How The West Was One
It is often argued that we don’t know what’s occurring on the ground in Iraq and therefore can’t really comment on incidents such as that which recently transpired involving Blackwater Security. In truth, this excuse is used uniformly in many cases with regards to commentary about the war in Iraq, and there is a very dark reasoning behind it that has been inbred in many of us all our lives – xenophobia.
When I first mentioned the incident, the term ‘terrorists’ was employed in the comments almost immediately. Over the four and a half years that Iraq has been occupied, that is what the insurgency has come to represent in the West – terrorism. There is no longer any quarter given when one examines the insurgency itself. It is no longer acceptable to view it as numerous guerrilla groups fighting occupational forces in their own country. They have been lumped into a single category with a group that did not exist in Iraq prior to the invasion, one replete with foreign fighters. The actions of this group, now known as al-Qaeda in Iraq, have come to represent the goals of the insurgency as a whole, even though a majority of insurgent groups regard them as wholly detached from their goals.
Make no mistake; the media has done little to nothing to counter the Bush administration’s efforts to have the insurgency painted in such a light. In most cases they have willfully gone along with the transformation – turning the insurgency as a whole into a representation of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Thus, we no longer view the majority of the insurgency as guerrillas; we view them as a part of a terrorist organization that does not, in truth, represent their struggle.
In the hands of a white man, a rifle used to fight against those deemed occupying their country is always justifiable. In all the years that the IRA were militarily active, that they bombed the British mainland and skirmished with British forces in Northern Ireland, they were never so universally condemned as blood thirsty killers as Middle Eastern groups have been for doing the exact same thing – or, for that matter, groups in Latin America and Asia. And while, in the context of the British Isles, the Irish have always been considered the ‘lesser of peoples’, nothing compares to the blind xenophobia that has been displayed throughout the Western world with regards to people of Middle Eastern descent since 9/11. In truth, not since the 19th Century have we viewed an ethnicity and culture in such way. The last time that it occurred an entire people were either eradicated or ghettoized, those being native North Americans. In their case, there wasn’t a 9/11 to help sell the lie that they were bloodthirsty murderers; there was just land and our desire to control it. Thus, we came to view them as something that was necessary to justify our sense of civilized superiority.
One doesn’t need to be on the ground in Iraq to realize that since the insurgency began it has been painted as something wholly negative. Rarely have we examined it from the perspective that, just maybe, the Iraqi people have a legitimate right to demand an end to the occupation of their country, and that their resistance against simply conforming to Western political designs is not ludicrous, but rather their right as a people.
Whether we like it or not, most Iraqis support attacks on foreign troops, something that can not be brushed off as insignificant as if they were children that have no clue what’s good for them. Over the last four and a half years it has become abundantly clear that the West certainly possesses no advantage in knowing what is and is not. All that is keeping the occupation alive is spin doctoring, denial, and the reality that a very bloody civil war will occur when it ends. And, to be brutally honest, it will happen no matter what government is in place when it finally does. That is simply the viper’s nest that has been recklessly uncovered.
If self-determination is key in the foundation of any free society, then how can ‘self’ be taken out of the equation?
The people of Iraq are not ‘Americans in waiting’ – they’re a mixture of different ethnic groups that combine to represent a culture that has existed for millennia, one that far outdates Western culture. How are we then to lecture them on how to exist? How are we, at the end of a rifle, to make them ‘realize’ the positives of a future that has been thrust upon them by way of a military occupation? Who, in their right mind, would embrace without resistance the suggestions of those that have militarily occupied their nation? Throughout human history the only time that it has succeeded is when those that have come to occupy a foreign land absorb it, thus making it a part of their own. In the end, as history has proven out repeatedly, we all know how that ends.
At one time, the last name of my family was MacDonald. During the British Imperial foray into India, my ancestors were pressed into service and sent half way around the world to help subdue a culture far more ancient. After doing so they remained there for more than a century, until 1947 when India finally achieved her independence. Up until that time, the British argued that their governance of India was crucial because of the rift in Indian society between Hindus and Muslims. But as Gandhi would put it, the independence of India, and all the problems that would occur after the British left, would be India’s problems, not that of a foreign power. As we all know, when the British left India there was indeed strife, one that led to a massive migration of Hindus and Muslims between India and Pakistan. So too was their violence between the two groups and resentment that, in some forms, remains to this day. But the point is that it was never Britain’s place to dictate the terms of India’s existence based on ‘what ifs’. Good or ill, it was always India’s right to determine her own future, be the birth of that future fraught with turmoil or not – just as the birth of the United States was born out of turmoil and resistance.
