From the Desk of Ibrahim-Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) March 18, 2008 — The conundrum of American primary politics, American Idol worship, and the fall from grace of the former Governor of New York, may have shifted the market-based media focus from the story, but for those who may otherwise be unaware, March 19, 2008 marks the fifth anniversary of the most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq - yet another tragic date in U.S. history that will live in infamy.
What, exactly, has been the cost of the U.S. adventure in Iraq? We are now careening to the number of 4,000 American combat deaths and 40,000 seriously wounded troops. Many of the wounded have been abandoned by their government to a fate of permanent disability and mental distress from the psychological wounds of combat. But this number is dwarfed by the devastation suffered by the Iraqis themselves: 650,000 to one million dead; 400,000 persons displaced from their homes; and the bitter reality of a raging sectarian civil war that has left the nation terrorized and divided.
The recent U.S. troop "surge" has been a useful diversion for the proponents of the war, who now claim some hollow "victory" because of ephemeral military gains in the combat operations against Al-Qaeda and other assorted armed insurgents. But the fundamental contradictions and divisions in the country remain. And Iraq, for all the horrors of it's own history of dictatorship and war, is a far more dangerous and oppressive place that it was under the rule of Saddam.
In the meanwhile, the Iraq war has not only divided U.S. citizens, it has also consolidated world opinion against this nation in a way that no one could have anticipated five years ago. Blatant torture of Iraqi captives, attacks on the civil liberties of Muslim individuals, institutions, and charities in America, and countless violations of both domestic and international law have become the hallmark of the arrogant and recalcitrant regime in Washington that continues the prosecution of the war.
But the conflict in Iraq has also resulted in countless casualties at home, measured in increased domestic violence, family disintegration, alcoholism, and drug abuse suffered by returning U.S. combatants.
War, in every case, results in the massive transfer of wealth from one social class to another. The war in Iraq is no different.
But what is different is the reality of the naked ambition of the global energy and arms oligarchies that have feasted on the $1.2 trillion dollars spent by American taxpayers on the war to date. This violence continues, despite the deepening economic crisis in the nation and the devastation of the national social infrastructure.
In Washington, DC, activists from 40 states plan to gather to mark this tragic anniversary, and in some cases, to engage in non-violent direct action in opposition of the war in Iraq. We must continue to press for the demand to end the war, even if the Democratic Congress lacks the will to oppose the Bush regime's war machine.
The popular tide of resistance to the war will—and must—continue, until the war is ended, and the massive damage to both the United States and to the people of Iraq is fully repaired.
For more information about upcoming events and gatherings, please visit:
http:/www.5YearsTooMany.org
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
How NOT to Pay for a 1.6 Trillion Dollar War
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Nov. 14, 2007 -This week, the Democratic Party leadership in Congress announced that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to cost American taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.6 trillion dollars over the next decade or so. Of course, these numbers don't include the price tag for a major military venture into Iran, which is clearly on the drawing board, or possible armed intervention into any other place on the planet with petroleum deemed necessary for the American consumption machine.
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, and soon, as the saying goes, you're talking about real money.
But on a more intimate and comprehensible level, the Democrats estimate that this cost for war, just in Iraq and Afghanistan will amount to a tax burden something in the neighborhood of around $20,600 for every family in the nation.
To be honest, I've been in the business of trying to quantify the real amount of American annual military spending for the last 16-years, and frankly, I've failed miserably at coming up with a precise number.
Do you add the CIA and covert operations budget to the Pentagon total, if even Congress isn't sure what that figure is? Do you calculate into the total, for example, the part of the Department of Energy budget that is devoted to maintaining and upgrading the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal? How about the part of the NASA budget that is related to military technology and applications in the space program? Or the amount that the Pentagon gets (under a very big table) from less-than-honest weapons contractors? Or greens fees at the numerous golf courses for the generals and admirals?
Obviously, whatever the cost of war is, it's a very large amount of money. And you and I pay for it with our tax dollars.
