May 3: Half-Dozen CA Communites Join Nation with Vigils to Mourn Marla Ruzicka

Take a minute to mourn another true heroine, Rachel Corrie.

Marla Ruzicka, Rachel Corrie and "Credibility"
by Alexander Cockburn

Whatever sour emotions I entertained while reading accounts of the funeral of Marla Ruzicka had nothing really to do with the death on April 16 of a brave young woman in Baghdad. On many accounts ­ and I have had a detailed conversation with a close friend of Marla's whose judgment I respect ­ she was an idealistic person whose prime political flaw seems to have been the very forgivable one of naivety.

Both in Afghanistan and Iraq, in furtherance of her humanitarian schemes, Marla Ruzicka elected a stance of studious neutrality in ascribing responsibility for the victims of US bombings and ground fire. This pursuit of "credibility" certainly yielded its ironic reward in the political range of those who publicly mourned her.

A US senator ­ Barbara Boxer ­ attended Ruzicka's funeral in Lakeport, northern California. Bob Herbert of the New York Times poured out an emotional column honoring Ruzicka. So did Robert L. Pollock, a writer for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. " America has lost a peerless and unique ambassador," Pollock wrote on April 19. "[S]he stood out from the crowd of journalists and self-proclaimed humanitarians--far too many of whom believed their mission was to bear witness to an American misadventure in Iraq that would, and should, fail."

The sourness in my soul stemmed from a contrast. Almost exactly two years earlier, on March 16, 2003, another brave young woman in a foreign land lost her life, not to a suicide bomber, but under the blade of a 47-ton bulldozer made in America by the Caterpillar company specifically for house demolitions and driven by an Israeli soldier. Maybe, in the last seconds of his life, that suicide bomber in Baghdad never even saw Ruzicka. The soldier in Gaza surely saw Corrie, clearly visible in her fluorescent orange jacket, and rolled the bulldozer blade right over her.

No US senator attended Rachel's funeral after her parents brought her home to the state of Washington. Both US senators ran in the opposite direction. Later the Corries disclosed that after their return to the US with their daughter's body, they contacted their US Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, both Democrats, and told them how their daughter had been deliberately murdered while peacefully demonstrating against house demolitions, which are violations of international law. Murray and Cantwell, the Corries recall, were quick with expressions of outrage and promises of investigations. The Corries never heard from Murray or Cantwell again.
Cindy Corrie's mailbox filled with disgusting letters abusing her for being a bad mother, and the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd began an unrelenting campaign of abuse of Rachel, to the overall effect that she had it coming to her, that "She was defending terrorists who smuggle weapons across the border to kill Israelis", that the International Solidarity Movement of which she was a member, was a terrorist symp group.

As Professor Steve Niva of Evergreen State College in Olympia wrote on this site shortly after Corrie's death, "There is no evidence that Dr. Samir Nasrallah, whose house Rachel was defending, or anyone in this neighborhood were concealing any tunnels or were engaged in any attacks on Israelis. The Israeli army doesn't even make this insupportable claim. His house was being demolished because, like dozens of others that have been bulldozed in Hay Salaam, his home was near the 'Apartheid Wall' Israel was building. Moreover, the ISM has a policy of only protecting homes that are not suspected to be involved in tunnel activities."

Niva duly received a torrent of e-mailed abuse.

And how did the Israel-right-or-wrong crowd on the Evergreen campus react? Did Corrie's murder prompt them to any serious reflection on Applied Zionism in Gaza? No. Niva tells me that after some initial heartfelt expressions of sadness for Corrie, the small Zionist groups began complaining that they felt uncomfortable as Jews to be on campus, and a few started raising concerns about alleged anti-Israel and possibly anti-Semitic sentiments getting a free pass at Evergreen. They started to peddle charges about the Middle East Studies faculty--and rumors began to circulate at the local synagogue that there was a "crisis" regarding Jews at Evergreen. Slurs against Niva continue to this day, as they do against Corrie.

