after listening to dal lamagna's story on This American Life, i visited his campaign site and found this presentation ... these are individual voices from iraq ... i'm not sure how much weight they carry ... though the introductions of each at the beginning suggest that many of them "represent" significant populations ... i find it refreshing and hopeful to hear their voices ... i think iraqis are generally regarded by americans (portrayed in the media) as voiceless in the midst of an unending chaos ... at the very least, this video shows they aren't ...
and the ten-point plan makes sense to me ... but then ... what do i know?
1. End the occupation of Iraq.2. Create a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops that is synchronized with the implementation of the Iraq reconciliation plan.
3. Disband the militias created after the occupation.
4. Revise Bremer's Orders and allow the Iraqis to rebuild their army.
5. Rewrite the Iraqi Constitution.
6. Keep Iraq as one state and do not partition into multiple states.
7. Begin the promised reconstruction of Iraq. Employ Iraqis and not foreign workers or contractors.
8. Acknowledge Iraqis' right to resist the U.S. occupation, negotiate with the resistance, and give amnesty to Iraqis resisting the occupation.
9. Investigate all the crimes that were committed by the new Iraqi Government and by the occupation forces in Iraq
10. Make a fair distribution of oil income and natural resources.
im curious how many of these ideas are of and from the iraqi people, based on their needs, culture, history, etc. Who for example would define what is a fair dsitribution of oil income and natural resources? is that an american or otherwise foreign idea? it seems like a lot of the speakers and the ideas sound an awful like the purported american goals in their country, but that is not america and we dont know even how to run our own country in such matters so why give them our half thought plans? not that i know anything either, i know less than nothing, but it sounds too familiar.
Posted by: ms | 01 August 2007 at 08:43 PM
you pose a good question ... it's a mess ... who's to sort out the "true voice" of the iraqi people? it's probably impossible for us here to have anything close to a clear sense of what most people there want ... my guess is that most want peace ... without peace there's not much hope for sorting out the rest of it ... so ending the occupation would be a good first step ... IF it's recognized that the occupation itself is the cause of most of the violence ... if one doesn't acknowledge that, i'm not sure what else is possible ... war and more war ... "disband the militias" feels classically " easier said than done" ..."distribute the wealth" same thing ...
my question is: is it the ongoing u. s. presence in iraq that has become the problem rather than any kind of solution ... my sense from that start is that it's always been the problem ... it was an utterly unnecessary war from the get-go (esp. if one is thinking of "the war on terror" ... stupid phrase) ... promoted by the neocon cabal we (some of us) have come to know and loathe ...
Posted by: brtom | 02 August 2007 at 10:00 AM
Every once in a while the media has a "feel good" story about the US in Iraq; this sick child was flown to the US for life-saving medical care; the orphan boys found tied naked to beds and lying on concrete floors were treated and transferred to better quarters, etc. I have not been to Iraq or anywhere in the region but I am of the impression the contry is largely poor and lacking (by our standards) in many areas. I dont know that they or any other people would come up with such ideas w/o us telling them what's "wrong" with them. Here we're told about extremes of Islam, that it is an honor to kill infidels (non-Muslim), that they are incompetent and weak (as in they have not created a democracy to our liking) (I liked the headline this past week or so that the US was "dismayed" that the Iraqi parliament was taking off the month of August -- now we tell them their work hours too?). Sure there are extremes in ideology, wealth and power (thats life after all); I think the US was hoping to capitalize on these differences when they went in. I think the hope was that a majority would greet the US with open arms, welcoming the real or offered "gifts" ("blood money") we promised. That arrogance of thinking the Iraqis wanted/needed or would sell themselves for some vague american ideals of "a better life" discounted the strength, pride and will of the people and I think led to increased divisions in an already divided country. I think the US was banking on these divisions to gather supporters and turn people aainst each other, so iraqis could kill iraqis for us and we could look like the hero bringing a higher standard of living, etc. I think its hard for the US to acknowledge our presence is a major cause of