Looking back on my and my team's accomplishments it seems like the end of our tour will be anticlimactic. Even after capturing and ridding Iraq of many 'bad men' so many more have only come to take up the fight against us. How could this be? Perhaps it is because we have become "the Red Coats" in the eyes of the Iraqis, and to them this is their own version of our revolutionary war...
I can not tell you that is true however, for I am not an Iraqi, so in closing I must say that this, like most things on my blog, is but my humble observation and nothing more.
33 comments:
Hurria, Zach did use quote marks (" "), which in English signifies that he is giving a special meaning to the words enclosed. If he had not used them, then you could rightly criticize him as you did. I interpret his use of "bad men" in this manner (inside quotes) as a quotation by others, rather than as his own thoughts.
But, Zach, you are in a unique position of being an Arabic translator and therefore - far more than most soldiers in Iraq - able to actually understand directly what is said to you and in your presence by Iraqis. Can you read posters, signs, newspapers, etc. in Arabic? All of these sources should provide you with understanding of at least what the speakers/writers think about the US military presence. You can know if you want to - listen carefully and even ask questions. Now what you do with that information is another question - but it's still yours to answer.
Zach,
I am so sorry for you. But Hurria is absolutely right, no matter how you cut it. A very bad gig, as I've written before.
When you're back home safe, please don't hate the Middle East and its people. If we lived in a saner world, we would all be friends.
Take care & be safe.
amerikans ingest far too much aspartame. its why they are all nuts.
avoid all their foodstuffs, otherwise you'll become just as crazy as them.
Sorry snag, I know it was posed for Hurria & I hope she replies, but your questions made my fingers itch:
What if we were only to have destroyed Husseins regime/governmental apparatus and not have occupied afterward?
Or, if we had made good on our offer to the Shiites and Kurds that we would back them in an overthrow of the government (this one I feel would have also produced a very bad outcome)?
These are questions that would make me go bonkers if I tried to work them out. So, I'll just stick to what I know.
1. Hussein's regime has been destroyed.
2. Iraq is still occupied by US troops.
3. There is a question of validity about going to war in the first place.
No matter how you spin this situation, I can only come back to my original conviction that people have a right to determine their own fate, and not have it chosen for them. Not by Hussein, not by the US and not by any puppet government installed by the US. - spare me the rhetoric on democracy - it hasn't made the dead come to life, hasn't brought peace, and hasn't unified the country. Most of all, it's monstrous that so many people have died, and will continue to die for the spurious reason of removing a lousy dictator from power. Hurria is absolutely right to point out that the US had no right to invade and turn these people's lives upside down. Life and earning a living is hard enough without idiots with grand delusions ruining it for less fortunate people of the world.
When will people learn that imposing your will on another person, whether for good reasons or bad is basically evil? Can the West ever understand this most basic principle?
All the best, Yong
Right on, Yong.
Peace etc
taff
Hurria said: "This is not the equivalent of your revolutionary war, this is a legitimate attempt by Iraqis to rid itself of a foreign invader that never had any business setting foot on the soil of their country."
whoa whoa Hurria, hold your horses.
I agree with you, that we should have never gone; and I criticize the Democrats who voted for the war. They can't use the excuse that "they were lied to by Bush's 16 words," because they should definitely have more knowledge and intelligence than I did back then; and I have been opposed to this wrongful invasion since the start.
However, please do not belittle our Revolutionary War. ALL Revolutionary Wars are legitimate when you are victorious over an oppressor.
It is not an either or situation. It's best not to let yourself get caught into such false analyses.
Peace,
Hannah
Hurria, most USers ("Americans" is IMO a poor term - Canadians, Mexicans and all those residents of Central and South America are Americans too), especially those less than ~50, have a scanty understanding of the USA founding history. The textbooks used in US government schools (and most attend and are indoctrinated by these from the age of 5) give a limited and slanted view of what took place in the earliest years prior to, during and shortly after the creation of the country. Even worse is the failure by most to understand that it is not simply the current president and his associates who are responsible for the increasingly fascist practices of the US government. These measures have been active and increasing since early in the 20th century, with the ground fertile for their placement going back to the very words of the US Constitution itself. The use of the collective "we" (and "us" and "our") within the founding documents implies that in regard to those documents, all US citizens were in agreement rather than merely those who actually signed them, but this was and is far from the truth. This practice of using "we" continues today by many people who fail to understand (or ignore the fact) that they can not speak for others who have not given them specific authority to do so.
