Do you recall late 2002 and early 2003? Bush was talking up a storm, claiming Saddam Hussein posed a grave danger to our country, even though his regime rose to power by the grace of the CIA and were funded and armed for the entire 1980s by the U.S. government. As the nation prepared for war, a resistance arose.
But as anti-war protests grew, so did the urgency of the president's warnings. Some didn't fall for these deceptions. Millions of us marched in what became the largest political movement in the history of the world.
Earlier this month, the White House announced that the search for weapons of mass destruction was over, as if it wasn't clear a year ago that the war was based upon lies. It is, in reality, a grab for oil resources and economic colonization by multinational corporations seeking to exploit a vast and impoverished labor market.
But the greatest loss of this war so far hasn't been the more than 1,000 American troops killed. Nor has it been the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed in the bloodbath that has preoccupied the country for the last two years.
No, the greatest loss has been that we, the American people, have given up trying to do anything about it-to demand peace and justice in place of the war and injustice perpetrated by our own government against our will.
I have no qualms declaring that I hope the Iraqi resistance succeeds in driving out the occupation, just as George Washington once succeeded in doing the same over 200 years ago. Despite having many reactionary and anti-democratic elements which I would never defend or support, the broader resistance, some of it democratic and nonviolent, represents a movement for national liberation and self-determination. It is, after all, their country, and belongs to the people of Iraq, not the U.S. government.
It is sad how many people continue to echo the Democratic and liberal leadership, who say invading Iraq was a mistake. Let's be clear about something: Invading Iraq was not a mistake! It was entirely intentional, and those who ordered the invasion knew full well what they were doing-even as they cleverly manipulated the American public into accepting such an imperialist endeavor.
Meanwhile, others claim the post-war period has been mishandled, and Bush didn't have a plan for winning the peace. But was there some better way to control Iraq, or would John Kerry have handled the situation any differently?
Take a moment to imagine something. Pretend tomorrow the Chinese army marches into the United States, topples our government,and occupies Madison. To go further, imagine this has happened after more than a decade of economic sanctions were imposed by the power now occupying our country, devastating our economy and leaving millions starving. The Chinese proceed to select our leader-a man who worked as a torturer for our government until the late 1970s, and then defected to China working as a hit man for their Central Intelligence Agency. Then this newly selected leader declares martial law and orders the shutdown of several prominent newspapers critical of the occupation.
You see these soldiers every day, fully equipped with loaded M-16s, on every street corner going to class. You have even heard rumors that they shot a few guys downtown last week who refused to cooperate with their demands. Would it surprise you when a group of your friends decide to launch a guerilla attack on the occupiers using makeshift bomb materials? In fact, would you not view such fighters as proud patriots, defending their homeland from the invaders?
Perhaps we can begin to understand what is happening in Iraq. Despite what Donald Rumsfeld would like us to believe, virtually all of the violence in Iraq is native. The government is a puppet regime, and the elections (much like our own) are merely staged events which in reality do nothing to change the policies or institutions that wield political power. The \democracy"" is a sham because democracy, meaning rule by the people, must come from below. It cannot be imposed from above, at the end of a barrel of a gun.
The only major mistake of the Iraq war is that those in the anti-war movement gave up and directed their energy supporting a pro-war candidate. Indeed, the very purpose of the Kerry campaign was to create a pro-war consensus among the American left, by claiming Iraq needs to be ""pacified.""
Many people tell me that demanding an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all United States troops will leave a ""power vacuum"" and lead to civil war or create a political crisis in the region. While all of these may be true, let's consider the alternative. The above-described events merely delayed another four or five years, after even more resentment, bloodshed and destruction, and an illegitimate government.
Nay, those who favor continuing the occupation carry the burden of proof. Nothing positive can come from the further use of military force. It's presence is the cause of violence, not the solution to it. So I ask all progressives and liberals to rejoin the anti-war movement with one simple, unwavering demand: Bring the troops home now!
Bill Anderson is a sophomore and activist in the Green/Progressive Alliance and Student Labor Action Coalition.