Mother Jones ran a 7,000 word attack on Corrie and ISM, later convincingly demonstrated by Olympia's Phan Nguyen to have been plagiarized from extreme right sites and sources. Nor was there measured lamentation from the Wall Street Journal's editorial page which surpassed itself in foam-flecked savagery in a piece by Ruhama Shattan, which managed to blame Corrie for the bombing death of the State Department officials that occurred in Gaza in October, 2004! Shattan's piece had already run in the Jerusalem Post and actually prompted the press attache in the US embassy in Tel Aviv, Paul Patin, to write a letter to the Post denouncing it as "hateful incitement" and "disgusting abuse of the anniversary of the death of this American citizen". Maybe this letter is what prompted the WSJ's editorial page editor, Paul Gigot to see Shattan's diatribe as suitable material for his pages.

Marla Ruzicka decided to work within the system, as they say. Maybe, given the aims of her organization, CIVIC, that was an appropriate choice. I'm not inclined to pass judgment on that. The "system" duly mourned and honored her. Rachel Corrie saw that the "system", with all its innumerable and fraudulent roadmaps, negotiated solutions, Oslo frameworks, processes of peace and so forth had not stopped, nay, was encouraging the daily outrages of demolitions of Palestinian homes and kindred barbarities. Corrie stood in the path of that system and died, and her murder was covered up by Israel and by the government of her own country.

Across the thirty years that I have written about the vast injustice done to Palestinians by successive Israeli governments, condoned and paid for by the US, I have read a thousand admonitions to support what peace plan was in train, to espouse solutions with "credibility". And here we are now, when all the peace plans and roadmaps stand definitively revealed as the frauds they always were. Any imagined evacuation of Israeli settlements from Gaza is pure distraction. The story lies in the new settlements stretching out from East Jerusalem, amputating any conceivably viable Palestinian state. In this enterprise, there's no "case for Israel" beyond violent, illegal occupation and eviction. Two years after her murder I honor Rachel Corrie and enquire of those supposedly reasonable voices on the Zionist side of the aisle here in the United States, What have you got to say for yourselves now?

ALL Iraqis killed by US forces, whether they resisted or not, are innocent victims of this war, because there was no basis for the US to invade the country other than imperial exploitation

to the extent that CIVIC persists in publicizing this pernicious distinction between "innocent" and implicitly "guilty" Iraqis, it is morally offensive

as are the efforts of CIVIC to promote the absurd idea of a humane occupation:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1735684.php

--Richard

Richard-- The suicide bomber that murdered Marla probably wasn't Iraqi. So at least some of the resistance aren't "innocent" unless your defintion of "anti-imperialism" includes supporting foriegn theocratic fundamentalists.

Travis, did you make that up yourself, take it from Fox "News," or did it come directly from the Pentagon channel? Still believing all the comfortable lies your government feeds you, eh?

Every credible media source from the left, the right, plus regular Iraqis claim that the suicide bombers are mostly (Saudi) foreign fighters. Show me some sources that claim that the suicide bombers are mostly Iraqis. Show me even one. Even shiite fundamentalist Sadr denounces these suicide bombers as foreign idiots. So before you you go mouthing off about other people getting their news from Fox news maybe you should take your little ignorant ass down and do some research before you embarrass yourself again. Leftist Juan Cole might be a place to start.

From leftist Patrick Cockburn:

"The Islamic militant part of the resistance appears to have an endless supply of suicide bombers--most of them non-Iraqi--willing to die while staging attacks."

http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick03012005.html

Hey Travis, seen any WMDs lately? Believe all the lies they feed you, we had no reason to be in Iraq, and don't belong there now. Good luck to the Iraqi resistance in ridding their country of its foreign occupiers.