Most of us are probably aware of a category of citizens who are known as Conscientious Objectors, or CO's for short. This is a group of men and women, largely part of the Christian tradition, who believe, as a matter of individual conscience, that war is morally wrong. Many of them are part of "peace" churches like the Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), or members the Catholic peace tradition. Usually (but not always) these war objectors are exempted from military service, or at times, like in World War II or the Vietnam conflict, they may be assigned to non-combat related jobs while serving in uniform.
But the problem also comes down to this: How might people who object to war have an legal, and respected, option to not pay for it?
There is, in fact, a long and honorable tradition of war tax resistance in America, going back to a period even before the American Revolution. Many people who object to killing have elected to stop paying all or part of the income taxes that are used by the United States government for military expenditures. However, the government does not recognize, at the present time, this form of civil disobedience as legitimate dissent, and many war tax resisters were, and are, penalized by wage and property seizures from the Internal Revenue Service.
However, since 1972, there has been a small, but determined movement to create a fund into which citizens can pay taxes that will not be used for killing. It's called the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.
The moral principle underlying the idea is simple: If you chose, as a matter of conscience, to decline to pay for military expenditures, you should have a legal option to pay your taxes and designate them for human services that are not based on militarism and violence.
Interestingly enough, the idea of a peace tax fund is gaining more note, and respect, from members of Congress. Representative John Lewis (D-GA), an honored hero of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, is the principle sponsor of The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill (H.R. 1921) before the House of Representatives that would make the fund a legal option for taxpayers. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Rep. Eleanor Holmes (D-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), and Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), are also H.R. 1921 co-sponsors.
But some Republican members of Congress, like Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who happens to be a candidate for his party's 2008 nomination for the presidency, also believe in the right of religious freedom to decline to pay for war, provided that individuals fulfill their obligation to pay taxes.
The successful passage of peace tax legislation is certainly a long way off, but it's important, I believe, for Muslims to know about this issue.
I believe that the question of how our taxes are used by the government is not just a fiscal issue, but a moral one as well.
You have a voice in making this choice. Unless, of course, you prefer things as they are, and you happen to have an extra $20,000 or so in your checking or savings account that you'd love to send to the Pentagon.
Ibrahim Abdil-Mui'd Ramey is an individual advocate of the right of conscientious objection to war, but neither MAS nor MAS Freedom have official positions on the issue. More information on the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund can be found at: http://www.peacetaxfund.org
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Nov. 14, 2007 -This week, the Democratic Party leadership in Congress announced that the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are projected to cost American taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.6 trillion dollars over the next decade or so. Of course, these numbers don't include the price tag for a major military venture into Iran, which is clearly on the drawing board, or possible armed intervention into any other place on the planet with petroleum deemed necessary for the American consumption machine.
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, and soon, as the saying goes, you're talking about real money.
But on a more intimate and comprehensible level, the Democrats estimate that this cost for war, just in Iraq and Afghanistan will amount to a tax burden something in the neighborhood of around $20,600 for every family in the nation.
To be honest, I've been in the business of trying to quantify the real amount of American annual military spending for the last 16-years, and frankly, I've failed miserably at coming up with a precise number.
Do you add the CIA and covert operations budget to the Pentagon total, if even Congress isn't sure what that figure is? Do you calculate into the total, for example, the part of the Department of Energy budget that is devoted to maintaining and upgrading the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal? How about the part of the NASA budget that is related to military technology and applications in the space program? Or the amount that the Pentagon gets (under a very big table) from less-than-honest weapons contractors? Or greens fees at the numerous golf courses for the generals and admirals?
Obviously, whatever the cost of war is, it's a very large amount of money. And you and I pay for it with our tax dollars.
Most of us are probably aware of a category of citizens who are known as Conscientious Objectors, or CO's for short. This is a group of men and women, largely part of the Christian tradition, who believe, as a matter of individual conscience, that war is morally wrong. Many of them are part of "peace" churches like the Mennonites, the Church of the Brethren, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), or members the Catholic peace tradition. Usually (but not always) these war objectors are exempted from military service, or at times, like in World War II or the Vietnam conflict, they may be assigned to non-combat related jobs while serving in uniform.
