Why we will fail in Iraq

The debate on Iraq continues to obscure and ignore the obvious - no country can colonize another without resistance. And by resistance, I mean violent resistance.

Nobody should be surprised by a regular civilian mob brutally lynching four American mercenaries working for Blackwater USA. Frantz Fanon (in The Wretched of the Earth) taught us that the psychology of the colonized would force them to manifest their anger and humiliation in violent ways. What occurred in Fallujah was the logical outcome of a people oppressed, angered, humiliated and feeling powerless to evict the foreign interlopers in their midst. Would we act any different if we were colonized?

The problem in Iraq is not that the Iraqis are ungrateful, or that they're Baathist "dead-enders," terrorists or religious fundamentalists fighting us. The problem is one of ideological misconceptions and an unwillingness to admit reality and truth. Ideology is what fuels this war. It's the combined interests and ideology of neoconservatives (who wish for a U.S. imperial status), greedy corporate executives (who lust for the Iraqi oil), coupled with a general American consent to warfare as a tool to impose American political visions on other nations. Only this unholy concoction of ideologies could explain the frat-boy provocation of President Bush, when he called for the Iraqi insurgents to "Bring it on." Bring it on they did, and we have over 600 U.S. soldiers dead and thousands wounded to prove it.

The first step toward admitting reality is exposing the lies that justified the war. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, and even if they did have them, that's not a justification for war against a country. Many countries have WMDs, and we don't invade them. Iraq was no threat to us - it didn't have the missile delivery technology to reach beyond Israel, Iran, Kuwait, or Turkey, let alone Europe or the United States. Its army was no match for our professional army, nor it could threaten us. Why did President Bush and the rest of the administration tried to fool us that Iraq was a threat?

The justification that we invaded Iraq to rid the Iraqis of Saddam Hussein was purely for "domestic consumption." It was a feel-good balm for our uneasy consciences. The irony and hypocrisy of justifying a war on the removal of a tyrannical and brutal dictator that had been our "bed-buddy" for over 20 years was not lost on the rest of the world (although the American public fell for it).

The golden moments of American hypocrisy must have been Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell's principled denunciations of Saddam's very real crimes against humanity, while conveniently hiding the fact that the United States knew of those crimes when they occurred, and continued to funnel billions of dollars in financial, military, and political aid to the Hussein regime. Rumsfeld himself has been videotaped shaking the hand of Hussein in the 1980s.

In fact, many times, possible civilian coups against Saddam Hussein were brutally repressed by Hussein with the aid of the American C.I.A, which informed Hussein of the coups before they were ready to threaten him. The American government signed the death warrants of thousands of Iraqi civilians for the crime of attempting to overthrow Hussein. And then, we are supposed to really believe that the U.S. had nothing but pure intentions in the Iraqi war?

What about the Al-Qaeda "boogeyman"? U.S. administration officials, all the way up to President Bush, used every dictionary and thesaurus term for "threat" to scare the American public into thinking that Saddam Hussein was in league with Al-Qaeda. Only this truth explains why 60 percent of the American public thought that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. At the end of the day, after the war was ongoing and the justification was no longer needed, it was conveniently discarded by Secretary of State Colin Powell and President Bush in speeches admitting that there was no Al-Qaeda link to Saddam Hussein. Sad to say, but the American public was bamboozled just as badly as the German nation was bamboozled by Hitler, when he ascribed blame for German problems to Jews and other social dissidents.

Finally, what about the "bringing democracy" justification? At the end of the day, the American colonial occupiers have censored newspapers, shot at peaceful Iraqi demonstrations, broken down doors and searched Iraqi families, tried to institute an "elites-only" style of caucus-elections democracy and ruled Iraq from behind large concrete walls. The only person in Iraq that deserves the credit for fighting for "direct elections" is Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has used his religious authority to press the U.S. administration to discard their previous, elitist "democratic" ideas. From a point of view of history, it wasn't the U.S., which pushed for "democracy" in Iraq; it was Iraqis themselves, who demanded "direct elections" in opposition to American political plans.

Flash forward to the present. Sunni Muslims in the "Sunni Triangle" have been making us pay dearly for our colonial arrogance. Then, Paul Bremer provokes Muqtada Al-Sadr and his "Mahdi Army" of Shi'ite followers into open rebellion by closing down a newspaper that had a circulation rate of, at most, 10,000. Now, Sunnis and Shi'ites are against us, with the possibility that the rest of the peaceful population will take sides with them. And, somehow, we cannot understand why people are shooting at us instead throwing flowers at us for "liberating them."

It's pretty simple: what the U.S. is facing in Iraq is a genuine, nationalist, patriotic, Iraqi rebellion against colonial rule. It is no longer relevant that we think of ourselves as liberators or that our troops feel themselves justified in being in Iraq. What matters now is that the Iraqi people have taken up arms against us, which makes the situation a colonial-national liberation struggle. In those terms, we are the colonizers and they the freedom fighters. Our heroes become U.S. colonial soldiers. The terrorists become Iraqi patriots. And Operation Iraqi Freedom becomes Operation Failed Colonial Attempt.