Those who speak about the US Revolutionary War as though they were alive at that time and, more so, understood the background and activities that took place during that time are almost always far less knowledgeable than would be best for them. If these individuals fully understood the foundational principles underlying these issues - and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq is just one of numerous currently - they would realize that the governments (US and others too) are the problem. Homo sapien sapiens have come a great way in the many tens of thousands of years since appearing on earth. Scientific and technological advances have been plentiful; individuals can profit from the knowledge available and create a society that is improved over the best of the past. Despite what most USers appear to think, what exists now in the US is far from optimum as an orderly society for maximally free, unrestricted and happy individuals. But moving towards that goal is very possible for those who are willing to take self-responsibility.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting
Hurria,
Sorry to nit-pick on a minor point, but as a Brit I can assure you that we certainly did invade the Americas - just ask the Native Americans. The US war of independence was simply about one bunch of white people fighting another bunch of white people for control of somebody else's land. Not a great analogy for Iraq, though - sorry Snag!
taff
far too much aspartame, diet coke and fries in thet 'muriKan minumum daily requirement.
Some of you might be interested in this report on how ordinary Arabs view the USA (and other countries). It doesn't include the views of Iraqis but it should provide food for thought for those who would like to win hearts and minds in the Middle East.
Incidentally, sorry to disagree, Snag, but yes, it is perfectly "reasonable to expect that the U.S. will stay out of other nation's business particularly if the control of oil is at stake". If "your" oil is under "their" desert, then tough luck to you. We both know that's not how the world works, but might is definitely not right, and our efforts should be to do what's right wherever possible.
As you have suggested elsewhere, maybe the USA should address its dependency on oil by cutting its consumption. With its natural resources, technological expertise and world-class research centres, the USA could lead the world in green technology, and make/save a lot of money doing so, but instead the US leads the world in (a) gas-guzzling cars, (b) fat people who eat and drive too much and generally waste far too much energy, and (c) imposing its will on the people of other countries to ensure they hand over the oil to keep items (a) running and items (b) driving.
Simplistic account of US energy policy, I know, but I don't see America rushing to hand control of its natural resources to other nations, so why do Americans think "might is right" when it comes to the US grabbing other people's stuff or expect the brown people to hand it over without a fight?
But you're right, I expect this crap to continue for the rest of my lifetime and then some. Climate change as a result of insane energy policies is just going to add to the conflicts over resources. I hope Zach and his buddies get home safe and stay out of the army, 'cos it's going to be a busy time for the US military and its proxies for years to come.
Peace to all in Iraq and elsewhere
taff
Sorry to hog the blog, but some more questions prompted by Snag's robust economic realism above:
* Do Americans think it's reasonable to expect young Americans to kill/die for oil (as opposed to "democracy")?
* How many US soldiers should die per $ million of increased profits or short-term savings on fuel costs to billionaire industrialists?
* What are the financial cost/benefit ratios that US taxpayers would consider reasonable to justify (a) a costly and devastating war for oil in Iraq, (b) political/covert intervention to regain control of oil/gas from elected governments in Venezuela/Bolivia, (c) ethnic cleansing of oil-rich areas in Africa, (d) financial/economic/military support for thugs and crooks in various Central Asian republics to ensure the free flow of oil, (e) more of the same?
* Do the costs of training/equipping/deploying a US soldier who gets killed in Iraq outweight the supposed economic benefits of his deployment in Iraq?
* Do the economic interests of US corporations represent the interests of US citizens e.g. oil-wars in the Middle East vs. outsourcing of jobs across huge sectors of the US economy?
* When soldiers like Zach get home from their masters' oil wars, will there be any jobs for them?
OK, more than enough from me for a while.
taff
This is all very interesting, but...
Have you read Toomey's latest post?
Check it out:
http://www.foolsgambit.com/index.php?main=blog%2ephp
You should write about that.
The Iraqis are behaving no different that we would if an invasion force landed on our shores and decided to occupy America. We would fight and resist in any way necessary to guarantee victory. We didn't learn a DAMN THING from Vietnam.
-roamer in mich
You're right: we haven't learned a damn thing from Vietnam. History has repeated itself, once again.
I predicted at the onset of invading Iraq that this war would meet the same fate as Vietnam. Not militarily but the impression of the war on Americans.
That Americans would eventually realize we were lied to and that this was not a war we should be bothering ourselves with.
30+ years ago, to get Americans to support your war, all the government had to do was cry "They're Communists!" and the people would support their invasions.
Today, to get American people's support they cry "They're Terrorists!" and the Americans buy their lies hook, line, and sinker.
Today, many Americans are opposed to the war in Iraq; and I've met many die-hard republicans (including my father) who regret voting for Bush, and how we wouldn't even be in Iraq with this crisis if Al Gore had been elected.
