SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
What We Really Owe Iraq Now
Feb 05, 2005
Published on Friday, February 4, 2005 by the Harvard Crimson
Look, we let those Iraqis have an election! Surely we're bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. So intones the neoconservative. Well, we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay there "until the job is done." Such is the liberal line. Yet beyond the pundits, the politicians, and certain Ivy League circles, a majority of both Americans and Iraqis now share a more sensible opinion: The time has come to end the occupation.
What we really owe the Iraqi people is their country back. What we really owe our troops is their lives back home. And what we owe ourselves is a reality check.
Of course we should cheer the millions of Iraqis who braved the bombs and bullets to cast their ballots on January 30. The elections were a testament to human resilience. They were also proof of Iraq's capacity for self-determination, as Iraqis showed the world they are able to make their own decisions about their affairs.
But the U.S. occupation tragically muted the democratic voice of the people. It undermined the elections' legitimacy for the Sunnis and other key sectors of the population opposed to American influence in their country. It produced conditions that kept many voters away from the polls, limited others' knowledge of who and what they were voting for, and caused voting irregularities across wide areas of the country.
And in crucial respects, the occupation took the outcome out of the hands of ordinary Iraqis from the get-go: the lack of civilian control of the military, the Americans' appointment of key officials in government ministries, the preemptive decrees made by Paul Bremer last year mandating the privatization of Iraqi industries.
An occupied country is not a sovereign country, and it is not one in which people can ever fully realize their democratic rights. If the French Army (with help from Poland) were to invade the United States, set up an occupational authority, deploy wherever it pleased, and take out large cities where it faced resistance, would anyone claim that we were a sovereign, democratic republic? Not until the last gendarme left our shores.
Iraqis know this better than we do. Many who were interviewed at the polls said they were hoping their vote would help end the occupation. A Zogby poll taken a week ago shows that clear majorities of both Shia (69%) and Sunnis (82%) want us to withdraw from Iraq now. So why are some so out of touch?
First, there is the illusion that the U.S. presence is intended to make Iraq free. Let us be clear: Of course it's a good thing that a homicidal dictator now sits in a prison cell and not in a presidential palace. But this was not what the U.S. ostensibly went to war for. The U.S. went to war to remove a purported "imminent threat" to our security.
When the threat was proven to be a figment of the Bush administration's imagination, the purpose of the enterprise was switched to the pursuit of "freedom." While normally among the noblest of aims, that glorious ideal was here turned into little more than a fallback plan for the occupation's public relations division. This gives us good reason to doubt the sincerity of our government's commitment to Iraqi freedom.
Its commitment is also belied by the steps it's taken over the past two years to repress Iraqi dissent, from ordering troops to open fire on peaceful demonstrators to blocking the publication of certain newspapers to shutting down the offices of Iraq's trade unions and other civic groups. We have simply failed to pave the path towards a free society. Instead, we have followed the road to Abu Ghraib.
Then there is the illusion that the occupation is making Iraqis safer. Or that "we broke it, so we own it." Yes, we broke it. But the fact that we were the ones who broke it does not inspire much confidence in our ability to fix it.
The presence of 150,000 foreign troops - and their efforts to "pacify" Sunni regions - has only nurtured and emboldened the most violent elements of the resistance, helping them recruit everyone from Iraqi nationalists to Islamist militants in their horrific campaign. If they saw the Americans leave, the first group would likely lay down their arms immediately, while the rest would instantly lose the support they rely on.
In the meantime, with every day we continue the occupation, the carnage continues to escalate. January 30, for all its triumphs, brought the largest number of suicide bombings ever seen in a single day. We will be no better qualified to guarantee Iraq's security tomorrow than we have been for the last two years.
And let us not forget the 1,438 of America's most promising young men and women whose lives have been cut senselessly short by this war. Let us not allow thousands more to come home in flag-draped coffins because we chose not to bring them home in time. The call to end the occupation is a call to support the troops.
This is a war that cannot be won. The greatest victory we can seek is a genuinely free Iraq - free not only from the tyranny of Saddam, but free also from the tyranny of military occupation, and free from the tyranny of terror that has come with it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Michael Gould-Wartofsky
Michael Gould-Wartofsky is the author of "The Occupiers: The Making of the 99 Percent Movement"(2015). His writing has appeared in the Washington Post, The Nation, Salon, and, Common Dreams. To go to his website, click here.