. . . and the extent to which they constitute part of the resistance

for example, periodically, you will see stories quoting people from the US military saying that "foreign fighters" constitute no more than 5% of the resistance, and I believe that I posted links to some of them last time that we discussed this topic, along with aaron and JA

perhaps it is more now, and perhaps not, but it does little to refute my comment and the odious role that CIVIC performs in support of the occupation

personally, I see no reason why Iraqis that have resisted the war, and now, the occupation, since its inception, should be denied compensation from a country, the US, that has perpetrated a war crime on the level of Mussolini's invasions of Albania and Ethiopa (with much the same rhetorical justifications) by invading their country and seizing its resources (and, note, the US still retains numerous military bases throughout the country for the indefinite future, and still controls the country's oil supply, which it funnels to politically connected firms, such as Halliburton and Bechtel)

but, even if there is disagreement on this point, CIVIC's willingness to misrepresent the reality of the occupation in order to obtain the assistance of the US government is also alarming

my original comment here provided a link that to a column by Bob Herbert that refutes CIVIC's perspective that US troops are conducting a humane occupation that generally treats Iraqis in a compassionate way:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/05/1735684.php

for more, see this article by Patrick Cockburn of the London Independent, which directly contradicts CIVIC's claim that US troops exercise discretion in their use of force against Iraqis:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8641.htm

so, why did Ruzicka and CIVIC put out a statement in February suggesting the contrary, as well as implying that the US military had documentation of fewer civilian deaths than the Lancet study?

furthermore, contrary to this same statement, Iraqis are not treated with respect when they seek compensation for deaths, nor are they compensated very often:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N02663804.htm

http://electroniciraq.net/news/1347.shtml

also note that payments run between $2,500 and $4,400 per death, which is interesting when you compare it to tort litigation in the US, where I suspect that a lost finger, ear or toe would, accordingly to insurance company schedules, cost considerably more

one need only compare the cost of an American death as a result of a tortious accident with the cost of the death of an "innocent" Iraqi civilian perpetrated by the US military in order for the underlying racial and cultural bigotry of this conflict to stare you right in the face

in other words, just as US bankers have exploited currency values to purchase businesses and privatized entities all over the world for far less than their true value (see the film, "A Social Genocide", which addresses the phenomenon in the context of Argentina), the US military does likewise with human life in Iraq

and, for these minimal amounts of money (approximately 2 million according to the articles, 2 million out of billions spent to conduct the war and occupation), CIVIC promotes it as an acceptable humanitarian model, granting the US military significant propaganda benefits

the costs of doing business, which can be readily incorporated into the budgets for the possible future interventions in Iran, North Korea and Venezuela

--Richard

To anti-imperialist: I realized what the communication problem is here-- you can't read. So I'm going to type real slowly for you... The suicide bombers are mostly foreigners. There are also the Iraqis who are also engaged in armed resistance against the US but (the vast majority) are not suicide bombers. When you can tell the difference between the two parties please respond.

To Richard: As of now, I don't really disagree with your assessment of CIVIC. However I think you're a little soft on criticizing the resistance and especially the suicide bombers who are mostly non-Iraqi religious nuts, including the one that MURDERED Marla (and other innocent Iraqis).

Go to the following link and scroll down to the picture of the Iraqi child blown up by a suicide bomber. Sickening. Some leftists bend over backwards apologizing for these jihadist religious nutcases-- where do you stand Richard? I oppose the occupation but the left should refuse to close its eyes to the different elements in the "resistance".

[To hell with the suicide bombers in Iraq
by Travis Wednesday, May. 04, 2005 at 4:54 PM

Go to the following link and scroll down to the picture of the Iraqi child blown up by a suicide bomber. Sickening. Some leftists bend over backwards apologizing for these jihadist religious nutcases-- where do you stand Richard? I oppose the occupation but the left should refuse to close its eyes to the different elements in the "resistance".

hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/]