Hurria, I do agree with you that this war in Iraq is far more egregious than the Revolutionary War that took place in America. And despite the evils that can be wreaked by the government here, I do love my country. My ancestors have been in America for over 30,000 years, because we're Native American Indians on my mom's side.
So this is where i"m from. it's why I find it funny when red-faced white men try to tell me to leave the USA, like they have some owernship right to this country that I don't have, when actually, the reverse is true.
On another note, it's why it's so irritating when fat, red-faced white men complain when Mexicans come to the States to work. If you want to get down to it, many of the Mexicans are indigenous peoples of the New World; and therefore, they have more of a birthright to America than the red-faced xenophobes of America have.
sorry to get off topic. I just want people to understand that it's more complex than just saying that all Americans are ignorant or that the Revolutionary War was not legitimate because it was white guys fighting white guys.
It was about principle; it was about independence from a monarch that wouldn't let people be. It's very similar to Iraq in that way.
Not all of the people that fought in the REvolutionary War were of the upper echelons of American society.
Many Native Americans fought in the Revolutionary War against the monarch, too.
Today, it's not so much about monarchies of the past: instead it's about corporations that function like monarchs, and are now sitting in the White House and in Congress (HCA corporation is the Senator from Tennessee, for example).
it's a travesty, and Regular Americans don't even realize it, but the corporate monarchs dominate us just like they dominate the peoples of Central and South America (vis a vis Wolfowitz of the World Bank); and what they're trying to do in Iraq.
So there needs to be another Revolution in America to throw these corporations out of power, and put it back into the hands of the people.
Hopefully we'll see some of that in 2008.
Bravo, banana. As long as the US is run by Corporatism, these types of wars are going to happen. $$$$$$$ is all they can see.
I'm in on the new revolution thing!
hurria,
What country do you live in?
I'm just curious...
Happy Veterans Day! You are in my thoughts today, as everyday...but today especially. THANK YOU for everything that you have done and are doing. You are a hero! Thank you again. Have a great day! Keep your spirits high!
Have you seen this? New flash from PeaceTakesCourage I assume you've seen "Someone's". If not you should.
On the financial costs of the war: http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp11112005.html
taff
Banana: Thanks for your points about the American Revolutionary War. But it's worth remembering that Native Americans fought on both sides - some of them had to move to Canada when "we" Brits lost. But I'm glad the revolutionaries won - I wish we'd got rid of our monarch centuries ago! It's just a shame that from that time to today, America has shifted from electing presidents to anointing (via the Supreme Court) elected kings like Bush I and II.
Viva la revolucion!
taff
you're right. indians fought on both sides, kinda like iraqis right now.
i have ancestors that fought on both sides, which has deprived one of my grandmoms from admission to the Daughters of the American Revolution.
On another note: let us not forget and remind the world that many many people have been opposed to this illegal invasion of iraq:
all of the Christian Churches in America, except for the Baptists, came out against the war; including the Methodist Church, of which George Bush happens to be a member.
so if god told Bush to invade iraq, it certainly wasn't while he was in the halls of his Methodist Church!!
I'm only speaking of Christian Churches. I don't know about the other religious groups in America.
oh wait! the Buddhists were opposed to the war in iraq too!
here's a link to the churches coming out against the war in iraq in 2002
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/02news82.html
Hey Zach,
Tara told me you got your package from me :) I hope you took it in good spirits.
We can't wait for you guys to be home.
Take care
Brooke
"bad men" are those who hate Americans. Yes we are in their territory but muslim extremists terrorized us. Sadaam seems to have had no direct involvement with 911 but we know he provided training grounds for Al-Quaida and he applauded when the towers fell. It was only a matter of time. Without going into Iraq, we have no foothold in the Middle East to fight this. If they were smart and just wanted us out of the country, why did they start doing these cowardly suicide attacks and roadside bombings? They hate us anyway, no matter where we are. We'd have probably pulled most of out troops from Iraq months ago if they had just laid low. But muslim extremists could not wait they had a target and went for it. Now the Iraqis pay and those who constantly rag on this war and the "lies" and the abuse do not get it.
