"Stuff happens…Freedom is untidy"
~Donald Rumsfeld
More bits of wisdom from our friend Rumsfeld. Do you think at this point most Iraqi's agree? Is it possible that Iraqi's see their freedom as "untidy?"
This is the first in a series highlighting aspects of the recently released Global Policy Forum report on Iraq.
The introduction briefly describes the report overall, however there was one point I wanted to touch on that struck me. The concept that somehow the coalition forces are somehow innocently caught up in a civil war seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout media coverage, political rhetoric, and America's collective consciousness. This idea, although appealing to most patriots, places the responsibility for the violence in Iraq squarely on the shoulders of the Iraqi population, leaving the coalition forces and their leaders free of all responsibility.
This is the only aspect of this occupation, which is indeed, tidy. Media pundits and talking heads continually dismiss all coalition responsibility with the use of catch phrases like, "This is a religious war driven by different interpretations of Islam." And "There has been fighting between the Shi'a and the Sunni forever."
Handy… isn't it? This has been an issue that has bothered me for quite some time, and I was never quite able to place my finger on the source for my discomfort. After reading the report and considering a comprehensive evaluation and examination in the role the occupation has played in the violence has set this wondering to rest. Clearly lacking in discussion is the responsibility of the United States and UK leadership or lack thereof in the violent situation millions of Iraqi's are currently living under.
The report states:
Most public discussion of Iraq today-especially in the United
States-focuses on inter ethnic conflict among Iraqi's, the
"civil war," ethnic cleansing, terror bombing, and the like.
Commentators often blame these tragedies on flawed
concepts such as Iraqi's age-old ethnic hatreds, the extremes
of Islam, or the meddlesome impulses of neighboring countries.
Anything but the occupation itself.
It is imperative to note that the report critiques the US Occupation of Iraq from the perspective of international law. Regardless of what Bill O'Reilly tells you, we are accountable and expected to obey these laws.
It draws extensively on information in the public domain-
reports by governments, the United Nations, human rights
organizations and other NGO's, as well as journalists'
accounts.
The report continues:
The US and the UK are powerful nations that claim to
defend and promote the global rule of law. As permanent
members of the United Nations Security Council, they present
themselves as the guardians of order and justice in the world
insisting on the "rule of law," and chastising others for violations
of law and breaches of the peace.
I find it disturbingly interesting that everywhere in the Middle East, where the US and UK claim to be promoting Democracy and peace there is nothing by murder and chaos. You don't suppose this may be our fault…do you?
Contributors to the report include:
Center for Development of International Law • Code Pink
Council on International and Public Affairs • Fellowship of Reconciliation
Global Action on Aging • Global Exchange • Global Policy Forum
Hague Appeal for Peace • Instituto del Tercer Mundo • Institute for Policy Studies
International Center for Law in Development • International Women's Tribune Center
Iraq Analysis Group • Jewish Voice for Peace • Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
Mennonite Central Committee • Middle East Research & Information Project
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation • PLATFORM • Presbyterian United Nations Office
Protection of Human Rights Defenders in the Arab World • Social Watch
Tavola della Pace • Transnational Institute • United for Peace & Justice
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
US Labor Against the War • Weltwirtschaft, Ökologie & Entwicklung (WEED)
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
0 comments:
Post a Comment