. . . that suicide bombers directing themselves at occupying forces in the form of US/UK troops and private military contractors who perform many of the same functions is no different than firing upon them with mortars, using explosive devices and firearms

of course, all of these methods run the risk of collateral damage, but no more so than many of the tactics used by US/UK forces: white phosphorus (which burns the skin of victims, if they are fortunate enough not to incinerated), air strikes (which, contrary to the silence of US media are ongoiong), cluster bombs (shells that explode and spread explosive bomblets over a wide area, especially known for injuring and killing children who subsequently handle the unexplosive ones) and indiscriminate shootings of people at checkpoints

and, indeed, all published reports that I have seen have indicated that most civilian victims of the conflict have been killed, maimed or wounded by US/UK forces, even a Allawi government ministry stated late last summer that coalition forces had inflicted more casualties upon the civilian populace by about a 2.5 to 1 margin before the government repudiated the report

(and, we all know about the Lancet study)

(and, note, as an aside, that Allawi was a CIA operative in the mid-1990s, used for the purpose of carrying out attacks upon civilians in Iraq in an effort to destablize Hussein)

now, just as with these other violent tactics, civilians tragically got killed and injured by suicide bombers, but, note, US/UK forces have inflicted many casualties in the same way, killing and wounding people who are misfortunate enough to be in close proximity to the resistance, and the response has been, too bad, they shouldn't be there

Falluja was a classic example: US forces told everyone to vacate the city or risk being killed or wounded, and they then proceeded to enter the city and level it, killing thousands of people, and creating possibly as many as 150,000 to 200,000 refugees

every week or two, I encounter an article that describes how US forces are dealing with people in areas known to be controlled by the resistance, they are threatening people, detaining them and torturing them

I also encounter articles in which troops are quoted as showing little, if any, concern for firing upon Iraqis, as they defend the practice, despite having personally killed or having seen their comrades kill, civilians

so, both US/UK forces and the resistance engage in very similiar, brutal practices

for example, imagine if the resistance publicly announced that they were recruiting people to participate in their armed activities, and that people should come to a specific, public location to sign up for consideration

US/Iraqi security forces would obviously attack it, and kill and wound lots of people, including some unassociated with the recruitment effort, just as the resistance did today when people arrived to sign up with the Iraqi police in Irbil

and, as they have been in the past, they would be completely unapologetic about it

I suspect that there is a major divide on the left on the issue of the right of Iraqis to violently resist the occupation, but I cannot accept the pacifist, all violence is bad approach here, because it essentially condemns Iraqis for violently resisting their own exploitation, after pacifist efforts in the industrialized world failed to protect them for the violence of the US military

now, as Rahul Mahajan and others have noted, there are radical Islamic groups that, under the guise of resistance to the occupation, target people for the purpose of instigating religious and ethnic conflict (and, they do so frequently through means other than suicide bombings), which I believe is what Zarqawi and his group does, as they invariably seem to target Shias, because they consider Shia Islam heretical

such attacks should certainly be condemned, but it is an error to conflate the entire resistance into an Islamic insurgency run by Zarqawi and people like him, as both Sunni and Shia resistance groups have publicly condemned his tactics, which suggest that they know what he is really tryingn to do: instigate a religiously based civil war

in my opinion, one of the most difficult aspects of the occupation to confront is that the US cannot dictate the outcome, so liberals still persist in the absurd notion that we can somehow create a humane occupation that will ultimately result in a stable, secular, democratic Iraq

as an anti-imperialist, I am firm in the belief that the US must terminate the occupation as quickly as possible, withdraw troops, abandon its military bases and turn all of the resources of the Iraqi economy back to the Iraqi people

I would hope that Iraq then travels down the secular road, but that is ultimately a decision for them to make, and, if I find it objectionable (through, say instances of religious and ethic intolerance), I would politically condemn it, and consider participating in a variety of means of showing my displeasure (boycotts, petitions, support for indigenous NGOs trying to bring about change), but I would not advocate the use of the US military to bring it about, because it invariably seeks to exploit the situation to military and economic advantage of the US

historically, the presence of the US in the Middle East has empowered Islamic fundamentalist movements, especially when the US has used them against secular left regimes, such as Nasser in Egypt (a potential castastrophe in the making) and Abdullah in Afghanistan, so there is a chance that the departure of US forces from Iraq will serve to embolden the secular alternative, while I fear that their continued presence will make a Islamic revolution, like Iran's in 1979, almost impossible to avoid

--Richard

Richard Thanks for the detailed response but what about supporting the Iraqis who are nonviolently opposed to the occupation (and by the way that doesn't make them pacifists). Like the trade union leaders (who are often violent against managers who are privatizing their jobs) who are targeted by the resistance. These forces in Iraq are the ones that need the anti-war movements support.

