November 6, 2007
U.S. should end occupation of Iraq
It seems that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We know that the pretext for the preemptive (or dare we say “preventative") invasion of Iraq was false. Many citizens in this country believe, now that we’ve made a mess of Iraq and destroyed its infrastructure, that we must continue the occupation in order to “clean up the mess that we made.” This well-meaning argument underscores the responsibility that the U.S. government and the American people (rightfully) feel toward Iraq.
Many Americans are operating under the belief that the U.S. is supporting a secular democratic government in Iraq. This is, unfortunately, not true. Positions within the new Iraqi government have been divided according to religious affiliation. Shiite interests have used their majority to ensure that the line between the official Iraqi security forces and the Shiite death squads is blurred, allowing arms and munitions to flow to the Shiite sectarian militias. In order to counter the anti-Sunni violence, the U.S. is arming Talibanesque Sunni militias who have defected from Al-Qaeda. We are arming U.S. allied factions on both sides of a sectarian civil war and those groups are selling arms to insurgent factions who are attacking our troops. The militias have, since the start of the conflict, been purging certain communities of Shiites or Sunnis, creating “ethnically cleansed” neighborhoods. These communities now serve as bases for sectarian militias to attack rival minorities. The U.S. is further exacerbating the problem by building separation walls between the different communities. Insurgent militias are able to maintain popular support in Iraq by claiming that they are resisting the unpopular U.S. occupation (a propaganda artifice that would collapse the day that the U.S. military pulled out of the country). The new Iraqi government has brought back Sharia (religious) law. Honor killings of women have skyrocketed. Women have far fewer protections under the law than they did when Sadam was in power. The presence of U.S. troops supports indigenous reactionary forces, and their power grows daily. The Iraqi people cannot be free as long as they are occupied by a foreign military.
I believe that, if we truly wish to move Iraq in a positive direction, we need to listen to Iraqi voices, especially those voices that are speaking out for democracy, equality, civil rights, religious freedom and secular government. The Iraqi Freedom Congress (IFC) is a non-violent civil resistance that embodies all of the values stated above. The IFC is made up of many civil groups, including labor unions, women’s and civil rights organizations. The IFC asks that reconstruction contracts be awarded to Iraqi firms, rather than U.S. corporations in order to address the growing unemployment problem. They also ask that the oil fields not be privatized and given over to multinational conglomerates. The IFC demands an end to
U.S. occupation as soon as possible and say that it is the prerequisite to positive change in Iraq. The IFC recognizes that if the U.S. withdraws, then there will be a power vacuum that could lead to a temporary increase in the level of violence. They state, however, that we cannot forestall this violence; the longer we stay in Iraq, the worse the end result will be. There is debate as to whether an international security forces should be brought in for a brief time to mitigate this violence, but that should be for the Iraqi people to decide, not America. It is time we handed Iraqi sovereignty back to its people. To learn more about the IFC, please visit: http://no-ifs.org/index.html
I urge everyone to vote yes on Missoula’s “Out of Iraq Referendum.” It is imperative that our voices be heard.
Sean M. Gibbons is the president of Students for Peace and Justice and a board member for the Jeannette Rankin Peace Center.
This story has been viewed 219 times.
Comments
There are no comments for this story yet.