This is why we will fail in Iraq. Because, only we remain fooled. For the Iraqis and the rest of the world, the matter is clear. They will massacre, machete, shoot, bomb, burn, drag and castrate every American soldier they get their hands on until we learn that supreme basic law: do onto others what you would want them to do unto you. We tried to colonize them, and they are killing us for it. We can ratchet up our murder against Iraqis and try to repress the uprising (which would only dig the colonial hole deeper), or we can admit defeat in this colonial adventure and withdraw. In other words, we can be in Iraq for 10 more years and make it another Vietnam, or we can do a "Saigon" and bolt from Iraq. Now.

We need to stop the "patriotic" whitewashing of the truth. The propaganda has it backwards: Iraq is their country and we are the colonial interlopers. We can no longer try to dictate what is right and wrong to Iraqis. We should withdraw from Iraq ... or face a national liberation struggle that will be impossible to stop.

It seems it is not enough to claim our numbers our dwindling. We in the ALANA community warned this University of what was going to occur with the dismantlement of affirmative action. Not only were students of color who were struggling for good grades booted out, but other students of color (regardless of their academic achievements) would go with them after feeling the unwelcoming new atmosphere at UMass for people of color. And it occurred, as we predicted. African-Americans have gone down 45 percent and Latinos 41 percent, not to mention other ethnic and racial groups as well. Can any student of color honestly say he/she feels welcome here? It is such a simple question, yet its answer has and will continue to decide the destiny of students of color on this campus.

Although many issues have arisen that all have a cumulative effect on whether social and racial justice is achieved at this University, I will focus on one pressing one: the familiar ALANA seats in the Senate and the upcoming referendum asking for their removal. Throughout the years, the ALANA community has had to defend itself from the constant harassment from the conservative minded students. Although not limited to them, it has been primarily the Republican Club that has organized propaganda work, motions in the Senate, and other actions to support the dismantlement of these seats. I will attempt to examine their views, refute them with evidence, and express my point of view.

The Republican Club's claims are many, although the center point of their argument is this: appointed seats, of any kind, are an "affront" to democracy. The ALANA seats constitute 13 percent of the seats in the Senate. If one year there are 100 seats filled with elected senators, ALANA students are assured an extra (not taking away from the original 100) 13 percent of those seats (13 appointed seats). A total of 113 seats. Contrary to the propaganda work of the Republican Club, the appointed seats DO NOT take the seats from other students. It is an addition, and a very important one. While on the democratic question, I'd like to point out that the Republican Club bases its model of democracy on the U.S. national model. Not only is the U.S. model one in many different types of democracies, it is also one of the most deficient, uncooperative, and unrepresentative systems that exist. The U.S. model, based on a winner-take-all principle, is not truly representative of the actual society. This is because the U.S. model is not a model of proportional representation (a model used in other Western democracies, such as France, and even ironically, to a lesser extent, in its own colony, Puerto Rico). How does it work, you ask? Simple. Under a system of proportional representation, the percentage of votes a party gets is the percentage of seats a party gets in the legislature. In Puerto Rico, the model is a mixture of both electoral and appointment procedures. Each party on the island is assured at least one representative and one senator in the legislature through appointments if their district population numbers do not render an elected candidate. Members of the party (in this case, the Independence Party) vote in their own elections to choose a senator and representative. These appointments occur within the framework of general electoral democracy (in that the rest of the officials are elected) and have occurred for about 50 years under U.S. acceptance.

Two things, then, must be brought to the spotlight. One, the Republican Club's vision of democracy in our SGA, modeled after the U.S. national model, is deficient, narrow-minded and unrepresentative. Two, their uncompromising defense of this model, while countered by other Western democracies, is made more idiotic by the fact that the U.S.'s own colony of Puerto Rico actually practices what they despise as undemocratic (a rare case of the colony being more advanced democratically than the metropolis!) And with the permission of the U.S. Congress! Their argument, based on the idea that appointments are an "affront" to democracy, is completely destroyed by the U.S. Congress (their heavenly pillar of democracy) sanctioning what they consider the "undemocratic". If Puerto Rico, a colony of the U.S., subject to U.S. laws and politics, can practice appointments and a limited model of proportional representation, why can't we in our small University Senate do the same? Their argument does not hold water.

What does this mean for our own SGA Senate? We must first answer a fundamental question and then proceed. Is the purpose of the Senate to A) model the U.S. Congress as closely as possible or B) to provide the utmost representation for all the diverse groups on campus for the ultimate purpose of uniting and building a more understanding community on campus? The answer to this question will decide which measures seem acceptable to us regarding the Senate composition. Obviously, the second answer more closely resembles the Senate's duties, and this raises another profound idea. If these are the Senate's duties, then the most important thing is to safeguard those Senate ideals by any means necessary. If we were more concerned with upholding the ideals of unity and representation in the Senate (and not with petty electoral policy intellectual masturbation), it would not matter how we composed the Senate, just as long as the Senate was unified and representative.