But the problem also comes down to this: How might people who object to war have an legal, and respected, option to not pay for it?
There is, in fact, a long and honorable tradition of war tax resistance in America, going back to a period even before the American Revolution. Many people who object to killing have elected to stop paying all or part of the income taxes that are used by the United States government for military expenditures. However, the government does not recognize, at the present time, this form of civil disobedience as legitimate dissent, and many war tax resisters were, and are, penalized by wage and property seizures from the Internal Revenue Service.
However, since 1972, there has been a small, but determined movement to create a fund into which citizens can pay taxes that will not be used for killing. It's called the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund.
The moral principle underlying the idea is simple: If you chose, as a matter of conscience, to decline to pay for military expenditures, you should have a legal option to pay your taxes and designate them for human services that are not based on militarism and violence.
Interestingly enough, the idea of a peace tax fund is gaining more note, and respect, from members of Congress. Representative John Lewis (D-GA), an honored hero of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's, is the principle sponsor of The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill (H.R. 1921) before the House of Representatives that would make the fund a legal option for taxpayers. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Rep. Eleanor Holmes (D-TX), Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), and Rep. Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), are also H.R. 1921 co-sponsors.
But some Republican members of Congress, like Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who happens to be a candidate for his party's 2008 nomination for the presidency, also believe in the right of religious freedom to decline to pay for war, provided that individuals fulfill their obligation to pay taxes.
The successful passage of peace tax legislation is certainly a long way off, but it's important, I believe, for Muslims to know about this issue.
I believe that the question of how our taxes are used by the government is not just a fiscal issue, but a moral one as well.
You have a voice in making this choice. Unless, of course, you prefer things as they are, and you happen to have an extra $20,000 or so in your checking or savings account that you'd love to send to the Pentagon.
Ibrahim Abdil-Mui'd Ramey is an individual advocate of the right of conscientious objection to war, but neither MAS nor MAS Freedom have official positions on the issue. More information on the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund can be found at: http://www.peacetaxfund.org
Monday, November 12, 2007
When Soldiers Come Home…
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Nov. 12, 2007 - The epidemic of homelessness among military veterans is an abomination, and an indictment of the war system
Yesterday, news media reports in the Washington, D.C. area released a statistic that will startle most people in America: of the more than 12,000 homeless people in the Washington, D.C. area, about a quarter of them are veterans of the U.S. military.
National statistics are equally bleak. On November 8, 2007, the National Alliance to End Homelessness released a 36-page report indicating that, on any given night, there are nearly 200,000 homeless veterans in America; twice that number experience homelessness at some point during the year.
For a military that prides itself of projecting an image of egalitarianism and real opportunity for soldiers, these numbers aren’t just troubling – they are disgraceful.
Most veterans are certainly not homeless, and most homeless men are not veterans. But the staggering number of persons who served honorably in the armed forces of the United States, only to find themselves without a roof over their heads, should tell us something about the war system - and the moral priorities of the leaders who recruit people into the military.
The United States will spend, in the next fiscal year, more than $500 billion on the military, and more that that if you count billions more for supplemental appropriation for the virtually bottomless pit of the conflict in Iraq.
While it seems to be relatively easy for our tax dollars to buy rifles, and tanks, and helicopters, it seems equally impossible for our taxes to provide adequate housing, jobs, and rehabilitation for the men and women who find themselves trapped under the cold, hard underbelly of the system that many of them fought to defend.
In my numerous conversations over the years with veterans from the first Gulf War to the 2003 Iraq invasion, I'm struck by their nearly unanimous feeling of bitterness and alienation from the Veterans Administration, and the failure of the V.A. to provide them with the assistance and resources they need to re-integrate themselves into society. V.A. facilities for counseling, civilian job training, and health care resources are totally inadequate; the family challenges created by ever-longer combat tours enormous.