Travis: "Go to the following link and scroll down to the picture of the Iraqi child blown up by a suicide bomber. ...I oppose the occupation but the left should refuse to close its eyes to the different elements in the "resistance"."

And does the President, the US Congress, the corporate media, all the TV, newspaper, and magazine pundits, every politician who can scramble to a microphone, or you yourself Travis, hold events to mourn Iraqi victims of American bombs, humanize those victims, tell us all about their personal backgrounds, have their family, relatives and friends tell us all abut those victims, have an honor roll of at least 1,575 of their pictures on TV, and hold candle light vigils for them all over the place?

The British medical journal, The Lancet, in its landmark study and report on the Iraq war, has pointed out that the vast majority of Iraqi civilian "excess deaths" from all causes due to the Anglo-American war, some 100,000 Iraqi deaths, were - the vast majority - caused by "the US coalition forces". But the US government, its corporate media, and most American politicians have done all that they can to ignore those deaths.

But, let one blonde white girl - out of thousands of people of color victims - get killed and we have nonstop media coverage and candle light mania. Unless, that is, that white woman is Rachel Corrie or Lori Berenson: whites who actually criticized and opposed the oppressor, whites who don't feel right at home literally sitting atop the oppressor's tanks and having smiling group photo ops with his storm troopers (most of whom were probably treating her with all the seriousness of the squad stray puppy), whites who aren't deluding themselves about "working to change things on the inside", and thus looking for and cultivating a future job working as a career public relations bureaucrat in the oppressor's military or state department.

If Marla had used her work to harshly exemplify and condemn the US war and occupation, I would have more respect for her; but she used her work as a front to try to put lipstick on the imperialist pig. To "Third World" people around the world, even those who may have had to accept her relative crumbs, she gives the label "white liberal do-gooder" the suspicion it deserves.

It reminds me of the stories of American soldiers in Korea or Vietnam, who, after indiscriminately wiping out all a village's adults, would then give any of the village's surviving orphan children chocolate candy bars.

Mourn that!

[Richard Thanks for the detailed response but what about supporting the Iraqis who are nonviolently opposed to the occupation (and by the way that doesn't make them pacifists).]

Much as Sistani himself is not a pacifist.

[Like the trade union leaders (who are often violent against managers who are privatizing their jobs) who are targeted by the resistance. These forces in Iraq are the ones that need the anti-war movements support.]

Trade union leaders there seem like an endangered species. As David Bacon has made clear on numerous occasions, the Occupation Authority construes most labor actions as illegal, which raises the troubling prospect that the US could find a way to get out of the country by leaving an Islamic regime in place that is pro-privatization of some resources other than oil, agrees not to use oil revenue against the US and hostile to labor rights.

Global Exchange works with Occupation Watch (Iraq) to assist them, and that's one reason, some of my political disagreements with Medea Benjamin aside, that I donate to it. Unlike CIVIC, I think that Global Exchange generally has the right idea (see, for example, their willingness to condemn the attack upon Falluja, and raise funds to assist the refugees), even they don't always conduct themselves in a way that I would prefer.

--Richard

I'm sorry you can't read. Again I'll type this slowly for you.....
Your phony ass race-baiting is tired and transparent. Where the hell did I say the US military wasn't killing innocent Iraqis or where the hell did I say that I supported Marla's politcal agenda? If you read a little more closely you'll notice I agreed with Richard's critique of CIVIC. So fuck your dishonesty in trying to misrepresent what I've said.

Your support for the sickening suicide-(mostly Saudi-Wahabbis--do you even know who they are?) bombers is totally ignorant. Goddam! the vast vast majority of Iraqis, including Sadr! oppose these fundamentalist creeps.