Published on Friday, February 4, 2005 by the Harvard Crimson
Look, we let those Iraqis have an election! Surely we're bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. So intones the neoconservative. Well, we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay there "until the job is done." Such is the liberal line. Yet beyond the pundits, the politicians, and certain Ivy League circles, a majority of both Americans and Iraqis now share a more sensible opinion: The time has come to end the occupation.
What we really owe the Iraqi people is their country back. What we really owe our troops is their lives back home. And what we owe ourselves is a reality check.
Of course we should cheer the millions of Iraqis who braved the bombs and bullets to cast their ballots on January 30. The elections were a testament to human resilience. They were also proof of Iraq's capacity for self-determination, as Iraqis showed the world they are able to make their own decisions about their affairs.
But the U.S. occupation tragically muted the democratic voice of the people. It undermined the elections' legitimacy for the Sunnis and other key sectors of the population opposed to American influence in their country. It produced conditions that kept many voters away from the polls, limited others' knowledge of who and what they were voting for, and caused voting irregularities across wide areas of the country.
And in crucial respects, the occupation took the outcome out of the hands of ordinary Iraqis from the get-go: the lack of civilian control of the military, the Americans' appointment of key officials in government ministries, the preemptive decrees made by Paul Bremer last year mandating the privatization of Iraqi industries.
An occupied country is not a sovereign country, and it is not one in which people can ever fully realize their democratic rights. If the French Army (with help from Poland) were to invade the United States, set up an occupational authority, deploy wherever it pleased, and take out large cities where it faced resistance, would anyone claim that we were a sovereign, democratic republic? Not until the last gendarme left our shores.
Iraqis know this better than we do. Many who were interviewed at the polls said they were hoping their vote would help end the occupation. A Zogby poll taken a week ago shows that clear majorities of both Shia (69%) and Sunnis (82%) want us to withdraw from Iraq now. So why are some so out of touch?
First, there is the illusion that the U.S. presence is intended to make Iraq free. Let us be clear: Of course it's a good thing that a homicidal dictator now sits in a prison cell and not in a presidential palace. But this was not what the U.S. ostensibly went to war for. The U.S. went to war to remove a purported "imminent threat" to our security.
When the threat was proven to be a figment of the Bush administration's imagination, the purpose of the enterprise was switched to the pursuit of "freedom." While normally among the noblest of aims, that glorious ideal was here turned into little more than a fallback plan for the occupation's public relations division. This gives us good reason to doubt the sincerity of our government's commitment to Iraqi freedom.
Its commitment is also belied by the steps it's taken over the past two years to repress Iraqi dissent, from ordering troops to open fire on peaceful demonstrators to blocking the publication of certain newspapers to shutting down the offices of Iraq's trade unions and other civic groups. We have simply failed to pave the path towards a free society. Instead, we have followed the road to Abu Ghraib.
Then there is the illusion that the occupation is making Iraqis safer. Or that "we broke it, so we own it." Yes, we broke it. But the fact that we were the ones who broke it does not inspire much confidence in our ability to fix it.
The presence of 150,000 foreign troops - and their efforts to "pacify" Sunni regions - has only nurtured and emboldened the most violent elements of the resistance, helping them recruit everyone from Iraqi nationalists to Islamist militants in their horrific campaign. If they saw the Americans leave, the first group would likely lay down their arms immediately, while the rest would instantly lose the support they rely on.
In the meantime, with every day we continue the occupation, the carnage continues to escalate. January 30, for all its triumphs, brought the largest number of suicide bombings ever seen in a single day. We will be no better qualified to guarantee Iraq's security tomorrow than we have been for the last two years.
And let us not forget the 1,438 of America's most promising young men and women whose lives have been cut senselessly short by this war. Let us not allow thousands more to come home in flag-draped coffins because we chose not to bring them home in time. The call to end the occupation is a call to support the troops.
This is a war that cannot be won. The greatest victory we can seek is a genuinely free Iraq - free not only from the tyranny of Saddam, but free also from the tyranny of military occupation, and free from the tyranny of terror that has come with it.
