What responsibility does the U.S. have in Iraq? To leave as soon as possible, or to stay and “clean up our mess”? There is division within the peace movement regarding our responsibility. Part of the disagreement stems from confusing the two meanings of the word responsibility:
The first meaning is a duty to care. In this sense, we bear a responsibility for our children, our society, and the welfare of humanity.
The second meaning is accountability for actions that have harmed someone, especially if the intent was to do harm. In this sense, the U.S. is clearly responsible for death and destruction in Iraq.
These two meanings are used interchangeably when the media address the occupation of Iraq. For instance, “the U.S. has taken on a responsibility to rebuild Iraq.”
Let me use an analogy here. Let’s say I break into your home. I kill one of your children, injure another, and bust up the place while you cower terrified in the corner. I am responsible for the death and damage I have caused. You are in desperate need of aid and security. Should I stay and live in your house until it is repaired and your child is well? What if I continue to beat and humiliate you and to destroy things?
No, you would want me out immediately—to be tried, convicted, sentenced with a requirement to pay restitution. That is how the law should work.
To the Iraqi people, our promise to help—to install democracy—is simply ludicrous. They know the intent of our invasion was never to help them. We all know that the threats of weapons of mass destruction, imminent danger, and links to 9/11, were total lies. The real intent of the war was geopolitical control of the region through permanent military bases in Iraq, the plunder of Iraq’s resources, increased hardware sales for the military industry, juicy “reconstruction” contracts for the administration’s friends, and control of oil so the U.S. can restrict its supply to countries challenging our dominance.
These goals will require a prolonged occupation. The construction of fourteen permanent bases is well under way (unlike the repairs to electricity and water supply, which have a much lower priority).
Then why the rush to establish a “sovereign” Iraqi government by June 30? Not to bring democracy. Not to facilitate withdrawal—the U.S. does not intend to leave. Not to get Iraq out of the news before the November elections—the Bush Administration admits the resistance will continue and more troops will be deployed.
The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has established a flat tax (cutting taxes for the rich) and increased rights for foreign investors. And the interim constitution proposed forbidding the new “sovereign” government from making new laws or changing old ones. Odd view of sovereignty!
What is really going on? Let’s go back to the analogy about your home. As your neighbors debate whether I should stay, I begin moving all your remaining valuables out front for a yard sale. You would understand the urgency of ending my occupation. The June 30th “sovereignty” was designed to open Iraq to an international yard sale.
Paul Bremer already has a list of about 200 Iraqi state companies that could be sold. In addition, foreign firms will be able to assume 100 percent ownership—and profits—of Iraqi banks, mines, factories, and oil wells and pipelines. But under international law, an occupying force cannot sell off the assets of the occupied country. Only a “sovereign” government of Iraq can do so.
This charade is important for the companies involved. Courts settle ownership disputes among multinational corporations according to international, as well as national, laws. Contracts made by the occupying powers’ CPA would not be enforceable.
I suspect that Iraq is meant to be like many countries under U.S. control, complete with a compliant puppet government, a population intimidated by death squads and security police, and a network of spies and informers drafted by “dirty recruitment”—an old CIA tactic based on torture and blackmail. That explains the abuses in the detention centers and the many photographs of prisoners’ degradation and humiliation. Photos so shaming to a prisoner, his family, and his tribe are tools to blackmail him into cooperation.
The U.S. aim is not democracy, but a country ruled by fear.
What is the U.S. responsibility in Iraq? To leave now, as soon as possible! To remove our military, bringing our troops home to safety. To provide restitution, paying for—not profiting from—reconstruction. And to allow the Iraqi people to determine their own future.
Note: Bara Berg excerpted this article from a speech presented by Dave Bicking at a WAMM sponsored event: The Myth of Humanitarian Intervention, May 25, 2004, Mayday Bookstore, Minneapolis. |