All that torture in the US-run prisons, the millions of tons of bombs we drop on civilian homes, the war based on lies, the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians, an entire nation poisoned by depleted uranium--those are all signs of good democracy building. Nevermind that the foreign occupiers of Iraq kill more Iraqis than those fighting for Iraq's freedom.

A step in the right direction.

Please join Stanley Aronowitz, Medea Benjamin, Norman Birnbaum, Eileen Boris, Carl Bromley, Noam Chomsky, Joshua Cohen, Marc Cooper, Richard Deats, Daniel Ellsberg, Carlos Espinosa, Gertrude Ezorsky, Barry Finger, Barbara Garson, Jill Godmilow, Linda Gordon, Gary Groth, Mina Hamilton, Thomas Harrison, Doug Henwood, Michael Hirsch, Adam Hochschild, Allen Hunter, Doug Ireland, Joanne Landy, Assaf Kfoury, Hany Khalil, Jesse Lemisch, John Leonard, Sue Leonard, Mark LeVine, Nelson Lichtenstein, Betty Reid Mandell, Marvin Mandell, David McReynolds, Timothy Mitchell, David Newby, Molly Nolan, David Oakford, Mike Parker, Glenn Perusek, Frances Fox Piven, Katha Pollitt, Nancy Romer, Ruth Rosen, Matthew Rothschild, Jennifer Scarlott, Jay Schaffner, Jason Schulman, Lynne Schwartz, Stephen Shalom, Sunil Sharma, Adam Shatz, Alan Sokal, Chris Toensing, Howard Wallace, Juanita Webster, Immanuel Wallerstein, Lois Weiner, Naomi Weisstein, Reginald Wilson, John Womack, Jr., Kent Worcester, and others in signing this statement.
(how to add your name, how to contribute to publicize the statement, and the list of signers).

Signers’ names and affiliations (for identification only) will be listed on the CPD website and elsewhere.

CPD's past statements have been widely publicized, and with your help we will also aim to publicize this statement as broadly as possible.

Thank you,
Joanne Landy, Thomas Harrison, Jennifer Scarlott, Co-Directors, CPD

OPPONENTS OF THE OCCUPATION CONDEMN ATTACKS ON IRAQI TRADE UNIONISTS

We, who opposed the U.S.-led war on Iraq and who call for an immediate end to the occupation of that country, are appalled by the torture and assassination in Baghdad on January 4, 2005 of Hadi Salih, International Officer of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). There are also disturbing reports of intimidation, death threats and murders targeting other IFTU members, trade unionists in general, and political activists.

We utterly condemn the assassination of Hadi Salih. We call upon all sides in the conflict in Iraq to respect the rights of non-combatants as required by international law and to recognize the rights of workers to organize freely, without threat or harm, in trade unions of their own choosing in accordance with International Labor Organization (ILO) standards.

We believe that the physical targeting of trade unionists is in no way politically or morally acceptable, even though we disagree strongly with the IFTU's support of UN Resolution 1546, which supports the U.S. military presence in Iraq. This resolution has been used by the Bush Administration to justify keeping U.S. troops in the country.

We also oppose the victory of those elements of the resistance whose agenda is to impose a repressive, authoritarian regime on the Iraqi people, whether that regime is Baathist or theocratic-fundamentalist. We do not know whether such authoritarian elements have gained decisive control over the resistance to the U.S. forces and their Iraqi and international allies. We do know, however, that the continuing occupation of Iraq, which grows more brutal with every passing day, only strengthens these elements, increases their influence over the resistance and makes their ultimate victory more likely.

We further oppose the occupation because it is part and parcel of an imperial U.S. foreign policy that shores up undemocratic regimes like those of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, gives one-sided support to Israel against the Palestinians, and promotes unjust, inequitable economic policies throughout the world. Not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and globally U.S. foreign and military policy either directly or indirectly subverts freedom and democracy.