For wounded and disabled vets, however, the story is much worse. Many of them have experienced being denied disability claims. And growing numbers of combat veterans are coming back with not only physical wounds, but with combat-related psychological disabilities that the government won’t acknowledge - or treat. They, like the heroin-addicted soldiers of the Vietnam era, all too often find themselves on the waste heap of war.
President Bush and Vice President Cheyney, who are zealously sending hundreds of thousands of men and women into the vortex of the Iraq war, seem less that eager to demand the resources needed to care for them when they come back home.
I'm not a supporter of war, and especially the one being fought by the United States in Iraq. But the personnel in the armed forces are honorable human beings who deserve the care and consideration due to them for their service to the country.
For the richest nation in the world, and one that has the capacity to build shelter for everyone, the idea of a soldier who comes home to homelessness is more than unfortunate. It is morally intolerable.
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Nov. 12, 2007 - The epidemic of homelessness among military veterans is an abomination, and an indictment of the war system
Yesterday, news media reports in the Washington, D.C. area released a statistic that will startle most people in America: of the more than 12,000 homeless people in the Washington, D.C. area, about a quarter of them are veterans of the U.S. military.
National statistics are equally bleak. On November 8, 2007, the National Alliance to End Homelessness released a 36-page report indicating that, on any given night, there are nearly 200,000 homeless veterans in America; twice that number experience homelessness at some point during the year.
For a military that prides itself of projecting an image of egalitarianism and real opportunity for soldiers, these numbers aren’t just troubling – they are disgraceful.
Most veterans are certainly not homeless, and most homeless men are not veterans. But the staggering number of persons who served honorably in the armed forces of the United States, only to find themselves without a roof over their heads, should tell us something about the war system - and the moral priorities of the leaders who recruit people into the military.
The United States will spend, in the next fiscal year, more than $500 billion on the military, and more that that if you count billions more for supplemental appropriation for the virtually bottomless pit of the conflict in Iraq.
While it seems to be relatively easy for our tax dollars to buy rifles, and tanks, and helicopters, it seems equally impossible for our taxes to provide adequate housing, jobs, and rehabilitation for the men and women who find themselves trapped under the cold, hard underbelly of the system that many of them fought to defend.
In my numerous conversations over the years with veterans from the first Gulf War to the 2003 Iraq invasion, I'm struck by their nearly unanimous feeling of bitterness and alienation from the Veterans Administration, and the failure of the V.A. to provide them with the assistance and resources they need to re-integrate themselves into society. V.A. facilities for counseling, civilian job training, and health care resources are totally inadequate; the family challenges created by ever-longer combat tours enormous.
For wounded and disabled vets, however, the story is much worse. Many of them have experienced being denied disability claims. And growing numbers of combat veterans are coming back with not only physical wounds, but with combat-related psychological disabilities that the government won’t acknowledge - or treat. They, like the heroin-addicted soldiers of the Vietnam era, all too often find themselves on the waste heap of war.
President Bush and Vice President Cheyney, who are zealously sending hundreds of thousands of men and women into the vortex of the Iraq war, seem less that eager to demand the resources needed to care for them when they come back home.
I'm not a supporter of war, and especially the one being fought by the United States in Iraq. But the personnel in the armed forces are honorable human beings who deserve the care and consideration due to them for their service to the country.
For the richest nation in the world, and one that has the capacity to build shelter for everyone, the idea of a soldier who comes home to homelessness is more than unfortunate. It is morally intolerable.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A Turkish Invasion of Iraq Would Only Bring More Tragedy to the Region
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Oct. 18, 2007 - Some of us who are old enough to remember this episode in American history will recall the decision by the Pentagon, in 1970, to invade Cambodia in the height of the war for national liberation in Vietnam. Ostensibly, the U.S. military invasion was carried out to dislodge North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front troops from their sanctuaries in Cambodia. However, the real effect of the American incursion was to bring more fervor to the U.S-and global-anti-war movement.