Anonymous: quit whining and trying to evade responsibility for the actions of your government. "They hate us anyway" - so that means you don't have to listen to anybody who criticises your actions, huh? Maybe they hate what your government does? "Cowardly suicide attacks" - brutal and murderous, certainly, but smarter than marching up to the US Marines in a red coat, surely? And no, Saddam did not provide "training grounds for Al-Qaida" - Bin Laden hated Saddam and Saddam hated Islamists because they would have threatened his regime. Your own government probably did more to help train the first generation of Osama's jihadis than Saddam did. As for the lies and abuse - you Americans were the prime targets of the lies, and the Iraqis are the targets of the abuse. But you still don't get it, eh?
taff
Sorry, anonymous, one slight correction: there were Islamist training grounds in Iraq. But they were in the Kurdish area that we (the US and UK) supposedly controlled, not Saddam. As for 9-11, the terrorists learnt to fly in Florida and were funded by Saudi money, so why not bomb Saudi Arabia or Florida?
taff
Thanks for clarifying that one for me (and for anonymous), Hurria.
taff
All this discussion of the war in Iraq, comparing it to other wars, linking it to the US "Great War On Terror", has got me thinking. Many Americans understandably regard "9/11" as the defining event in their recent history, a unique attack that forced the US to take military action in the Middle East. Meanwhile, many other people regard the actions of the US and its allies as being at least as disastrous for them as 9/11 was to Americans. So let's see if we can compare these different situations.
The 9/11 terrorists murdered around 3000 Americans, out of a population of around 300 million i.e. about 1 in 100,000. So let's make this the unit of terrorist atrocity - we'll call 1 death in 100,000 people "one WTC". Here's how the US experience compares with some of the other countries involved in the GWOT. The figures below are approximate, but they should be roughly correct. The number of deaths in Iraq is hotly disputed, so I'll stick to a relatively low estimate, bearing in mind that Iraqis are dying every day. And I couldn't find any figures at all for Afghanistan.
Country - casualties / population - WTC (one WTC = 1 in 100,000 of population)
USA - 3000 / 300 million - 1 WTC
UK - 55 / 60 million - 0.1 WTC
Spain - 191 / 43 million - 0.44 WTC
Israel - 1000 / 6 million - 17 WTC (since start of current intifada in 2000)
Palestine - 3300 / 3 million - 110 WTC (since start of current intifada in 2000)
Iraq - 35000 / 26 million - 135 WTC (since 2003)
So while the US and the UK governments are the loudest in screaming for a "War On Terror", it looks like the people who are suffering the most, by a massive margin, are Iraqis and Palestinians, who have suffered something like one "9/11" every two weeks (Palestine) and one "9/11" per week (Iraq) in recent years. Also, US casulaties in Iraq (2000+) are now approaching 1 WTC with no end in sight.
Maybe it's time to start thinking about what "our" actions are doing to "them", instead of screaming about what "they" have done to "us". Especially when the people who are suffering the most in this GWOT had nothing to do with any of the major attacks on Western interests in the first place.
Wishing peace and safe home-coming to all in Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Indonesia....
taff
Nice point there taff. Thing is that US had a war on their own soil too far back to remember the pain in their collective memories, while some of us drive by burned houses to war every day, having a grim reminder of what was, and what could be if we're not carreful. As always, the loudest warmongers are those that never held a weapon in their hands. While I mean no dissrespect to the victims of 9/11, those 3000 deaths were used and abused to bring incomparable more death to many other people worldwide, and I am affraid there is more to come. If international law holds any validity, we would see the current US president on trial, but I am sure we will never see that.
You guys are over-analyzing the American Revolution.
All I think Zach meant by his Red Coat comment is how the U.S. military appears to the local people of Iraq. That's all. Many North American colonists (but not nearly all) thought the British government and it's army were unwelcome. Non-invading armies can become unwelcome just like invading armies.
Get some reality here...
The first fact that should come to mind is that if the anti-iraqi forces (most of whom are not iraqi's themselves) would quit blowing up people (not just US soldiers either... many more innocent iraqi's are targeted than soldiers) then the US would be out of Iraq in about 6 months. The Iraqi's themselves could work out political solutions instead of killing each other.
THAT is the quickest and surest way to end the 'occupation' of Iraq. Why is everyone stuck on the status of US forces when we are LEAVING as soon as possible? That is another area where the redcoats comment doesnt fit -- the British wanted to stay and control... all the US wants is a stable and sane government that will take care of its own people.
Where is the outrage at these bad men -- and yes these terrorists are very, very bad men -- continue to inflict war and death on the Iraqi people?
Great read.
Lawk Salih
http://www.lawksalih.com
> All I think Zach meant by his Red Coat comment is how the U.S. military
> appears to the local people of Iraq.
The majority of the Iraqi people see the US invaders in the same light the French or Polish saw the Nazis during WW2. Isn't that obvious? And isn't it obvious that they are right? The Iraqi "insurgents" are their version of the "Résistance", the Warsaw ghetto uprising and underground resistance fighters. From a moral standpoint they are 100% in the right to fight the invaders and collaborators, and in the end they will prevail. Simply because history tells us that is what will happen. The US will get their ass kicked out of the country eventually. The pendulum always swings both ways.
The coming generations of the US population will end up paying the bill, once the house of cards that makes up the deficit driven economy crashes.
Post a Comment