In the end, no matter how determined the West might be, no matter how greedy we might be with regards to securing access to natural resources, those that currently occupy Iraq will eventually leave, and in doing so face the reality that Iraq’s future must be left to Iraqis. No matter the justifications employed for its continuance, such as concerns regarding the influences of others in the region, ultimately Iraqis will have to decide their own fate, and it will be a process fraught with turmoil. In the end it may very well lead to the demise of Iraq as we know it on the map, but again, that is an Iraqi matter.
We here in the land of milk and honey like to employ a saying – that freedom comes at a price. Ironically, we rarely apply that belief to those we deem unworthy of employing it. Ultimately, we must all face the dark reason as to why that is commonly the case, especially as it applies to those that don’t look or think as we do.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 5:30 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Well said.
I highly doubt Iraq would send in forces to the US should they ever have an uprising. I don’t recall any other nation sending in forces to change how we handled the Mohawk First Nations troubles we’ve had in the past. Did any of that even make the back page of a newspaper outside Canada?
At least the US does not have any plans for forcefully take over Canada to obtain our wood, wheat, water, electricity (NY buys lots from Hydro Quebec), our beer (US has some nice local breweries, but as much as I don’t like Labatt/Molsen it is better than Bud/Busch/Coors etc..), and our beautiful land (especially the North - perfect for missile defense - it’s already there, just needs some updating).
I’ve spoken with friends from the Middle East on this, as in Egypt/UAE/Iran/Pakistan/India/Saudi Arabia/Iraq/Bosnia, that I met in university. They came over as teens and try hard to explain the difference in culture. I’ve learned lots.
The way we live is obviously different in cultural mentality, but it does not mean we are better/worse than they are. But it does mean that they have thousands of years in that lifestyle, evolving as their country/people see fit. Many do not like the loss of life, who the hell would?, but they can’t just radically change the way they live overnight and conform to something they are not used to.
I agree, we don’t need to be on the ground to understand. Do you need to be set on fire to understand that it burns? Of course not.
If anything, we should be embracing the cultural differences. I thought that’s what Canada typically did, though with Harper in place, I am more fearful of what we’ll turn into in our future. To me, I saw it in Harper’s eyes that he was not a good person. I could see the evil, not “axis of evil” but merely the same type of evil that Bush’s Admin has been up to, and our own Conserv’s are up to.
Seems they both know they ain’t going to make the next election, so why not leave it in such a mess it can’t be fixed, that way they can escape and avoid accountability.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Canadian troops should just go in to America and take it over!!! Nobody would see it coming…everyone’s so focused on Iraq & Afgahnistan, they’re not gonna pay any attention to what’s going on in their own country!!!
The downside: Stephen Harper running all of North America!!! (LoL)
It does bring up a debatable point, would Bush or Harper be a better leader of this continent?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Bush or Harper? No third option? Like Dennis Leary? Ever hear his Lock N Load CD? He talks about his policies as President. Quite funny.
Do we even have enough troops to invade the US? What happens if it snows in Toronto? True the US would not see it coming, but why not make them more dependent? Send some pine beetles down there. Plus if we invade, we’ll be just a 52nd state. The rest of the world will not be impressed. They love Canadians.
My uncle went to Australia for World Youth and he said the American youth received the square root of SFA, but the Canadians were adored and given all kinds of extras.
It’s kinda sad, not all Americans are like that, infact, I doubt most are like the “typical American” they are stereotyped to be. Not all Canadians are kind you know!
I’ve met people that I bumped into and they didn’t even say they were sorry. Ha ha.
I’d still go for Harper over Bush, at least his grammar makes sense. If Bush were not around, Harper would listen to the Canadian people more. There’s stuff we don’t know about, that’s what is happening. The softwood was an example. As much as I think he’s evil, based-off his eyes only though his actions don’t counter that much, he’s most likely trying to prevent the US from just doing away with us - both economically and militariliy (if that’s a word).
September 19th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
There are some 250,000 immigrants come to Canada each year for a large number of years already. Right now 25% of those from Middle East and 4% from USA. Canada welcomes all with open arms and no-one really has to put up a big fight to make things go there way. Could end up being a story of how the West was lost. 49% Asia and South Pacific, 14% Europe and a few extras (average age 25-44). I do appreciate all cultures but am somewhat baffled as to what a Canadian is now. Must be something here that someone wants.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Hockey.
September 19th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The feeling of security, beautiful landscape, freedom do have your own culture without “conform or be lost in the mass”, health care, etc… We are still socialistic.
And hockey and beer and snow. They don’t get a lot of that amazing powder in the Middle East. Hell, outside BC and AB, that great powder is hard to come by.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
What was a Canadian to begin with?
