|
November 9, 2004
Iraq has lost about 100,000 people during the American invasion and occupation. Almost all were killed by coalition air strikes. More deaths are on the way now that the US assault on the Sunni city of Fallujah has begun. Early reports indicate that two bridges spanning the Euphrates River plus two hospitals have been captured.
Wilcox
Why raze the hospitals to the ground? To play down Iraqi civilian deaths and to pretend that the military strike is surgical, efficient and clean? Jean at Body and Soul thinks this is a real possibility.
The Guardian captures the US spin on the US assault on the Sunni city of Fallujah that seems to accepted by the American media:
"...a city the size of Brighton is now only ever referred to as a "militants' stronghold" or "insurgents' redoubt". The city is being "softened up" with precision attacks from the air. Pacifying Falluja has become the key to stabilising the country ahead of the January elections. The "final assault" is imminent, in which the foreigners who have infiltrated the almost deserted Iraqi city with their extremist Islam will be "cleared", "rooted out" or "crushed". Or, as one marine put it: "We will win the hearts and minds of Falluja by ridding the city of insurgents. We're doing that by patrolling the streets and killing the enemy."
We can expect ever more carnage since the US message is resist us and we will destroy you. Fallujah has to be destroyed in order to save it. Australia is a party to this laying waste to a city.
The standard defence by the Australian Government is that as Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein, so the killing of Iraqi civilians is justified. Does that mean the 'Coalition of the Willing' can kill as many Iraqi's as Saddam and still claim legitimacy?
The kind of military overkill in Fallujah is part of the geo-political strategy of 'staying the course.' The US is doing this in the same way as France stayed the course in Algeria in the 1950s, as the US stayed the course in Vietnam in the 1960s, and as the Israelis are staying the course in occupied Palestine. Staying the course in these cases means adopting a military solution to political problem. That strategy does not achieve peace or security in a situation of a war of national self-determination.
So argues Richard Polk over at Juan Cole's Informed Comment. The other option is Vietnamization involving creating and train the army of the client regime, equip it and then turn the war over to it. Polk says that the best best the US might gain from this option "is a fig leaf to hide defeat; the worst, in a rapid collapse, would be humiliating evacuation, as in Vietnam."
The best option says Falk is for the US to choose to get out rather than being forced. His arguments are compelling. Have a read when you have a moment.
|
100,000 slain Iraqis? How many World Trade Centres does that equate to? (Not that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11).
Rumsfeld feigns outrage against insurgents who "chop heads off" - shock, horror! As gruesome as decapitation is, how can it possibly compare to the massive carnage inflicted by US WMD that have killed and maimed so many Iraqi civilians.