For the most part, . . . the insurgents' attacks are less nihilistic than they are logical and precisely focused, whether against the American coalition and its camp followers or their Iraqi agents and collaborators. The truth is that however vicious or even sadistic the insurgents may be, they are acutely aware of their popular base, and are responsible for fewer unintentional "collateral" casualties than are the clumsy and overarmed American forces. (emphasis added, "Letter from Baghdad," January/February 2005)That's an important point worth reiterating, as some Americans favor "an alternative occupation," mistakenly believing that foreign soldiers of an army of occupation are kinder and gentler, less likely to kill civilians, than Iraqi insurgents are.
Langewiesche also makes another significant point: "The Iraqi security forces are riddled with insurgents, not because the vetting is poor, or because agents have been planted, but because hatred of America has grown within the ranks just as it has in Iraqi society at large" (January/February 2005). There goes the American dream of Iraqification.
Langewiesche, however, is still trapped in his own myth: "Tragically, this was not the necessary outcome of the American invasion" (January/February 2005). Liberals like Langewiesche think that it is a mistake, rather than the nature, of Washington that it has not "humbly sought their [Iraqis'] support, respected their views of solutions, of political power, of American motivations, or of the history and future of Iraq" (January/February 2005). Either they have learned nothing from history, or they live in denial of the reality of the American empire. Faith in a possibility of a benevolent empire goes hand in hand with a racist belief, and Langewiesche is no exception in this regard. He is capable of saying that "some of the blame lies with the immaturity and opportunism of the Iraqi people" (emphasis added, January/February 2005). In other words, his racism makes him dare to suggest that it is the responsibility of the Iraqi people to make the occupation work, because the interests of the Iraqi people and the American occupier are identical, which is akin to claiming that it is the responsibility of slaves to make slavery work, because the interests of slaves and masters are one and the same.
Langewiesche thinks that "we" should have "explained ourselves honestly" to the Iraqi people (January/February 2005). There is no "we" in America, first of all, but no one can get it in his head and remain a liberal. In any case, Washington has explained its motive plainly enough: it wants Full Spectrum Dominance in all spheres of life, military, politics, and economy. It's been always the same goal at least since World War 2, if not earlier. The world, not just Iraqis, has heard it, and, except Washington's lackeys, no one has liked that, and no one ever will.
Thankfully, Washington no longer has economic supremacy to achieve its goal. A sore loser, it seeks to compensate for its declining economic power by aggressive assertions of military power. In doing so, however, it will only succeed in bringing about Full Spectrum Disorder.
2 comments:
"Sigh", I hate to say it but you need to change your medication. The "less hihilistic" insurgents killed 35 children with a single car bomb - a mark that has not been approached by the "clumsy and overarmed American forces". The election vote was a defiant repudiation of the insurgent forces.
The real situation is that the majority of Iraqis want to run their own country. The opposition consists of 0.8% of the country that supports insurgents, and 0.06% of the population that are the insurgents. This compares favorably with the US incarceration rate of 0.72%. This isn't an insurgency, it is a law enforcement problem. The recent improvement in intelligence (humint and Predator), increase/improvement in Iraqi forces, and the renewed Iraqi nationalistic pride will make the problem go away.
The insurgency won't disappear tommorrow but it will disappear (Feb 1st was pretty quiet).
Who is killing most Iraqis? The U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police trained by Washington.
According to the Iraqi Ministry of Health's statistics, "[o]perations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis -- most of them civilians -- as attacks by insurgents" (Nancy A. Youssef, "More Iraqis Killed by U.S. than by Terror," Detroit Free Press, September 25, 2004, http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq25e_20040925.htm).
A study published in the Lancet confirms the ministry's findings. "The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread . . . and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher . . . than in the period before the war. . . . Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100 000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths" (Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, and Gilbert Burnham, "Mortality before and after the 2003 Invasion of Iraq: Cluster Sample Survey," The Lancet 364.9448, November 20, 2004, http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9448/full/llan.364.9448.primary_research.31264.1).
As for the "demonstration elections" on January 30, 2005, see "Voter Turnout in the Iraqi Elections Follows Washington's Script" (January 31, 2005, http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/01/voter-turnout-in-iraqi-elections.html) and "'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote'" (February 01, 2005, http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/02/us-encouraged-by-vietnam-vote.html).
Post a Comment