September 19th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
What was any national identity before it came to existance as a country? If you look at it, countries that exist are really the result of migration.
Canada was primarily Anglo-Saxen/English/French settlers, looking for a better life. Same with the US. We began as a colony of Britian, anything we wanted required approval from the Queen.
But we are an evolving culture. We adapt, we become a mosaic of other cultures, that IS what it means to be Canadian. At least I think part of it anyhow.
September 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Hey I’m Irish Catholic! Lesser persons yeah?
I’d say if not for that harp this world’d have a little less music yeah?
Here’s to a complete and free…schlainte…yadda.
Erin go bragh ya orange blooded …yadda.
Patriots and poems…
I kid I kid….
Whatev’s dude you’re a sympathy sympathizer…..punk.
Am I banned yet?
And just cuz i love a monkey wrench: white’s have fragged on whites. Muslim Bosnians…but i get the point.
September 19th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
nice, Matt.
I especially like the part about how the Iraqi people are feeling about a new regime forced down their throats. It’s that point of view, the “put yourself in other peoples’ shoes” mentality that seems to not be explored in foreign relations. It certainly is a cornerstone of diplomacy.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:50 am
Forget the law degree, every politician (and military leader) should be required to have a minor in history.
It is my opinion (disputed by others, of course), that any intelligent and thoughtful (not just educated and knowledgeable) person would never choose to supplant an culture–ancient or otherwise–or invade a country without reason (not sure there really is a valid reason, but I won’t go there). To do so shows astounding ignorance on the part of the aggressor.
It is aggravating to have to state this obvious truth and still be faced with opposition justifying this insanity. I don’t know how many times I’ve been told that “Saddam had to be stopped” and “the Iraqis need democracy”.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:50 am
History and Ethics are mandatory curriculum at the The Royal Military College Of Canada -even for those pursuing majors in engineering.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:57 am
That is all well and good - and quite finely written.
But your logic contends that A) the Iraqis should have self-determination without the occupation and B) that a very bloody civil war will inevitably follow an end to the occupation.
How is violence a right to self-determination. If a very bloody civil war is to inevitably follow a withdraw of troops - then the West could arguably have a moral obligation not to withdraw.
Genocide is not a mode of self-determination - and our own history in settling this continent, as you rightly argue, is shameful.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Matt:
Being of Irish, Eastern European (Uke and Polish) and Persian descent, I can definitely empathize with some of what you’re saying about the fact that when one country decides to occupy another that it is near impossible for any ideal to be forced upon people successfully, and without massive turmoil. I think I said it before, but the true way of political and socio economic ‘evolution’ from one ideology to the next is a natural progression that cannot be forced by any foreign hand with any true success (at least not if it will remain its own sovereign entity). You are absolutely right (why are you always so right?). The crappy thing about the way we live in the West is that we have little to no understanding of Collectivism, and that there can be successful collectivist societies. It is because we live in a society that deems our own personal pursuits to be above those of the group that we come to view all other trains of thought to be disturbing or intolerable. And, so we learn to fear what we cannot understand…and greasy greedy bastards like Bush easily capitalize on that fear. Think back to the days of the ‘evil Commy’. We all know Communism is a shaky thing, but look at how easy it was for the US to strike the fear of God into people, and even bring people into court…and not just regular average people either…EVERYONE…even Arthur Miller (Death of a Salesman, The Crucible) had to testify before the HUAC, and was convicted (although the conviction was later overturned) and blacklisted for refusing to sell out his friends.
and it was all because of a fear of anything Un-American.
Thus, all people from the Soviet Union are commies and all Middle eastern people are Islamic radical gun toting psychos (and people actually buy that which is just absurd).
But now that I have went off on that tangent I’m gonna go:)
But to comment on the above comment by blogic:
If the West was to stay rather than withdraw it will only prolong the inevitable, and create more hostility.
Hahaha now I’m Captain Obvious:P
September 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am
“Whether we like it or not, most Iraqis support attacks on foreign troops”
Can you back this statement up? I believe this too, but I have no hard evidence to present to people so I never say it. If you have a link to a survey or the name of a recent publication I could check out please provide it.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Good points, however I’d like to point out that it hasn’t been that long since we’ve treated people this way. We mustn’t forget that during the Second World War, thousands of Japanese-Canadians were stripped of their possessions and livelihoods, separated from their families, and interned in work camps, simply because they were Japanese.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:22 am
nice way of putting things. like, didnt ANYONE think of how goddamn difficult it was going to be to force..oops… i mean change a society thats older than our own? and how trying to bring “democracy” to a region ruled by religion would be harder than dropping a few bombs and building a few schools and saying “this is how we do it in america”?????
i hate this place. too much fallibility!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:57 am
So what happens in 100 years? We’ve taken over the planet, privatized everyone, got every soul on the planet to be an ultimate consumer… so our resources, food, clean water, energy all run out even earlier, and the earth will be absolutely polluted and unlivable. So what next? We find another plant to inhabit OR we start nuking all the competition to horde the last resources and food for ourselves — just bomb out everyone we insisted become a “democracy.” Seriously, in the long term, just what are we aiming to do?