Three years later, in 1973, U.S. forces withdrew in defeat from Vietnam. A much more recent, but similar fate, befell the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
It's unfortunate that the war planners in Ankara are apparently not very astute students of recent military history, because the Turkish parliament is now apparently ready to approve an incursion by Turkey into Northern Iraq, with the purpose of routing Kurdish militants from the PPK from their Iraqi staging areas. The proposed invasion, much to the dismay of Iraq (but with the approval of Syria, which has its own problems with a Kurdish minority) would bring heightened war to the one region of Iraq that has avoided much of the carnage that grips the southern part of than nation. And it would likely result in untold deaths and casualties, not only among armed resistance fighters, but primarily among innocent civilians as well.
But an invasion of Iraq would hardly mean the end of the armed resistance by the Kurds, or the desire for an autonomous Kurdistan favored by the Kurdish minority in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Armed resistance movements are mobile, and resilient; many of them would simply withdraw from some areas and regroup in others. And widening the war could possibly increase the militancy and resistance of the Kurdish population in Iraq to Turkish military forces. Moreover, it could poison the already-strained relationship between Turkey and its southern neighbor.
For the sake of human lives and the hope of an end to bloodshed, we urge the government of Turkey to resist any pressure to invade Iraq. The centuries-old issue of the political status of the Kurdish people must be resolved in some other way.
In the final analysis, history has a way of demonstrating that these cross-border military incursions, for whatever reason they are executed, almost always come back to harm the invading nation more than those whom they attack.
RELATED:
Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote
Turkish MPs Back Attacks in Iraq
MAS Freedom Civil and Human Rights Director
WASHINGTON, D.C. (MASNET) Oct. 18, 2007 - Some of us who are old enough to remember this episode in American history will recall the decision by the Pentagon, in 1970, to invade Cambodia in the height of the war for national liberation in Vietnam. Ostensibly, the U.S. military invasion was carried out to dislodge North Vietnamese Army and National Liberation Front troops from their sanctuaries in Cambodia. However, the real effect of the American incursion was to bring more fervor to the U.S-and global-anti-war movement.
Three years later, in 1973, U.S. forces withdrew in defeat from Vietnam. A much more recent, but similar fate, befell the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006.
It's unfortunate that the war planners in Ankara are apparently not very astute students of recent military history, because the Turkish parliament is now apparently ready to approve an incursion by Turkey into Northern Iraq, with the purpose of routing Kurdish militants from the PPK from their Iraqi staging areas. The proposed invasion, much to the dismay of Iraq (but with the approval of Syria, which has its own problems with a Kurdish minority) would bring heightened war to the one region of Iraq that has avoided much of the carnage that grips the southern part of than nation. And it would likely result in untold deaths and casualties, not only among armed resistance fighters, but primarily among innocent civilians as well.
But an invasion of Iraq would hardly mean the end of the armed resistance by the Kurds, or the desire for an autonomous Kurdistan favored by the Kurdish minority in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria. Armed resistance movements are mobile, and resilient; many of them would simply withdraw from some areas and regroup in others. And widening the war could possibly increase the militancy and resistance of the Kurdish population in Iraq to Turkish military forces. Moreover, it could poison the already-strained relationship between Turkey and its southern neighbor.
For the sake of human lives and the hope of an end to bloodshed, we urge the government of Turkey to resist any pressure to invade Iraq. The centuries-old issue of the political status of the Kurdish people must be resolved in some other way.
In the final analysis, history has a way of demonstrating that these cross-border military incursions, for whatever reason they are executed, almost always come back to harm the invading nation more than those whom they attack.
RELATED:
Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote
Turkish MPs Back Attacks in Iraq
Friday, September 1, 2000
But What About Saddam?
By Ibrahim M. Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
New York (FORUSA) Sept. 1, 2000 - If Saddam Hussein is a brutal thug and an international outlaw, then why not just send a CIA assassination team into Baghdad to "take care" of him? Or kill him with bombs and cruise missiles? Or at least cook up a plot that guarantees his political overthrow?
Before the Gulf War, the dinar was worth approximately three dollars.Now, there are approximately 2,500 dinars to one U.S. dollar.
