|
In
many ways, the debates that have been provoked by
the invasion and occupation of Iraq amongst people
within England and the USA, especially those who consider
themselves as being socialists or progressives politically,
remind me of those that took place within the US in
the latter half of the 1960s over the Vietnam war
and in the UK post 1969, after the sending in of British
troops to the north of Ireland. The tone set and the
political conclusions reached are strikingly familiar
to those days. The desire to give the occupying troops
the benefit of the doubt, whenever Iraqis are injured
or killed at the forces of occupation's hands. An
admittance that it would have been best if the invasion
thus occupation had never taken place, nevertheless
there is a general acceptance amongst many that as
it has, the US/UK occupying administrations mean well
and whilst mistakes may be made, they have the best
interests of the Iraqi people at heart and indeed
are the only hope if a new democratic Iraq is to be
established. The belief is also common that without
the US/UK troops on the ground, the Iraqi people being
supposedly pliable puppets in the hands of devious
and deadly political forces such as the remnants of
Saddams regime and the Islamic fundamentalists will
be incapable of rebuilding their nation. Reverting
to barbarism at the behest of the aforementioned political
forces, who are portrayed in the western media in
an almost Satanic manner.
Whilst
the majority of the population in the UK/US had no
difficulty in accepting the right of European Resistance
groups right to take up arms to fight the Nazi occupation
of their counties during WW2. Nor since in giving
their support in large numbers to Liberation movements
the world over, (in the UK barring one exception)
or supporting the right of the ANC to bear arms in
their struggle for freedom from Apartheid. In Iraq
it seems they are met with an insurmountable object
that intellectually they are currently unable to overcome
and thus they are unable to offer their unconditional
support to the Iraqi peoples right to use arms to
drive the invader from their land. It is worth considering
why this attitude is far more prevalent in the US/UK
than else where in the world.
Firstly
there is the sheer weight of the years of conditioning
by the US/UK media, people simply find it difficult
to imagine 'their boys' acting in an oppressive and
inhuman way, despite all the weight of history when
they have been placed in a similar situation proving
other wise.… The self sacrifice and mission of
liberation that US/UK troops participated in during
WW2 is as fresh in peoples minds today as it was forty
years ago. Movies like Saving Private Ryan and TV
programmes such as Band of Brothers keep the image
of US troops as being noble and on the side of right
fresh in peoples minds. Such soldiers are portrayed
as never having a low thought let alone acting in
such a way. The British have more of a problem because
of their legacy of imperialism, but at home the image
in the public mind of the average squaddy is much
the same as Americans who have their picture book
image GI Joe whilst the British have Tommy Aikens.
Tough, resilient but honest as the day is long. Of
course what the US/UK public often overlook due to
being so introverted geographically, is that almost
all nations view their soldiery in the same way. Just
as the Yanks have GI Joe the Turks have little Mehmet,
the battle weary solder who will always fulfil his
duty and so it goes on the world over.
There
is however an additional reason why, beyond the aforementioned
and of course the normal loyalty to ones own that
makes it difficult for US/UK citizens to understand
the deep hatred that occupation provokes in those
suffering under its yoke. This is a historical reason.
The fact is in England there is little historical
let alone living memory of successful foreign invasion
and the dispiriting and hatreds induced within those
who are forced to live under the occupation of foreign
armies. The English nation has not experienced a successful
invasion since the year 1066. The fact that they have
inflicted occupation on many countries historically
is another reason why they have such difficulty staring
into the face of what has been their own inhumanity.
Thus
the majority of English born people have difficulty
understanding the feeling's that those suffering occupation
by invading armies experience. This is less so than
in the past due to the increase in ethnic minorities
within the population brought about by the decolonisation
of the countries that had made up the British Empire.
Nevertheless it is still the prevalent train of thought
within the population. This goes a long way too explain
the indifference to the Irish situation amongst the
English. Indeed as I mentioned above the very argument
now used over Iraq was used about Ireland during the
last 100 odd years, the more so during the recent
trouble's centred in the north of Ireland. i.e. without
the Brits there the two communities would tear each
other to bits. 'Our boys' are only acting as independent
arbiters. A Palestinian, Indian, Pakistani, etc. and
perhaps their English born off spring would intuitively
understand how an Irish Republican thinks and what
motivates their behaviour. As indeed would an Irish
Republican understand what motivates an Iraqi to take
up arms against the US/UK forces within Iraq today.
Those living under occupation no matter how benign
hate it and rarely think in detail about the future
once the accursed foreigners are gone, beyond seeing
it in the terms of bright sunny uplands. All they
want is the invaders gone.
The
same can also be said for the United State, a nation
which since it drove the English State from its shores
in its Independence Revolution has never felt the
humiliation of invasion and occupation. US citizens,
especially those who were either not born yet or were
children at the time of the Vietnam war will find
it particularly difficult to come to terms with opposing
the occupation of Iraq by their armed forces, just
as their predecessors who opposed the Vietnam war
did at first back in the 1960s. But oppose it they
must if they are to play a role in ending the deaths
of not only innocent Iraqis, but also those of their
own troops. For the longer they stay in Iraq undoubtedly
the more of them will be killed by the Iraqi resistance.
History has taught us that the US and UK governments
will not be moved by the deaths of either their own
soldiers nor Iraqis. It is only a change in public
opinion at home from that what it is today, of supporting
the governments policies on Iraq, through to acquiescence,
on to overwhelming opposition to this wretched occupation
that will force them into implementing a change in
their strategy.
The
fact is the US strategy in Iraq is one based on a
long time occupation of the country. Commentators
and opposition politicians have commented on the wilful
mistake of the Bush administration of going to war
without an exist strategy once Saddam regime fell.
This is nonsense the reason Bush and his corporate
backers never drew up a plan for an exit strategy
prior to the invasion was for the simplest of reasons,
they do not and never did intend to withdraw. They
intend staying in Iraq for the long haul, generations
at least, Iraq is to be their aircraft carrier in
the heart of the Arab world. This being so the only
thing that can alter this turn to post imperialist
policies is a massive opposition movement with in
the US and throughout Europe, especially in the UK
where the USA's current puppet government resides.
The
US/UK media are reporting that attacks on their armed
forces are multiplying daily, with over 20 plus a
day being reported by the US administration within
Iraq. Yet few arrests are made and they seem to have
little real idea who is behind them. This tells one
that the Iraqi public are not informing on the underground
fighters, despite the threats and large rewards being
offered to them for information by the occupation
administration. Given time these diverse groups may
will emerge with a joint political leadership making
it a typical war of national liberation. We will then
all have to ask our self's whose side are we on, the
oppressor or oppressed. For a socialist or indeed
anyone who considers themselves a progressive there
is but one answer, alongside the oppressed, in the
same trench as the wretched of the earth, in this
conflict this means the people of Iraq and their armed
fighters.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
