the press censored and torture commonplace. As President Bush would say, it looks like the re-run of a bad movie.

7

These exiled people are actually a very sorry lot. Don't get me wrong. I am sure there are a few in there who really want to go back and all. But most of them, make such press statement to make sure that their host country keeps their refugee status current and their asylum application on track.

Before the bombing started in Afghanistan, there were lots of statements from these same "exiled" Afghan leaders who had settled in USA. They wanted to liberate their country from Taliban. Local newspapers carried these woeful tales with great relish. US, the knight in shining armor, will make sure these "refugees" get back to their homeland in dignity and security. All well and good. So thousands of tonnes of bombs were dropped to flatten the country called Afghanistan. The country was "liberated", but these exilees have not moved an inch from here. They have businesses here and their kids love living in the good ol' US of A. They are not going anywhere. No Siree!

They can make as many statements as you want or are willing to publish. But the real people who get affected by any war on any country are those who actually live in that country. Get their voices out. Only then you will know whose opinion should be counted.

8

The recolonisation of Iraq cannot be sold as liberation

A factual article, which shows that the Iraqi people are hardly supportive of a US invasion, especially as it will entail a colonial-style occupation aterwards.

The recolonisation of Iraq cannot be sold as liberation

Of course most Iraqis don’t want their country invaded and occupied

Tony Blair’s government is running scared of the British people and their stubborn opposition to war on Iraq. The latest panic measure is to try to ban what has been trailed as the biggest demonstration in British political history from Hyde Park, where a giant anti-war rally is planned for February 15. As the US administration accelerates its drive to war, its most faithful cheerleader is having to run ever faster to keep up. Never mind that every single alleged chemical or biological weapons storage site mentioned in Blair’s dossier last year has been inspected and found to have been clean; or that the weapons inspectors reported this week that Iraq had cooperated “rather well”; or that most UN member states regard Hans Blix’s unanswered questions as a reason to keep inspecting, rather than launch an unprovoked attack. Jack Straw nevertheless rushed to declare Iraq in material breach of its UN obligations and fair game for the 82nd airborne. Most people have by now grasped that regime change, rather than disarmament, is the real aim of this exercise and that whatever residual “weapons of mass destruction” Iraq retains are evidently not sufficient to deter an attack - as they appear to be in North Korea. Since both the US and Britain have said they will use force with or without United Nations backing, the greatest impact of any new resolution blackmailed out of the security council is likely to be damage to the UN’s own credibility.

To harden up public support, the US has now promised “intelligence” to demonstrate the supposed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, along with evidence that the Iraqis have been secretly moving weapons to outwit the inspectors. Since this will depend entirely on US sources and prisoners - including those we now know have been tortured at the US internment camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - it may not prove quite the breakthrough “Adlai Stevenson moment” the US is hoping for either. But if none of this seems likely to make a decisive difference to public attitudes to an invasion of Iraq, there is one argument which is bound to resonate more widely in the weeks to come. This is the case made by President Bush in his state of the union speech on Tuesday that war against Iraq would mean the country’s “day of liberation” from a tyrannical regime. A similar point was made by a British soldier heading for the Gulf, when asked whether he wasn’t concerned about the lack of public support for war. “Once people know what Saddam has done to his own people,” Lance Corporal Daniel Buist replied, “they will be fully behind us.” It is a theme taken up most forcefully by liberal war supporters in Britain and the US - the celebrated laptop bombardiers - who developed a taste for “humanitarian intervention” during the Yugoslav maelstrom. The Iraqi people want a US invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, they claim, while the anti-war movement is indifferent to their fate. Where was the “left movement against Saddam” 20 years ago? one critic demanded recently. In fact, leftwingers were pretty well the only people in the west campaigning against the Iraqi regime two decades ago - left activists were being imprisoned and executed in their hundreds by Saddam Hussein at the time - while the US and British political establishments were busy arming Iraq in its war against Iran and turning a blind eye to his worst human rights abuses, including the gas attacks on the Kurds in the late 1980s.

What changed after 1991 was that the greatest suffering endured by Iraqis was no longer at the hands of the regime, but the result of western-enforced sanctions which, according to Unicef estimates, have killed at least 500,000 children over the past decade. Nor is there any evidence that most Iraqis, either inside or outside the country, want their country attacked and occupied by the US and Britain, however much they would like to see the back of the Iraqi dictator. Assessing the real state of opinion among Iraqis in exile is difficult enough, let alone in Iraq itself. But there are telling pointers that the licensed intellectuals and club-class politicians routinely quoted in the western media enthusing about US plans for their country are utterly unrepresentative of the Iraqi people as a whole. Even the main US-sponsored organisations such as the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord, which are being groomed to be part of a puppet administration, find it impossible directly to voice support for a US invasion, suggesting little enthusiasm among their potential constituency. Laith Hayali - an Iraqi opposition activist who helped found the British-based solidarity group Cardri in the late 1970s and later fought against Saddam Hussein’s forces in Kurdistan - is one of many independent voices who insist that a large majority of Iraqi exiles are opposed to war. Anecdotal evidence from those coming in and out of Iraq itself tell a similar story, which is perhaps hardly surprising given the expected scale of casualties and destruction.

The Iraqi regime’s human rights record has been grim - though not uniquely so - over more than 30 years. If and when US and British occupation forces march down Baghdad’s Rashid Street, we will doubtless be treated to footage of spontaneous celebrations and GIs being embraced as they hand out sweets. There will be no shortage of people keen to collaborate with the new power; relief among many Iraqis, not least because occupation will mean an end to the misery of sanctions; there will be revelations of atrocities and war crimes trials. All this will be used to justify what is about to take place. But a foreign invasion which is endorsed by only a small minority of Iraqis and which seems certain to lead to long-term occupation, loss of independence and effective foreign control of the country’s oil can scarcely be regarded as national liberation. It is also difficult to imagine the US accepting anything but the most “managed” democracy, given the kind of government genuine elections might well throw up. The danger of military interventions in the name of human rights is that they are inevitably selective and used to promote the interests of those intervening - just as when they were made in the name of “civilisation” and Christianity. If war goes ahead, the prospect for Iraq must be of a kind of return to the semi-colonial era before 1958, when the country was the pivot of western power in the region, Britain maintained military bases and an “adviser” in every ministry and landowning families like Ahmad Chalabi of the INC’s were a law unto themselves. There were also 10,000 political prisoners, parties were banned, the press censored and torture commonplace. As President Bush would say, it looks like the re-run of a bad movie.

9

Nadia already posted this...