We've come to expect that kind of talk from the folks at the State Department and the Pentagon and the CIA, who make a living, in part, from creating or obliterating foreign governments, depending on their usefulness to US national (read: business) interests. The corporate media and the State Department have created a feeding frenzy among the US population over the notion of Saddam's ouster, if not his murder. They have made Saddam the rationale for the continuation of ten years of sanctions against the Iraqi people. And arguably, Saddam's persistence as the leader of Iraq is a key factor in justifying high levels of post-Coldwar Pentagon spending, as well as continued US military assistance to Israel.
But all of us must wrestle with this convoluted knot of a problem: How, in fact, do we view Saddam? And what, if anything, should we attempt to do about him?
Given the corporate media view of Saddam put out for mass consumption, it's easy to understand the incredible amount of fear and loathing directed against the Iraqi leader by US conservatives and liberals alike. Saddam is, after all, a man who waged an incredibly bloody (and insane) war against his neighboring nation, Iran; a man who directed the use of deadly chemical weapons (made in facilities built by Western corporations) against his own Kurdish population; and a man who, despite the clear mandate of the United Nations Security Council, reneged on the agreement to allow for UN inspections of biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons. All of this is in addition, of course, to the ample evidence of a litany of heinous crimes directed by Saddam's Ba'ath Party and his military against a wide array of Iraqi dissidents, democratic opposition figures, and even members of his own ruling circle. (The writer Said Abourish, in his tell-all book entitled Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, relates a particularly gruesome story in which, in a fit of rage,
Saddam removed one of his cabinet ministers from a meeting, only to usher the unsuspecting man into a side room of the Presidential Palace where he dispatched him - personally - with a bullet to the head.)
For most of the vast US political mainstream - good people who believe in freedom, justice, and the truth of everything printed in the New York Times - Saddam Hussein isn't just bad for Iraq: Saddam Hussein is Iraq. And never mind the long history of Western arms, money, and intrigue, including evidence of pre-Gulf war CIA intervention in support of Saddam, or even the sheer brutality of the overkill of the war and the (arguably) intentional US attacks on Iraqi people and infrastructure far away from the action in Kuwait. Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti is the epitome of unadulterated evil in the modern world, and this conflated man/nation must be opposed, and neutralized, at all costs. For many, including noted leaders in the civil rights and human rights community, if the cost includes economic sanctions against Iraq, then the cost is worth it.
The religious pacifist positions on the Gulf war, and on Saddam himself, are different. It is not easy to explain to others outside the orbit of our day-to-day work why we don't call for Saddam's "removal" in light of his ghastly record on human rights in Iraq. And given the demonization of Saddam in the US press, it is hard to establish the moral credibility, among some people, of our opposition to Iraq sanctions.
It is obvious to everyone working on behalf of the Iraqi people that the UN/US sanctions against Iraq are immoral and genocidal because they target civilians and kill the helpless and innocent. Yet Saddam's personal character, his penchant for political violence, and even his use of mass murder as an instrument for maintaining power, can neither be ignored nor dismissed as irrelevant to people of faith and conscience. Religious community solidarity against the sanctions (and against the waves of intermittent military attacks upon Iraq) is one thing. The Iraqi dictator is quite another. And while there is no huge amount of anti-Saddam rhetoric flung about in our political discourse (especially by those folks who have occasion to travel to Iraq), it's no secret that Saddam Hussein is regarded as a very, very bad man that most folks would like to go away.
So what do we say about Saddam? And how should that position shape and define our work on issues related to Iraq?
Our Marxist colleagues and fellow activists on the Left have sometimes been moved to defend Saddam as just one more victim of Western imperialism. And I do admit that, generally, the secular Left has a sharper and more historically detailed analysis of political economy than does the religious pacifist community. We should learn from this, and incorporate it into some of our worldview. Imperialism, particularly the US variant of it, is real, bloody, and extraordinarily oppressive, especially to peoples who have suffered from colonization and ongoing domination. The people of Iraq, like most of the non-European world, fall into this category.
But imperialism also requires the complicity of despots, crooks, hustlers, and murderers from the exploited nations, especially those with great appetites for power, glory, and guns.