For further information about the issue, please contact us at cpd [at] igc.org




http://www.cpdweb.org/

Read more carefully:

"We also oppose the victory of THOSE ELEMENTS of the resistance WHOSE AGENDA is to impose a repressive, authoritarian regime"

Why America Needs to be Defeated in Iraq
by Mike Whitney

The greatest moral quandary of our day is whether we, as Americans, support the Iraqi insurgency. It’s an issue that has caused anti-war Leftist’s the same pangs of conscience that many felt 30 years ago in their opposition to the Vietnam War. The specter of disloyalty weighs heavily on all of us, even those who’ve never been inclined to wave flags or champion the notion of American “Exceptionalism”.

For myself, I can say without hesitation, that I support the insurgency, and would do so even if my only 21-year-old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option.

As Americans we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, and to institute a new government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, IT IS THEIR RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY, TO THROW OFF SUCH GOVERNMENT, AND PROVIDE NEW GUARDS FOR THEIR FUTURE SECURITY.” [Emphasis mine]

The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary in its view that we have a “duty” to overthrow regimes that threaten basic human liberties. We must apply this same standard to the Iraqi people. Violence is not the issue, but the justification for the use of violence. The overwhelming majority of the world’s people know that the war in Iraq was an “illegal” act (Kofi Annan) of unprovoked aggression against a defenseless enemy. A recent poll conducted in the Middle East (released by the Center for Strategic Studies) shows that “for more than 85% of the population in four of the five countries polled (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine) thought the US war on Iraq was an act of terrorism.” Lebanon polled at 64%. (Pepe Escobar, “It’s Terror When We Way So,” Asia Times, April 23, 2005) Terrorism or not, there’s no doubt that the vast majority of people in the region and in the world, believe that the war was entirely unjustifiable.

The argument most commonly offered by anti-war Americans (who believe we should stay in Iraq) doesn’t defend the legitimacy of the invasion, but provides the rationale for the ongoing occupation. The belief that “We can’t just leave them without security” creates the logic for staying in Iraq until order can be established. Unfortunately, the occupation is just another manifestation of the war itself; replete with daily bombings, arrests, torture and the destruction of personal property. Therefore, support of the occupation is a vindication of the war. The two are inseparable.

At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the “insurgency”, are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.

Independence is not bestowed by a foreign nation; the very nature of that relationship suggests reliance on outside forces. True independence and sovereignty can only be realized when foreign armies are evacuated and indigenous elements assume the reigns of power. (Bush acknowledged this himself when he ordered Syrian troops to leave Lebanon) The character of the future Iraqi government will evolve from the groups who successfully expel the US forces from their country, not the American-approved stooges who rose to power through Washington’s “demonstration elections.” This may not suit the members of the Bush administration, but it’s a first step in the long process of reintegrating and rebuilding the Iraqi state. There’s no indication that the conduct of the occupation will change anytime soon. If anything, conditions have only worsened over the passed two years. The Bush administration hasn’t shown any willingness to loosen its grip on power either by internationalizing the occupation or by handing over real control to the newly elected Iraqi government. This suggests that the only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we’re nowhere near that period yet.
Who’s Killing Whom?

It’s not the insurgency that’s killing American soldiers. It’s the self-serving strategy to control 12% of the world’s remaining petroleum and to project American military power throughout the region. This is the plan that has put American servicemen into harms way. The insurgency is simply acting as any resistance movement would, trying to rid their country of foreign invaders when all the political channels have been foreclosed. American’s would behave no differently if put in a similar situation and Iraqi troops were deployed in our towns and cities. Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration’s hands not those of the Iraqi insurgency.
Expect another dictator or Mullah

We shouldn’t expect that, after a long period of internal struggle, the Iraqi leadership will embrace the values of democratic government. More likely, another Iraqi strongman, like Saddam, will take power. In fact, the rise of another dictator (or Ayatollah) is nearly certain given the catastrophic effects of the American-led war. Regardless, it is not the right of the US to pick-and-choose the leaders of foreign countries or to meddle in their internal politics. (The UN, as imperfect as it may be, is the proper venue for deciding how to affect the behavior of foreign dictators) At this point, we should be able to agree that the people of Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein in every quantifiable way than they are today. Even on a physical level, the availability of work, clean water, electricity, sewage control, medicine, gas and food were far superior to the present situation. On a deeper level, the insecurity from the sporadic violence, the increasing brutality, and the gross injustice of the occupation has turned Iraq into a prison-state, where the amenities of normal life are nowhere to be found.

