|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
What Do We Do Now? |
Current rating: 0 |
|
by Howard Zinn |
06 May 2004
|
|
|
The Progressive | June 2004 Issue
It seems very hard for some people--especially those in high places, but also
those striving for high places--to grasp a simple truth: The United States does
not belong in Iraq. It is not our country. Our presence is causing death,
suffering, destruction, and so large sections of the population are rising
against us. Our military is then reacting with indiscriminate force, bombing and
shooting and rounding up people simply on "suspicion."
Amnesty International, a year after the invasion, reported: "Scores of unarmed
people have been killed due to excessive or unnecessary use of lethal force by
coalition forces during public demonstrations, at checkpoints, and in house
raids. Thousands of people have been detained [estimates range from 8,500 to
15,000], often under harsh conditions, and subjected to prolonged and often
unacknowledged detention. Many have been tortured or ill-treated, and some have
died in custody."
The recent battles in Fallujah brought this report from Amnesty International:
"Half of at least 600 people who died in the recent fighting between Coalition
forces and insurgents in Fallujah are said to have been civilians, many of them
women and children."
In light of this, any discussion of "What do we do now?" must start with the
understanding that the present U.S. military occupation is morally unacceptable.
The suggestion that we simply withdraw from Iraq is met with laments: "We
mustn't cut and run. . . . We must stay the course. . . . Our reputation will be
ruined. . . ." That is exactly what we heard when, at the start of the Vietnam
escalation, some of us called for immediate withdrawal. The result of staying
the course was 58,000 Americans and several million Vietnamese dead.
"We can't leave a vacuum there." I think it was John Kerry who said that. What
arrogance to think that when the United States leaves a place there's nothing
there! The same kind of thinking saw the enormous expanse of the American West
as "empty territory" waiting for us to occupy it, when hundreds of thousands of
Indians lived there already.
The history of military occupations of Third World countries is that they bring
neither democracy nor security. The long U.S. occupation of the Philippines,
following a bloody war in which American troops finally subdued the Filipino
independence movement, did not lead to democracy, but rather to a succession of
dictatorships, ending with Ferdinand Marcos.
The long U.S. occupations of Haiti (1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic
(1916-1926) led only to military rule and corruption in both countries.
The only rational argument for continuing on the present course is that things
will be worse if we leave. There will be chaos, there will be civil war, we are
told. In Vietnam, supporters of the war promised a bloodbath if U.S. troops
withdrew. That did not happen.
There is a history of dire forecasts for what will happen if we desist from
deadly force. If we did not drop the bomb on Hiroshima, it was said, we would
have to invade Japan and huge casualties would follow. We know now, and knew
then, that was not true, but to acknowledge that did not fit the government's
political agenda. The U.S. had broken the Japanese code and had intercepted the
cables from Tokyo to the emissary in Moscow, which made clear that the Japanese
were ready to surrender so long as the position of the Emperor was secure.
Truth is, no one knows what will happen if the United States withdraws. We face
a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay and the uncertainty of what
will follow if we leave.
There is a possibility of reducing that uncertainty by replacing a U.S. military
presence with an international nonmilitary presence. It is conceivable that the
United Nations should arrange, as U.S. forces leave, for a multinational team of
peacekeepers and negotiators, including, importantly, people from the Arab
countries. Such a group might bring together Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, and
work out a solution for self-governance, which would give all three groups a
share in political power.
Simultaneously, the U.N. should arrange for shipments of food and medicine, from
the U.S. and other countries, as well as a corps of engineers to begin the
reconstruction of the country.
In a situation that is obviously bad and getting worse, some see the solution in
enlarging the military presence. The rightwing columnist David Brooks wrote in
mid-April: "I never thought it would be this bad," but he then expressed his joy
that President Bush is "acknowledging the need for more troops." This fits the
definition of fanaticism: "When you find you're going in the wrong direction,
you double your speed."
John Kerry, sadly (for those of us who hoped for a decisive break from the Bush
agenda), echoes that fanaticism. If he learned any thing from his experience in
Vietnam, he has forgotten it. There, too, repeated failure to win the support of
the Vietnamese people led to sending more and more troops into Tennyson's
"valley of death."
In a recent piece in The Washington Post, Kerry talks about "success" in
military terms. "If our military commanders request more troops we should deploy
them." He seems to think that if we "internationalize" our disastrous policy, it
becomes less of a disaster. "We also need to renew our effort to attract
international support in the form of boots on the ground to create a climate of
security in Iraq." Is that what brings security--"boots on the ground"?
Kerry suggests: "We should urge NATO to create a new out-of-area operation for
Iraq under the lead of a U.S. commander. This would help us obtain more troops
from major powers." More troops, more troops. And the U.S. must be in
charge--that old notion that the world can trust our leadership--despite our
long record of moral failure.
To those who worry about what will happen in Iraq after our troops leave, they
should consider the effect of having foreign troops: continued, escalating
bloodshed, continued insecurity, increased hatred for the United States in the
entire Muslim world of over a billion people, and increased hostility
everywhere.
The effect of that will be the exact opposite of what our political leaders--of
both parties--claim they intend to achieve, a "victory" over terrorism. When you
inflame the anger of an entire population, you have enlarged the breeding ground
for terrorism.
What of the other long-term effects of continued occupation? I'm thinking of the
poisoning of the moral fiber of our soldiers--being forced to kill, maim,
imprison innocent people, becoming the pawns of an imperial power after they
were deceived into believing they were fighting for freedom, democracy, against
tyranny.
I'm thinking of the irony that those very things we said our soldiers were dying
for--giving their eyes, their limbs for--are being lost at home by this brutal
war. Our freedom of speech is diminished, our electoral system corrupted,
Congressional and judicial checks on executive power nonexistent.
And the costs of the war--the $400 billion military budget (which Kerry,
shockingly, refuses to consider lowering)--make it inevitable that people in
this country will suffer from lack of health care, a deteriorating school
system, dirtier air and water. Corporate power is unregulated and running wild.
Kerry does not seem to understand that he is giving away his strongest card
against Bush--the growing disillusion with the war among the American public. He
thinks he is being clever, by saying he will wage the war better than Bush. But
by declaring his continued support for the military occupation, he is climbing
aboard a sinking ship.
We do not need another war President. We need a peace President. And those of us
in this country who feel this way should make our desire known in the strongest
of ways to the man who may be our next occupant of the White House
-- Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a
columnist for The Progressive. |
See also:
http://www.progressive.org
|
This work is in the public domain |