September 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
I don’t know what you’re aiming to do KBryce, but personally I’m fixing to fight against what people tell me is my destiny. Everything in my life is in my hands, including my future.
I just got the title to this post, heh cleverest title in weeks.
satchboogieca, just after 9/11 Denis Leary said in his stand up that it’s time for a good old fashioned American Yee-had. He purported indiscriminate bombing of the middle east.
September 20th, 2007 at 11:37 am
everyone relax….i think it’s gonna be all okay.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57679
September 20th, 2007 at 11:53 am
OMFG…that was perfect timing…
September 20th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Yup, Breaker Breaker to the rescue!
September 20th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
(The polls you cite do indicate support for attacks on coalition troops.
But it is a mixed message. They are nuanced and differ across sects. They also inform a desire for a continued foreign presence for security.)
I think the sectarianism is the real xenophobia – not some gruff, erectile disfunction Slim Pickins’ Americanism.
Can peace be forced upon a people?
I don’t know – but I’ve lived my entire life with the clock at midnight.
I do take umbrage though. Especially at these ‘political’ actors – doctors, architects, engineers – who say, “I am so oppressed, watch me die now…KABOOM.”
How is it that they inspire any kind of imaginative vision for the future for people? Why can’t they be defeated?
September 20th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
[quote comment="26698"]History and Ethics are mandatory curriculum at the The Royal Military College Of Canada -even for those pursuing majors in engineering.[/quote]
That is good to hear. I searched to see if the US military colleges have similar requirements, but I didn’t find curriculum specifics, except regarding specialization courses. That would cover the military, but not politicians and mercenaries and CEOs, who are really running the show …
Chuck Norris, wonder if he brought his motorcycle. Perhaps he can do his thing with Bible in hand and save us Christians from the bad guys.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Westpoint’s a little different - I don’t know, can’t say. But I get your point…
oh the power of Chuck…
September 20th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I am still of the belief that peace cannot exist as long as there is religion as it stands. One billion Muslims with a life manual written in Arabic while only 10% read Arabic, a whole group of Christian religions following there life manual in all different translations, Buddhists following a life manual written by several individuals accounts of a man who left his family in search of his own answers - all of the so called manuals written in gray, as any legal or binding contract would be. With Jewish DNA found in Africa as well as several other parts of the world it would be quite hilarious to find we all evolved from a couple of Jewish apes. Perhaps one day whoever or whatever placed us here could give more specific instruction to all of us. With regards to killing, worlds resources and pollution, I’m sure we’re not doing that right in any of the manuals.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
[quote comment="26676"]Bush or Harper? No third option? Like Dennis Leary? Ever hear his Lock N Load CD? He talks about his policies as President. Quite funny.[/quote]
Denis Leary? You just blew my mind!
How about Schwarzenegger? (If you’ve seen the Simpsons Movie, you’ll get it)
September 20th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
In my view the Iraq War is based on pure greed and it’s starts at the end of the Cold War, not after 9/11.
The collapse of the Soviet Union left the immense US defence industry and military without much of its reason for existance. One of the first steps taken by Bush senior was operation “Just Cause” the ironically named invasion of Panama to remove a former CIA client which killed several thousand civilians many of whom were buried in mass graves.
But Panama wasn’t going to provide the long-term opponent needed to justify continuing massive defence budgets and all the business for companies and lobbyists that went along with it. I think it’s very hard to overestimate the influence the military industrial complex truly has in the US.
Looking to that chronic source of conflict, the Middle East was seen as the best option to maintain the status quo in America. Iran would have been the ideal target but it had shown its resilience during its long war with Iraq and didn’t really have much offensive capacity. Human waves work against defensive lines but Iran lacked the mobility of the modern Iraqi armed forces which had close to 5,000 tanks in 1990. Bush knew just how aggressive and exploitive of vulnerability Saddam was due to the long contact his and Regans administrations had with him. And so another US client was marked for demotion.
