January 11, 2006
The 2003 U.S. aggression against Iraq
has taken Western "progressive" élites, particularly those on the Left
by surprise, not because of the violent and criminal nature of
U.S.-orchestrated terror against the Iraqi people, but because of the
instant rise of the Iraqi Resistance against the unprovoked military
and economic against Iraq. While meddling in the affairs of other
distant peoples has been a conspicuous feature of the
"progressive" élites, their interference in the affairs of the Iraqi
people is disturbing and contributing to the suffering of the Iraqi
people.
As most people know, the invasion of Iraq was
an illegal act of aggression, in violation of international laws and
the UN Charter. The 'Supreme International Crime’ the Nuremberg judges
found, was that of unprovoked aggression, because it contains 'the
accumulated evil’ of all war crimes. However, despite all this, Western
élites, supported by the mainstream media continue to describe the
Iraqi Resistance against the Occupation as "insurgency" in order to
justify U.S. "counter-insurgency".
The Iraqi Resistance is not an "insurgency".
Insurgency is an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a legitimate
and constituted government by force, such as the Contras, a U.S. proxy
terrorist gang used against the legitimate government of Nicaragua in
the late 1980s. There is nothing legitimate about the U.S. Occupation
and its puppet government in Iraq. The Iraqi Resistance has the support
of most Iraqi. One only needs to watch the jubilation of Iraqis at a
destroyed U.S. tank or a Humvee to have a sense of Iraqi feelings. This
distortion of the truth is part of U.S. psychological warfare not only
against the Iraqi people but also against the rest of the world. It
denies indigenous Iraqis their right for legitimate national
resistance, and it deliberately demonises the armed struggle against
the invaders. The presence of "insurgency" implies that the U.S.
Occupation is (nonexistent) peaceful and legal, and that the puppet
government is legitimate government; it is not imported to Iraq on the
back of U.S. tanks and imposed and legitimised by undemocratic and
fraudulent elections at gunpoint.
Nationwide credible polls conducted in Iraq recently
revealed that more than 82 per cent of Iraqis "strongly opposed" to the
presence of the occupying forces in Iraq. Less than 1 per cent of
Iraqis think the Occupation forces are responsible for any improvement
in security. Reports after reports have revealed that the Occupation is
the source of violence and oppression against the Iraqi people. Indeed,
the violence being instigated and perfected because it is the only
pretext left to justify the ongoing Occupation of Iraq.
Yet, many
Western "progressives" and U.S.-controlled media persist on
describing the Iraqi Resistance as "insurgency". Naom Chomsky, an
analyst of U.S. foreign policy, wrote recently (Khaleej Times):
"Last
January’s elections came about because of mass non-violent resistance,
for which the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani became a symbol. (The violent
insurgency is another creature altogether from this popular movement.)
Few competent observers would disagree with the editors of the
Financial Times, who wrote last March that 'the reason (the elections)
took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who
vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or
dilute them’".
In March 2005 on the same pages of the Khaleej Times Chomsky
described the Iraqi Resistance as "bomb throwers". The Occupation is
innocent of any wrong-doing, and the Iraqis are to blame for the
violence.
First, Al-Sistani, who is Iranian and lived in Iraq
since 1952, views on the Occupation are not different from those of the
Iranian regime; that the U.S. forces should withdraw from Iraq after
the establishment of an Iranian-controlled Iraqi government. Of course,
the longer the U.S. forces engaged in Iraq, the better for Iran. It
should be borne in mind that Al-Sistani’s closest allies are the thugs
and criminals of the current puppet government, including conman Ahmed
Chalabi, who accompanied Al-Sistani for a three weeks visit to London
in August 2004. It was precisely the period when U.S. forces violently
attacked and destroyed the holy city of Najaf and the Shrine of Imam
Ali, and killed very large number of Iraqi civilians. Moreover, is
Al-Sistani unaware of the crimes committed by the Iranian-trained Badr
Brigade and other U.S. trained death squads? What did Al-Sistani say
about the deliberate and indiscriminate destruction of Iraqi cities and
towns, including the city of Fallujah and the slaughter of more than
6000 innocent Iraqi civilians?
Second, it is true that there is a non-violent
movement in Iraq, which includes: Muslim scholars, academics,
unemployed Iraqis, students, workers – including oil workers –, former
Iraqi soldiers and teachers. However, most of the leaders of the this
movement have been either assassinated, fled the country or are among
the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis being imprisoned and tortured in
Abu Ghraib and thousands of other U.S.-run prisons throughout Iraq. It
is also well-documented that many anti-Occupation Iraqis, including
intellectuals, academics, students and prominent politicians have been
assassinated by the CIA, Israeli Mossad and the Iranian and
U.S.-trained death squads. As an academic and the "world foremost
intellectual", Chomsky has no time to write or to say anything about
this. Nowhere Mr acknowledges the death of hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi civilians. He directs his accusations at Iraqis, or those he
called "somebody else", as if the 200,000 U.S. forces and mercenaries
in Iraq are not "the greatest purveyors of violence in the world".
Third, everyone knows that the U.S.-staged elections
were a smokescreen to manipulate public opinion and divert attention
from U.S. crimes and the gradual colonisation of Iraq. The elections
were forced on the Iraqi people by more than 200,000 U.S. forces and
mercenaries. Since the rise of Western imperialism, elections have been
the perfect tools and provide the right propaganda for domestic
consumption. Elections during military occupation and lack of
sovereignty are "demonstration" elections and had nothing to do with
democracy. They were staged to cement sectarian divides and foment
violence. "The vote [of the 15 December 2005] is reported to be
primarily along sectarian lines, which is not particularly heartening",
said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines the top U.S. Army operational commander in
Iraq.
Chomsky has in the past provided useful analysis and
information on U.S.-Israeli foreign policy. While he has
every right to his own views, he does not have the right to
distort the truth and fabricate a distorted argument. The Iraqi people
have a legitimate right to self-determination and Resistance against
the Occupation. The U.S. invaded Iraq in order to destroy Iraqi
society, colonise Iraq and control its resources. The U.S. has to be
forced to leave. The armed Resistance against U.S. aggression is
legitimate and will continue until U.S. forces and mercenaries withdraw
from Iraq.
Finally, it would be very wise if the "progressive"
élites, including Chomsky, stop meddling in the affairs of the
Iraqi people, and concentrate on their own affairs at home. If the
"progressive" élites have any concern about the bloodshed in Iraq and
the daily crimes committed against the Iraqi people, they should take a
courageous position and insist on the immediate end to the U.S.
Occupation of Iraq.
The "progressive" élites, should either take a page
from Cindy Sheehan courageous’ position – to save the lives of U.S.
soldiers, mostly Black young men –, "or be on the side of the occupying
forces trying to prevent [freedom], democracy and sovereignty" in Iraq.
Global Research Contributing Editor Ghali Hassan lives in Perth, Western Australia