Support for the Bush policy is, by necessity, support for the instruments of coercion that are used to perpetuate that occupation. In other words, one must be willing to support the torture at Abu Ghraib, (which continues to this day according to Amnesty International) the neoliberal policies (which have privatized all of Iraq’s publicly owned industries, banks and resources) an American-friendly regime that excludes 20% (Sunnis) of the population and, worst of all, “the return-in full force of Saddam’s Mukhabarat agents, now posing as agents of the new Iraqi security and intelligence services.” (Pepe Escobar, “The Shadow Iraqi Government,” Asia Times, April 21, 2005)

Are Americans prepared to offer their support to the same brutal apparatus of state-terror that was employed by Saddam? (Rumsfeld’s unannounced visit to Baghdad last week was to make sure that the newly elected officials didn’t tamper with his counterinsurgency operatives, most of who were formerly employed in Saddam’s secret police)

We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don’t realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself. The Bush administration is fully prepared to carry on its campaign of global domination by force unless an unmovable object like the Iraqi insurgency blocks its way. Many suspect that if it weren’t for the resistance the US would be in Tehran and Damascus right now. This, I think, is a rational assumption. For this reason alone, anti-war advocates should carefully consider the implications of so-called “humanitarian” objectives designed to pacify the population. “Normalizing” aggression by ameliorating its symptoms is the greatest dilemma we collectively face.

We should be clear about our feelings about the war and the occupation. The disparate Iraqi resistance is the legitimate manifestation of a national liberation movement. Its success is imperative to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination, ideals that are revered in the Declaration of Independence. The toppling of foreign regimes and the destruction of entire civilizations cannot be justified in terms of “democracy” or any other cynically conjured-up ideal. The peace and security of the world’s people depends on the compliance of states with the clearly articulated standards of international law and the UN Charter. Both were deliberately violated by the invasion of Iraq. Crushing the insurgency will not absolve that illicit action; it will only increase the magnitude of the crime. Therefore we look for an American defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat would serve as a powerful deterrent to future unprovoked conflicts and would deliver a serious blow to the belief that aggression is a viable expression of foreign policy.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Whitney0502.htm

Leftists for Islamofacism

Read more carefully:

"We also oppose the victory of THOSE ELEMENTS of the resistance WHOSE AGENDA is to impose a repressive, authoritarian regime"

==========================================================

And WHAT has brought all those foreign suicide bombers into Iraq?: the American imperialist occupation! "The vast majority of Iraqis" oppose the occupation MORE!

Just like a pseudo white liberal (or whatever Travis calls himself): always looking at the symptoms and not THE PROBLEM!

IT'S THE OCCUPATION, STUPID!

Travis, if you really cared about dead Iraqis, you'd be harping on the occupation and not repeatedly harping and fixated on the suicide bombers (and the collaborators and Quislings they are generally targeting).

The biggest creeps in Iraq are the (borrowing from your words) fundamentalist creeps in the Bush administration - Christian and Zionist - and the American soldiers who turned an entire city into a cluster, phosphorus, and chemical weapons bomb free-fire zone and leveled that city. This so, while American military snipers tried to kill even any remaining civilians that came out afterwards to retrieve their wounded or bury their dead loved ones. And why did the Americans do this? Do you even remember? Because the people of that city wouldn't hand over a US-alledged "terrorist" who had long gone.

Thanks to the resistance and even the suicide bombers, Iran, Syria, North Korea (and South Korea, in retaliation by the North), and God only knows who else, will NOT be attacked and 100,000 innocent people in those countries will not be killed by imperialist "coalition forces".