It began innocently enough in the summer of 1990 when contingency plans were being drawn up by US commanders for a deployment to the Arabia before rumbles had even began in Baghdad. Next a female ambassador was sent to an Islamic Middle Eastern country with what can only be seen as an ambiguous message. Basically April Gillespie told Saddam in August 1990 that the US wouldn’t stand in the way of Iraq settling its border dispute with Kuwait. Considering Iraq owed Kuwait billions lent to fight the Iranians and had for years claimed the country as part of Iraq the inevitable happened. Two weeks after his meeting with Gillespie and about as long as it took to mobilize the army, Saddam sent his forces into Kuwait, quickly rolling over its tiny forces. The world acted with shock but some were ready.
Norman Swartzkoff already had plans ready and the US deployment to Saudi Arabia and other nations in the area began. General Horner, his airforce commander led the airlift of the US Rapid Reaction Force and the large air component that soon filled the airbases of the Gulf region.
We all know what happened after that and America got the long-term opponent needed to keep the defence industry cranking out the tanks, ships, missiles, guns and planes that so many have come to associate with prosperity in the country. Throughout the 1990s the US enforced two no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq often carrying out bombing missions on “suspected” Iraqi military sites. Each bomb dropped and missile fired meant a little more profit to somebody. Iraq has become one of the most bombed places in the world courtesy of the US and other airforces. And an economic embargo of the “world most dangerous nation” contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians(and also was quoted by Osama as one of the reason behind 9/11). Even though most weapons inspectors found there was little left of the former might of Iraqs military and weapons industry after the first Gulf war.
So now we’re in the present where the US is claiming to be bringing peace and freedom to a nation it has done so much to drive back into the stoneage. If any people in the world have a cause to hate Americans it’s Iraqis and attempting to winning “Hearts and Minds” in the country with US made bombs and bullets is shear folly. But it is profitable for those who whole reason for existing is making the tools to take other humans lives and those who’s job it is to tell us just who it is we need to make “surgical” strikes against because of the threat to our way of life.
Or maybe I’m just a little cynical.
September 20th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Sorry for the poor grammar and spelling on that last post, it was kind of rushed and I ran out of editing time.
September 21st, 2007 at 10:04 am
[quote comment="26749"][quote comment="26676"]Bush or Harper? No third option? Like Dennis Leary? Ever hear his Lock N Load CD? He talks about his policies as President. Quite funny.[/quote]
Denis Leary? You just blew my mind!
How about Schwarzenegger? (If you’ve seen the Simpsons Movie, you’ll get it)[/quote]
Denis Leary was clearly a joke. He’s funny and his comments, in jest, about becoming president were actually quite humourous. He’s full of Satire.
Arnie could never be Pres because he’s not American, but he would not be the first actor to play Pres either, and I did see the Simpson’s Movie. I was let down, to be honest, but it had funny parts. I did quite like the “just choose three” part. That was amusing.
Maybe Ms Hilton could play Pres?
BC_Boy,
Dude, wow, nicely informed, but don’t forget, it is the corporations such as Lockheed Martin that make they money. The US is in ridiculous debt over the War on Terror. They borrowed like mad for this. It is not as economy boosting as one thinks.
Sure, WWII took many countries out of the Depression, literally in 2 days for Canada, but this ain’t quite the same. Pumping money into military contracts helps the economy only when it stimulates investment, who the hell is investing in the US except the US? This War on Terror is a bad investment, much like buying a used, late ’80’s Pontiac Grand Prix as your first car (been there, done that).
I still don’t understand why US citizens would impeach Clinton for lying about who he slept with, but not impeach Bush who’s lied a lot more and done a lot worse!
September 21st, 2007 at 10:49 am
I agree, out of control military spending like in the US will eventually destroy a nations economy and political system. Americas first president, George Washington, warned of the risks of a large standing army on a democracy as did President Eisenhower in 1960 and I think we can see the truth behind their words now.
If I recall correctly the same thing happened to the Spanish Empire about four hundred years ago. All the tons of gold and silver from New World mines went into building the world largest military of that age which eventually bankrupted the empire.
Bush is being protected from impeachment by the very powerful lobbies he represents. The same defence and oil industries that have made so much profit in the last six years don’t want to lose their access to power and further wealth. The fact that Bush isn’t out of office(and behind bars) is a telling statement on just how far the US has gone down the road to losing its national identity, that of being a free nation led by a truly representational President.
As somene who has family roots in the US that go back to before the country even existed it makes me sad and angry. My ancestors didn’t want the kind of dictatorial leadership that now rules the US.
September 21st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Speaking of Military spending and it’s effects on the economy…
anyone see the dollar today?
31 yr high…hmm I wonder why the US Dollar is worth so little now….