Posted on 10/31/2003 7:18:19 AM PST by SpinyNorman
Iraqi resistance necessary
by Jeff Napolitano
October 31, 2003
There are certain principles that we, the people of the United States and Western Civilization, like to pride ourselves on. Inherent in much of the talk lately about Iraq is the assumption that a democratic state in which every citizen participates is a desirable form of government. Indeed, the lack of democracy is often touted as one of the ills that plague many parts of the world. The right to vote, the right to freely assemble, and the right to due process, aside from being consecrated formally in the U.S. Constitution, are principles which are often proclaimed as superior qualities which set us apart from ìlesser civilizedî people in the world.
I happen to agree. I believe that many of the principles set forth in the Constitution, and the lesser-known U.N. Charter, are noble principles. I believe they are not merely arbitrary laws, but affirmations in the dignity of humanity, and an attempt to induce all governments to uphold a standard of human rights which should not be threatened by any authoritative entity. The fundamental basis of the United Nations is expressed in its charter, which calls for, among other things, ìto reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human personî. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, ìEveryone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representativesî. This is, at the very least, the codified intent of all countries that belong to the United Nations.
The U.S. Constitution is the foundation of the moral high ground upon which every domestic politician stands, including the president and his administration. We know that our system of government guarantees, among other things, freedom of the press and speech, and disallows unreasonable searches and seizures, and cruel and unusual punishment. I doubt many will disagree that these are uncalled-for policies; in fact, I'm sure we all understand these to be crucial to a healthy democracy.
If we agree that these principles are indeed nobleó that human rights and dignity should be preservedó then, we must support Iraqi resistance against the U.S. government to avoid being hypocritical.
I do not mean we should support the acts of terrorism, which immediately and ultimately harm the people of Iraq. Rather, we should do everything we can to expel foreign ó U.S. and other ó military and exploitative forces from the country, which are violating every principle I've listed. How can we at once praise democracy and freedom in our words, while at the same time encourage totalitarianism and privatization in our deeds?
Even if you forgive the Anglo-American invasion and assault upon the country of Iraq, even if you dismiss the human, economic, and ecological destruction wreaked, and even if you forgive the blatant violation of international law and standards of human decency, one cannot forgive the actions of the occupation. They have included innumerable shootings and deaths by the hands of occupation forces (often unaccountable and likely more often unreported), unexplained disappearances of citizens who are put into either the concentration camp near the Baghdad airport or in prison (held indefinitely and inexplicably without due process), soldiers opening fire on unarmed citizens protesting injustices imposed by the occupation forces, and censorship policies imposed on the Iraqi press. The occupation authorities have even gone so far as to re-hire members of the Mukhabarat, Husseinís infamous secret police, whose crimes were supposedly part of the very reason the U.S. invaded Iraq!
To further demonstrate the U.S. occupation's utter disregard for democracy, the ìgoverning councilî which was supposed to be a step toward self-governance was not only hand-picked by the occupation authorities, but was given no power to run its own country.
Even if an interim authority were to exist to truly aid the transition of power into the hands of the people, the worst possible choice would be the United States. Not only is the U.S. the most guilty of inflicting massive destruction during the invasion, it was the most guilty of the deaths of millions of Iraqi civilians during the decade of sanctions. A true interim authority cannot have such a clear conflict of interest, as demonstrated by the awarding of contracts worth billions of dollars to U.S. companies. Perhaps worst of all, the U.S.-picked finance minister, Kamel al-Kelan, declared last month that every Iraqi national corporation and Iraqi asset will be sold off (excluding the oil industry, of course). Not only has the country been invaded and torn apart, but now those who put themselves in charge have begun to auction off everything of value, all without any input from the people.
By far, the most effective way to support Iraqi resistance is for citizens of the U.S. to come together to demand the extrication of our government from Iraq. If we are not to become the tyrant our leaders claimed with such fervor to depose, we must allow for Iraqi self-determination and control over their own resources. If we are to truly believe that people should be free, and that free people should have such rights as to assemble without being shot, to actually be charged with a crime before being incarcerated to not be persecuted for free speech; in short, if we are not to be hypocrites, we will stop the occupation of the Iraqi people.
Jeffrey Napolitano is a Collegian columnist.
Indeed this is a true statement.
Wouldn't "supporting the Iraqi resistance" be treason? And, since the "Iraqi resistance" is basically comprised of ex-torturers and rapists and child-killers, wouldn't Amnesty International also be PO'd at this guy? (Yeah, I know, AI shares his views).
Someone needs to point out to this idiot that representatives of the government that are against every democratic principle the guy claims to uphold, make up the members of the very "resistance" he's touting!
He's either a liar or a moron. He can't have it both ways.
It also answers the now rhetorical question of why there are so many examples of liberal cannon fodder writing commentaries in the Collegian.
I invite anyone to join the party (no pun intended here) and write to the columnists at the Collegian. I only have so much time, and they come out with their brain farts on a daily basis.
On looking through the list of drivel, these especially caught my eye:
B19 [171] Considering the Body: Queered, Raced and Classed
Suzanne Smith (University of Massachusetts, Amherst), Chair
Ross Prinzo (Duke University), Forging the Whatever-Body: Queer-ity, Biopower and the Corporeal Politics of Empire
Randall Halle (University of Rochester), Marx after Nietzsche: Three Queer Considerations
Kara Keeling (University of Pittsburgh), Reflections on the Black Femme's Role in the Contemporary Community of Slaves
Derek Stanovsky (Appalachian University), Body and Class: A Composition on Decomposition
I am simply stunned at the singular waste of brainpower represented by this melange of marxist "thought."
I wonder how many parents of students attending UMASS would be happy to see that syllabus.......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.