Posted on 08/16/2004 8:56:25 PM PDT by bunkerhill7
US loses big in Najaf Resistance in the holy city has proven that the US won't allow democracy in Iraq
By Kamil Mahdi THE GUARDIAN , London Tuesday, Aug 17, 2004,Page 9
YUSHA The US military offensive against Najaf is a dangerous and ill-judged escalation, revealing the violent reality of an occupation that has undergone only cosmetic change since the supposed handover of power to an "interim Iraqi administration" in June. For more than a week, an aggressive foreign power has addressed an essentially domestic political question by means of tanks, helicopter gunships and F16s.
There had been a ceasefire in place between the US forces and their main opponents around Najaf, and mediation efforts had been effective in containing tension. The current violence in the vicinity of one of Islam's most sacred sites appears to be a result of the failure of this mediation to co-opt Moqtada al-Sadr and his movement into a national conference, which the US had hoped would bestow a stamp of approval on the interim government.
The offensive is not -- as claimed by the US-appointed interim government and by the US military -- an action against outlaws, nor is it an attempt to establish security and the rule of law. There is a great deal of random violence in occupied Iraq. Some of this violence is of a purely criminal character, and some is of a terrorist nature with more or less vague political objectives. Many of the perpetrators are so shadowy as to invite a widespread belief that outside powers are directly involved in fomenting chaos.
In the absence of a process of reconciliation and a genuine accounting for past suffering and political crimes, there is also violence associated with score-settling by political groups. Not least, of course, is the military violence of the 200,000 foreign forces and armed mercenaries, and of the diverse groups resisting their presence in the country. All these forms of violence are escalating, leading to a chaotic and catastrophic outcome.
The way to deal with this situation is not to pour gas on the fire, but to look for an imaginative and honest political way out.
Regime Bankrupt
Having been appointed by the occupation authority under a corrupted UN oversight process, Ayad Allawi's interim government lacks any legitimacy whatsoever. Its success could only be measured through its ability to address the needs of the Iraqi people, foremost among which is security. The offensive against Najaf is the most crude and inept action possible, and it follows a long line of such actions by the occupation forces and their political leadership.
Some Iraqis hoped that the so-called transfer of power would permit a lessening of tension and a quick withdrawal of foreign forces from the cities, to be followed by greater cooperation between police and the population in tackling random violence. It had been hoped that the police would become more effective in protecting doctors and other professionals from targeted kidnapping and murder, and that homes, places of worship and other public places would become more secure, and that efforts would be redoubled to address the abysmal failure to rebuild the infrastructure.
Instead, there is now a greater effort at involving the police and other new Iraqi armed forces in waging the US war-by-proxy against the occupation's political opponents.
The collapse of law and order has little to do with Sadr. His is one of a number of forces with armed militia operating in the country. Its control of poor slum areas and inner cities resulted from the chaos that was brought about by the occupation; it was not itself the cause of the chaos. The physical destruction of state power, the interference in civil society institutions and the violence of the illegitimate occupation were responsible for the emergence of new centers of power and authority that now must be integrated into the political process.
In particular, the Sadr movement has a wide appeal among young, poor, marginalized and traditionally educated sections of the urban population, and it is irresponsible to ignore or antagonize such a wide section of Iraqi society. These are people who should be allowed to enter the political process through their chosen vehicle. They have a legitimate critique of the present flawed process, which is designed to serve the political objectives of the US administration and its few Iraqi allies. But instead the US occupation is trying to destroy or marginalize those movements, while also reinforcing existing inequities through media censorship and by heightening tension with neighboring Iran.
Kill Them All?
After Najaf, where are US troops going? Are they going to encircle Thawra (Sadr City), the Baghdad suburb? Are they going to attack every poor suburb of every city from Kirkuk to Basra? And bomb every town where there have been large demonstrations in opposition to the attack on Najaf?
This offensive has already dealt a severe blow to the interim government. It has shown that it is unable to rein in the US presence and can only fall in line with the occupiers' military imperatives. It has shown that the US has no intention of permitting a genuine Iraqi political dialogue or the development of an inclusive democratic process.
The action in Najaf is also deeply symbolic, and not only for Shiites. Najaf is a holy site for all Muslims and has particular historical significance for Iraqis. It is the seat of traditional learning and a repository of Iraqi communal and national culture, but it was also the focus of the 1920 uprising against British colonial rule that had set Iraq on the path to independence.
Najaf has been a lively center of commerce, industry and political activity ever since. Nothing cut the last links between Saddam Hussein and Iraqi society more than his persecution of Najaf. Trying to solve Najaf's problems by Yankee fire is a mark of abysmal failure.