the violence because that increased iraqi v iraqi violence is exactly what we wanted, and even have encouraged, so we could capitalize on it. So is the US presence the problem rather than solution? I think it is neither and both - I think the problems were already there and that the US presence emboldens those who were already marginalized, giving them additional targets (not only their fellow countrymen who marginalized them to begin with but also now the americans). If the country was not already at least on the path to civil war (what an oxymoron) the US presence allowed - if not affirmatively encouraged - more iraqis to kill more iraqis, sunni and shia. I think the US was hoping for an escalation of iraqi on iraqi violence, the goal being to win allegiance or support from the most powerful groups, both to hasten defeat of the "enemy" and to make it look like we were welcome to be there and saviors of the iraqi people. Might have been a good plan if it worked, but arrogance always seems to get in the way. The iraqis aren't americans and the ways we're trying to force are not ways they want and therefore they will never work. I dont think the US really cares what sort of govenment or security forces are in place but they do this charade to make it seem there is some larger purpose or reason to be and to stay there. Did anyone every ask the Iraqis if they wanted an american-style govt? If they wanted Saddam dead or out of power I think the Iraqi people could have accomplised that on their own, using against Saddam and his followers the same sort and level of violence they are using now. If the US presence has any benefit for the country it will be that in tackling a common enemy (the US) the Iraquis put aside some of their differences, saw better their commonalities, and came together as a more cohesive people who put their collective existence above the sunni/shia and other differences to get rid of the americans. I think it's a long shot but i don't think its impossible; this is one of the centers of civilization and they have been around a lot longer than the US. I do wonder what will happen to those who were led into or accepted some sort of dependence on the US forces for their needs, it wouldn't be right to just pull out and leave them dry. Ideally I woud like to see all the war money spent on aid and supplies to rebuild the country, with the Iraqis deciding how that will be done. If the people want KBR to rebuild their country and infratructure then they can hire KBR, but let them pick their own contractors/workers, preferably iraqis who might want to earn a living, who will then be less poor, perhaps less marginalized than before. I dont know much about foreign policy and these sorts of things but maybe the UN, the Red Crescent, the Red Cross and similar groups could go in and help rebuild. Maybe Jimmy Carter can take a group from Habitat to supervise all the soldiers in building homes so every Iraqi has a place of shelter.
Posted by: ms | 02 August 2007 at 12:32 PM
good stuff ... you've got quite a few more coherent thoughts about the matter than i do ... here's an article that might interest you ... http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2007c/080307/080307n.php ... i like the way it tries to pluck out the various threads of the conflict ... it says in part:
“I think it’s more useful for us to talk about Iraq not as a war but as a catastrophe or as a number of different wars taking place,” Merrill said.
One of these wars is in northern Iraq between Kurdish political parties and Turkey over the status of Kirkuk, a city with a majority Kurdish population but with a significant Arab and Turcoman presence that Turkey supports. Another conflict relates to groups that oppose the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, nationalists who support freedom for Iraq from what is seen as foreign occupation. Merrill said that these nationalists are largely Sunni ex-military officers who regard the current government as illegitimate.
A third category of conflicts involves Iraqi separatists versus nationalists, with a dizzying array of groups on all sides. ... Within every ethnicity and sect, whether Sunni, Shiah or Kurds, separatists and nationalists are contending, Merrill said.
me: what a mess mr. bush has made
Posted by: brtom | 03 August 2007 at 10:59 AM
but what else did any of really expect, what with him and cheney and rumsfeld, to name only a few of the more visible architects of all this mess?
in a way ot's like the iran contr affair -- the current state of affairs will almost certainly herald a new wave of politicians and we'll have some change in the status quo (though i'm not naive enough to think it will actually be that much of a change, other than in the party labels) ... i don;t know too many reasonable and honest people who deny it's time for a change
Posted by: ms | 04 August 2007 at 10:48 PM