It’s the occupation, stupid
Since victory was declared in May of this year over Iraqiforces, the actions of the U.S. have been defended strongly bythose in the administration despite mounting internationalcriticism over American handling of the new Iraqi government.Despite comments that the Iraqi people are now free and happy to beunder U.S. protection, American forces continue to be attacked anaverage of 25 times daily by an increasingly hostile Iraqi public.Some people just cannot understand why there is increasinghostility and resistance to American control in Iraq from the Iraqipeople.
Well, besides invading the country on the basis of facts thathave yet to be proven, American actions in Iraq continue to violatethe country’s sovereignty as a free nation, and certainpractices by the government have proven to remain highlyquestionable and unethical. The pattern of the American actions inIraq mimic those of past colonial powers and will only increasehostility and resistance to American presence on Iraqi soil.
It comes as no surprise to the international community that”resistance” continues to occur within Iraq. The factthat such “resistance fighters” are regarded as martyrsand freedom fighters within their country is not surprising either.The Middle East has an extensive history of foreign occupation andcontrol over its people, and it also has an extensive history ofstruggling against and gaining independence from those colonialpowers. What the government has described as a war to liberate Iraqis mainly viewed by Iraqis as the beginnings of foreign dominationand occupation.
Even before the war began, many had stated their opinion thatthe war was being waged for reasons of regional hegemony, economicmotives and domestic politics, and indeed, judging from Americanactions today, it would not be a far-fetched idea to say thatcertain decisions by the government strongly reflect suchintentions.
As though the fact that the grounds for war were built on shakyground was not enough, American actions in post-war Iraq stillcontinue to be questionable. Plans to privatize state-ownedindustries within Iraq seem highly reminiscent of the selling ofconcessions in the colonial era. Though the government claims thatit will allow Iraqis the final say in how to govern the sales fromthe privatized industries, it does not hide the fact that theAmerican administration secretly invited and sold bids to Americancompanies to rebuild Iraq’s industries and infrastructurewithout Iraqi consent. More importantly, such a”diplomatic” gesture to grant Iraqis a voice in thematter becomes null when the reality of the matter remains: theUnited States committed an unethical action in selling bids toreconstruction rights.
Such bids and contracts only remove autonomy and independencefrom the Iraqi people through an indirect and insidious manner. TheIraqis should have been informed of these actions, and they shouldhave been the ones to approve of it. This somehow just does notseem like much of a democratic action, nor does the United Statessucceed in treating Iraq as a free country … though this was onemotivation in removing Saddam, right?
The decision to use the profits from Iraq’s oil industryto finance its reconstruction is not a wise or ethical decisioneither. As though damaging Iraqi highways, bridges, water treatmentplants and oil wells were not enough, the administration isplanning on making the Iraqis pay for their reconstructionthemselves with money out of their own pockets.
This decision is also not a wise choice, since Iraqi oilproduction was grossly over-calculated and misjudged. Though theUnited States said that Iraqi oil production would be able tofinance its own reconstruction, a recent analysis has shown thatthe Iraqi oil industry will barely be capable of satisfyingdomestic demand for oil, let alone foreign demand, and willdefinitely not be able to reach its optimal production levelanytime soon. Over-calculations of Iraq’s oil productioncapacity did not take into consideration that the oil industry wasin serious shambles after the crippling sanctions imposed by theU.S. government. The decision to direct Iraqi oil revenues towardsthe reconstruction of the country is unethical and will not workanyway since the oil industry will barely be strong enough to getback on its feet. Instead, such a decision places the U.S.government in a deeper financial quagmire as we figure out how topay for reconstruction.
Turkish involvement in the Iraqi war also remains somewhatsuspicious. The United States’ alliance with the country isslightly hypocritical. Undoubtedly, one of the motivations ofTurkey’s decision to approve sending troops to Iraq (besidesthe $850 billion U.S. loan) is the aspect of controlling,suppressing and eventually driving out the Kurdish communities. Ifit is unknown to you, Saddam Hussein was not the only onerepressing Kurds: Turkey also has a history of violence andrepression against the Kurds that reside within its own borders.The Turkish government vehemently opposes the granting of anyindependence to Kurds in Iraq, as such an action could spur its ownKurdish group to break off in a nation of its own. Knowing thatPresident Bush cited Hussein’s treatment of the Kurdishminority as a reason for invading Iraq, the decision to acceptTurkish troops turns out to be hypocritical in nature. If Turkishtroops enter Iraq, the danger of inciting another ethnic and civilwar within the region is very possible.
Whatever mistakes the administration has made and whatevermistruths they have told, it is still not too late for our countryto start playing clean. If the government does not take a moreethical approach into consideration, then we run the risk ofescalating already hostile and violent attitudes more. If we do nottreat Iraq as a free nation, and if we continue to treat it as asubservient colonized charge, we risk the danger of a more violentand complicated future.