Some liberals who opposed the war subsequently adopted an argument that the US and Britain now have a responsibility to stay in Iraq and to see to it that the country arrives at democracy and stability. This argument is based on the presumption that, left alone, Iraq would fall into internecine conflict which only the US and Britain, being such civilized and civilizing nations, could address.
This was always a convenient myth, but the repeated military offensives against Iraqi cities must now make it clear that chaos and internecine conflict is with us already, and it is being expanded and prolonged by foreign military forces.
It is time to set an early date for a complete withdrawal of foreign forces and then to ask what can and should be done to help Iraq.
Iraqi Kamil Mahdi is a lecturer in Middle East economics at the University of Exeter in England. This story has been viewed 2 times.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/08/17/2003199101
And Google is just a news aggregator, it doesn't publish the news, it just indexes it.
sorry but I clicked on Google news and this article came up- so
anything on a news website is published- that is the definition of publishing-
"publish
SYLLABICATION: pub·lish
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: pblsh KEY
VERB: Inflected forms: pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es
TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale.
2. To bring to the public attention; announce"
I was a publisher before so I know what I am talking about. period.
This article is under Google News, not Google editorial.
I beg your pardon.
" World »
CTV
US loses big in Najaf
Taipei Times - 25 minutes ago
The US military offensive against Najaf is a dangerous and ill-judged escalation, revealing the violent reality of an occupation that has undergone only cosmetic change since the supposed handover of power to an "interim Iraqi ...
Iraqi Conferees Decide to Send a Delegation to Embattled Holy City New York Times
Fierce fighting reported in Iraqi city of Najaf CTV
BBC News - Richmond Times Dispatch - swissinfo - New Zealand Herald - and 2019 related » "
On Limbaugh's show today, a caller mentioned all of the churches that were destroyed during WWII, with no consequences mentioned here. If we turned this mosque site into a parking lot (IMHO, if something is not turned into a parking lot in Iraq, we will have wasted our time in Iraq), will there really be the massive uprisings? And do we care if there are? All we're doing with "negotiation" is allowing Iran to strengthen its tentacles.
You, as a former 'publisher' should be well aware of this distinction. And semantics is a weak excuse.
And this story is a big load of crap.
And I want to know what the point is, of posting this propaganda, anti-American foreign sourced hit piece.
I wonder what this newspaper is going to print when the Chicoms invade Taiwan.
I don't usually use this, but...
WTF??????????
Probably: "Why has the US abandoned us? Do they lack the courage to fight the Red rabble from the slums of Bejing?"
One of the reasons this website was founded was to dissect and expose the lies of the biased liberal media, in America and beyond.
Kind of hard to do if we only post the "Yeah team!" articles from the Wall Street Journal, the NY Post and the Washington Times.
I was totally burnt out on the anti-American junk before finding FR. Maybe I need a break from the news.
I actually come here to read the conservative point of view. I should probably ignore crap like this.
I totally understand that point of view.
But I actually enjoy reading liberal idiocy in a forum where I can respond to it. It seems so much more normal than my old habit of screaming at my TV and newspaper like a mental patient.
I post alot of lefty articles for that reason, and often have to answer the "What the hell is this doing here?" question.
If something posted bugs you, and you don't enjoy writing a response to it, you should just ignore it. Some of us find it therapeutic. 8-)
Thanks ... Good thing I forgot to eat dinner.
I myself wonder why people post this anti-American crap too. The noise/news ratio is getting very high.
LOL!
The Bilious BS'rs who wrote that stuff about losing at the Guardian and the Taipei Times don't know any more about real battle then they do about fornicating.
In WWII there was no military reason to bomb Dresden. Dresden, a virtual historical art city was leveled by Allied bombing at the end of WWII.
Why?
There was no concentration of German troops in Dresden. There were no factories or support operations there for the German military machine. Dresden was merely a beautiful charming city of history.
Why was it destroyed?
It was destroyed for one reason. To send a message to the Germans that this is what to expect if the war were to continue. And that message was heard loud and clear as Germans everywhere shook their heads and cried Why? Why? Why?
The terrorists sent Americans a similar message on 9-11 that this is what was to be expected if the West would not submit to the rule of Terrorists.
If Americans do not reap a tenfold destruction upon radical Islam in return then Radical Islam will survive to destroy again.
Why must Americans preserve 'holy' Muslin sites that provide sanctuary for its enemies while the financial, military and political centers of America are destroyed or threatened?
Wars are destructive yes but survival trumps any lamenting of destroyed history.
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.