Michael Gould-Wartofsky
Michael Gould-Wartofsky is the author of "The Occupiers: The Making of the 99 Percent Movement"(2015). His writing has appeared in the Washington Post, The Nation, Salon, and, Common Dreams. To go to his website, click here.
Published on Friday, February 4, 2005 by the Harvard Crimson
Look, we let those Iraqis have an election! Surely we're bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East. So intones the neoconservative. Well, we owe it to the Iraqi people to stay there "until the job is done." Such is the liberal line. Yet beyond the pundits, the politicians, and certain Ivy League circles, a majority of both Americans and Iraqis now share a more sensible opinion: The time has come to end the occupation.
What we really owe the Iraqi people is their country back. What we really owe our troops is their lives back home. And what we owe ourselves is a reality check.
Of course we should cheer the millions of Iraqis who braved the bombs and bullets to cast their ballots on January 30. The elections were a testament to human resilience. They were also proof of Iraq's capacity for self-determination, as Iraqis showed the world they are able to make their own decisions about their affairs.
But the U.S. occupation tragically muted the democratic voice of the people. It undermined the elections' legitimacy for the Sunnis and other key sectors of the population opposed to American influence in their country. It produced conditions that kept many voters away from the polls, limited others' knowledge of who and what they were voting for, and caused voting irregularities across wide areas of the country.
And in crucial respects, the occupation took the outcome out of the hands of ordinary Iraqis from the get-go: the lack of civilian control of the military, the Americans' appointment of key officials in government ministries, the preemptive decrees made by Paul Bremer last year mandating the privatization of Iraqi industries.
An occupied country is not a sovereign country, and it is not one in which people can ever fully realize their democratic rights. If the French Army (with help from Poland) were to invade the United States, set up an occupational authority, deploy wherever it pleased, and take out large cities where it faced resistance, would anyone claim that we were a sovereign, democratic republic? Not until the last gendarme left our shores.
Iraqis know this better than we do. Many who were interviewed at the polls said they were hoping their vote would help end the occupation. A Zogby poll taken a week ago shows that clear majorities of both Shia (69%) and Sunnis (82%) want us to withdraw from Iraq now. So why are some so out of touch?
First, there is the illusion that the U.S. presence is intended to make Iraq free. Let us be clear: Of course it's a good thing that a homicidal dictator now sits in a prison cell and not in a presidential palace. But this was not what the U.S. ostensibly went to war for. The U.S. went to war to remove a purported "imminent threat" to our security.
When the threat was proven to be a figment of the Bush administration's imagination, the purpose of the enterprise was switched to the pursuit of "freedom." While normally among the noblest of aims, that glorious ideal was here turned into little more than a fallback plan for the occupation's public relations division. This gives us good reason to doubt the sincerity of our government's commitment to Iraqi freedom.
Its commitment is also belied by the steps it's taken over the past two years to repress Iraqi dissent, from ordering troops to open fire on peaceful demonstrators to blocking the publication of certain newspapers to shutting down the offices of Iraq's trade unions and other civic groups. We have simply failed to pave the path towards a free society. Instead, we have followed the road to Abu Ghraib.
Then there is the illusion that the occupation is making Iraqis safer. Or that "we broke it, so we own it." Yes, we broke it. But the fact that we were the ones who broke it does not inspire much confidence in our ability to fix it.
The presence of 150,000 foreign troops - and their efforts to "pacify" Sunni regions - has only nurtured and emboldened the most violent elements of the resistance, helping them recruit everyone from Iraqi nationalists to Islamist militants in their horrific campaign. If they saw the Americans leave, the first group would likely lay down their arms immediately, while the rest would instantly lose the support they rely on.
In the meantime, with every day we continue the occupation, the carnage continues to escalate. January 30, for all its triumphs, brought the largest number of suicide bombings ever seen in a single day. We will be no better qualified to guarantee Iraq's security tomorrow than we have been for the last two years.
And let us not forget the 1,438 of America's most promising young men and women whose lives have been cut senselessly short by this war. Let us not allow thousands more to come home in flag-draped coffins because we chose not to bring them home in time. The call to end the occupation is a call to support the troops.
This is a war that cannot be won. The greatest victory we can seek is a genuinely free Iraq - free not only from the tyranny of Saddam, but free also from the tyranny of military occupation, and free from the tyranny of terror that has come with it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.