Published on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 by the Austin American-Statesman
After the Capture, War's Hard Truths Remain
by Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen
Saddam Hussein's capture and the hope he will be held accountable for crimes
against the people of Iraq and neighboring states is welcome news, no matter
what one's position on the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
But this doesn't vindicate the U.S. invasion. It doesn't change the fact
that the administration lied about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass
destruction or that Iraq is undergoing occupation, not liberation.
Nor does it vindicate more longstanding U.S. policy. It is crucial that
Hussein's eventual trial cover the entire history of his crimes and of those
who supported them. We need answers. Why did the Reagan administration
provide Hussein with military intelligence to help him in his savage attacks
on Iran in the 1980s? Why did U.S. companies provide Iraq with chemicals and
seed stock for biological weapons? Why did the United States continue to
fund Hussein and provide him diplomatic cover, even after he gassed the
Kurds of Halabja in 1988?
And, what did current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld say to Hussein
when he met with the dictator as Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East
in 1983? Will Rumsfeld be subpoenaed to testify about it?
If the trial of Hussein is conducted openly and honestly, U.S. crimes in
Iraq and throughout the Middle East, through Republican and Democratic
administrations alike, will be laid bare for the world to see.
More important, however, we must recognize that the key issue is the
occupation, not Hussein. There is little indication that either the
brutality of the U.S. occupation, or the armed resistance to it, will end
soon.
Military officials have quietly admitted for months that Hussein had little
to do with coordinating the resistance. London's Independent newspaper
identified at least 12 different loosely connected guerilla groups, only one
of which could be identified as Hussein loyalists. Most of the people
fighting never had any love for Hussein; one British expert has referred to
the resistance as "self-generating."
The fighters likely have various motivations, but they share a common goal:
Ending foreign occupation. After last month's running battles in Samarra,
where U.S. forces killed dozens, one Iraqi said, "Everyone is with the
resistance. Saddam Hussein is finished. We are protecting our honor and our
land."
Resentment against the occupation goes far beyond the armed resistance. And,
given the nature of the occupation, that's hardly surprising. After a brief
period of freedom, the Coalition Provisional Authority imposed press
censorship in June. The U.S. military estimates 10,000 Iraqis are being
held, most without charges, in camps under dehumanizing conditions. Many
were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hundreds of civilians have
been killed by troops who, Iraqis are convinced, place little value on Iraqi
life.
Beyond that, Iraq has been a laboratory for the administration's extremist
economic ideas. With the stroke of a pen, U.S. viceroy L. Paul Bremer cut
Iraq's highest tax bracket by a factor of three. He threw 400,000 people out
of work, with no provision for re-employment. He laid the groundwork for
rapid privatization of Iraq's industry, a fire sale not seen since the fall
of the Soviet Union. And with all that, to this day, electrical power and
basic services have not been restored to prewar levels. According to some
surveys, infant mortality in Iraq is double what it was before the war.
Worse yet, for all the posturing about restoring Iraq's sovereignty, the
real plans of the administration are rather different. The U.S.-appointed
Governing Council was created as a temporary puppet government under
Bremer's control and a springboard to the next stage -- a permanent
government that will be nominally independent but function as a U.S. client
state. While many Iraqis are calling for free and open elections, the CPA is
peddling a convoluted caucus plan specifically designed to keep the Iraqi
people out of the emerging political process, restricting political
participation to groups that have already decided to collaborate with the
U.S. occupation.
Americans are left facing the same harsh facts we have always had to face:
The conquest of Iraq had nothing to do with the safety of Americans or the
freedom of Iraqis. It was designed to extend and deepen U.S. dominance over
the strategically crucial energy resources of the region.
That goal has little public support, either in Iraq or in the United States.
While Iraqis celebrate the capture of Saddam Hussein, Americans should
mobilize to pressure our government to end the occupation now.
Mahajan is the author of "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and
Beyond." Jensen is the author of the forthcoming "Citizens of the Empire:
The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity." They can be reached at and
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
--
"From the brief time that we did spend occupying Iraqi territory
after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would
have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit - we would still be there,
and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of
the occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleaguered
American taxpayer would not have been happy to take on."
- Norman Schwarzkopf, from his 1993 autobiography, "It Doesn't
Take a Hero."
.
|
