Views From My Space
RLDWhat Iraq "War?"
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"Insurgent":" "A person who takes part in forcible opposition or armed resistance to an established government or authority."
"Insurgency": The state or condition of being insurgent." (Webster's College Dictionary, 1991)
Let's start from the beginning. Who invaded Iraq in 2003? Men in United States military uniforms ordered by George W. Bush. Given the legitimacy of humanity - "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights; they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights - they were "insurgents" and, with Bush, merited indictment before the International Criminal Court as such.
This insurgency was illegal and violated fundamental human rights not to mention all treaties between sovereign states going back to St. Petersburg in 1868.
The language was then perverted. The insurgency ordered by Bush was declared a "war."
"War" "Armed conflict between nations or factions within a nation."
But there was no enemy. Iraq was not the "enemy." The Iraqi people were not the "enemy." Sadam Hussein was not the "enemy." al Qaida was not ever there. No enemy: no war.
So the chief insurgent, George Bush and his advisors, publicly declared it a "war against terrorism." But there cannot be a "war against terrorism" as "terrorism" is "the use of violence and threats to violence to intimidate or coerce." Again, no enemy! Only a condition. And what is the condition which allows "terrorism" to occur?
Anarchy.
When Bush ordered his citizen-soldiers to become "insurgents" against the Iraqi nation, he acknowledged and condoned the condition of anarchy between the United States and Iraq. Otherwise, his "insurgents" could not operate outside the continental limits of the United States from which to invade Iraq.
So there was in fact a unilateral "invasion" by U.S. citizens in United States army uniforms as "insurgents" of the people of another sovereign state. But by calling the Iraqi invasion a "war," Bush invoked the words "winning" or "losing" to define the outcome. A foreign insurgency, however, doesn't "win" or "lose" an invasion. It simply becomes an occupier from which the populace invariably rebels. Following those definitions, flow the further delusions of "national patriotism," "loss of face," the "fighting troops," and such characteristics as "morale," "courage," and for the insurgent's families at home, "dedication," "patience," "approval." and so forth. The public and private mind thus is closed to the reality both of what happened and what is today happening on the ground.
The Congress of the United States thereby is trapped in the dilemma of "supporting the 'troops' or "stopping the 'war.'" A non-sequitor. Senator Harry Reid himself, the majority leader, sanctioned the delusion Thursday, by declaring, "The war is lost," thus unleashing a storm of protest by Republicans - particularly Vice-President Cheney - of defeatism and disloyalty to the troops in the field and to those already dead. (The disclaimers didn't mention the dead Iraqis.)
Underlying this delusional drama is the blind allegiance to the dysfunctional nation-state system itself as the only outlet for civic life and morality. Hence the dilemma within the Iraqi government unable to function under the insurgency from without and that within between internal factions of long-standing.
Last week, for instance, the Vermont Senate voted to "impeach" President Bush. The emphasis was on his violating the U.S. Constitution by starting an "illegitimate war" against Iraq. At an outdoor meeting before Burlington's City Hall where the impeachment crowd of citizens gathered, I took the mike at the end and reminded the crowd that George Bush was indeed a "war criminal," not only for his so-called preemptive war policy, i.e. insurgency, but particularly for his first-strike nuclear option declared illegitimate by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in 1979. and merited indictment before the International Criminal Court for violating the Nuremberg Principles.
The Vermonters there applauded this solution enthusiastically.
We, the citizens of the world, are the plaintiffs, but where oh where are the counselors to represent us?
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]