My final point. Whereas Democracy comes in many forms, some superior to our own U.S national model, appointments designed to remedy representation issues grounded on historical and current discrimination and population number deficiencies are completely constitutional within the U.S. political panorama (Puerto Rico) and in other Western democracies. The ALANA population has dwindled considerably, putting in question the representation the ALANA community would garner in strictly electoral forms, I propose that we as students take a bold step. Vote to keep the ALANA appointed seats in the Senate because, a.) Appointed seats ARE constitutional, viable, and necessary in democracies, b.) These seats would assure the ALANA community representation and the Senate the unity this campus so strongly deserves and needs, and c.) On a purely personal and individual level, doesn't it feel good to break free of the propaganda of the Republican Club once in a while? May the Senate be united again, and the ALANA community a part of this campus again.

Just a little more historic writing from the infamous Rene Gonzales.

The ALANA controversy involved "set aside" seats on the Student Government for minority students. Affirmative action for government if you will. When they were forced to run vs. being appointed, the minorities won handily, proving that there was no need for appointed seats, but they still want them. I guess they feel they deserve seats that they don't have to campaign for. I think you can tell which side of the fence Gonzales sits on.

As an aside, just to give you an idea of the political environment at UMASS, I was appalled to find a box of anti Bush, anti Iraq, anti American articles (no doubt printed using University equipment and supplies) near the newspaper stand in the student union this morning. Articles like "Bush's Iraq War was one big fraud," "I love my country, I hate my president," "The criminalization of the state," "America's ministry of propaganda," and more.

Can anyone wonder why Gonzales and those like him are bred in such an environment of self hate?

The debate on Iraq continues to obscure and ignore the obvious - no country can colonize another without resistance.

I can't get past the first, completely ignorant sentence.

Seriously, how is this vapid idiot even in college in the first place?

I know it’s just UMass, but still.

Here's old Rene's attempt at internet dating (no Jewesses please). He also is looking for a girl/(guy?) who can "cook, clean, and fellate"

Sorry the link didn't work on other thread. http://www.celluloid-wisdom.com/pw/images/renecompass2.jpg

...Frantz Fanon (in The Wretched of the Earth) taught us...

Fanon was among the cadre of authors whose works were de facto required reading in academia during the Vietnam war...relentlessly providing cover for the Communists in Asia and their "useful idiots" here.

I have never not once heard a leftie explain why ANYHTHING justified the THREE MILLION murders that tood place in SE Asia afer the US pulled out.

As for this latest issue from Gonzalez, all I can say is, "Didn't he get enough death threats the first time?"

If anyone wants proof of why there are so few PRs at the top of any field requiring intelligence, this is exhibit A.

Well.. I'll take some heat too.... but I think our plan will fail. I think the plan is flawed for these reasons.

1) Before the war the administration estimated that 1 out of 4 Iraqis hated us and or would die for their cause. That's about 5 million minds to either change or kill, and we can't or wont' do that.

2) That place is Babylon. It has been babylon for thousands of years and we aren't going to make it a western style democracy just because we want to. Babylon will ultimately be destroyed and made uninhabitable.

3) The plan should have been to conquer and occupy. Tax the oil profits for our Amerian Economy and build military bases there.

"Why are we providing an audience 1000 times the size of what this mental midget deserves?"

I agree. This person's "writing" isn't worth any decent person's time or mental effort.

We shouldn't dignify his nonsense with a reaction or discussion of any sort.

I didn't RTFA but I know one reason. These "abused" prisoners exhibit some common characteristics. They appear to be very fit, akin to something we might think of as Special Forces fit. These guys most likely have been killing Joe and Jane GI before being captured. These are the baddest of the bad guys. They shouldn't be sharing my air.

But we capture them and add them to the prison population. The deserve whatever required to break them down and obtain operational intel. Looks like some mental techniques were being employed to break em down. That's the right approach. But apparently not to the people that want to see us fail. The media is going to lose the war for us just like always.

Bush is at much at fault as the media for being unable to properly frame the incidents and the motivation behind them. Bush panders to the majority which happens to think on a very shallow level in this country. It's all sad because you can almost see the final chapter being set up.

It'll take martial law before the USA will exert the necessary force to deter the enemy from prolonging the eye for eye game they so cherish.

I guess Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea were all failures?

No one 'nation-built' Germany,it was prosperous to begin with,then plunged into chaos by two newly born superpowers who became superpowers because Germany and Britain lost so much in the war.Germany's success was not because of the US/USSR,it was inspite of it.

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.