The "anti-imperialist" camp needs to recognize that Saddam Hussein has, over more than twenty years, played this game to the maximum, especially during the Iraq-Iran war, when he treated the "imperialist" arms suppliers as a personal shopping mall. And while the Iraqi people are clear victims of imperialism, they are also victims of generations of home-grown tyrants who sometimes feed at the plate of empire and sometimes defy the imperialist powers, but always, always, mistreat and abuse their own people.
Our beliefs in both nonviolence and humanity demand that we respond to the mistreatment and suffering of the people of Iraq, whether these are caused by their own government, or by ours. And while confronting the horrendous policies of the US government must remain our first priority, we must not turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein or dishonestly pretend that he is only a victim of US military violence and power machinations.
But there are some other things that people of faith must not do.
First, the demand for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein only strengthens the hand of the real imperialists - bankers, militarists, and CIA types - who lob cruise missiles and cruel sanctions on Baghdad in the mistaken notion that Saddam can be bombed out of power, or that his people, once sufficiently starved and bludgeoned by economic warfare, will rise up against him. It hasn't happened, and isn't likely to. And even if this scenario were to occur, it would hardly insure the transition to nonviolence and real, popular democracy - not the bogus made-in-the-USA variant - that is so desperately needed in Iraq (and for that matter, nearly everywhere else in the world).
Nor is it plausible to suggest that peace advocates, in conjunction with the US government, should openly encourage, arm, and assist the Iraqi opposition to strike at Saddam. Iraqi opposition leaders remember the last time the US made such promises at the end of the Gulf war. The US then pulled out, allowing the Kurdish and Shi'ite opposition, and innocent civilians, to be slaughtered by the Republican Guard and their chemical weapons. The United States government - the Left is right on this point too, I believe - would only manipulate the anti-Saddam opposition to be more compliant with US, rather that Iraqi, geopolitical interests.
Yet there are some things that we must do in response to Saddam, the US government, and most of all, the Iraqi people.
First, we must passionately advocate nonviolent and non-military solutions to the current crisis in and with Iraq, even when violence, to some, seems both plausible and inescapable. Military attacks, including the imposition of the notorious US-British "No Fly Zone" over Iraqi airspace, are not acceptable. Our long-term - and it may be very long-term - interests are in ending violence and oppression in all forms, not only when they are embodied in individuals whom we just love to hate. And, Saddam notwithstanding, we must relentlessly expose the role that the global arms trade and the multinational oil companies played, and continue to play, in maintaining anti-democratic and corrupt regimes in Iraq, and all over the world.
Second, we must work for the massive rebuilding of Iraqi civil society, and the reintegration of Iraq into the global community. Saddam is not the Iraqi people, and arguably, despite his enormous power, is not the same as their entire government, either. An Iraq suffering from economic attack and isolation isn't likely to be an incubator of either peace or democracy.
Third, we must support the building of a legitimate, strong, and un-bossed UN that can be a real arbitrator of global conflicts and, in the interim (some pacifists may disagree with this, but it's my essay), a genuine international force able to provide real protection for populations at risk of genocide.
Fourth, we must maintain a real arms embargo, but extend it to the entire region. We must create real sanctions against nations and corporations that insist on selling conventional, or other, weapons to Iraq. This embargo must be enforced within the context of a regional arms embargo (including Israel), and while advocating a global commitment to end the arms race, period.
Finally, and centrally, we must challenge the notion of a permanently oil-driven and profit-driven domestic economy. We must call into question the political and military apparatus protecting that economy at the expense of the well-being of the vast majority of the human community, especially the people of the Third World.
I certainly believe that understanding imperialism, as well as opposing it, is necessary. But our anti-imperialism must be, for us, part of a larger and deeper faith-centered opposition to all forms of human oppression and suffering, and not some one-dimensional rhetorical opposition to the United States and its frequently obnoxious foreign policy.
It is important for us to maintain the high ground, and the integrity, of faith-based nonviolence in our Iraq work. We must resist the tendency to either ignore Saddam's violence, or to explicitly or implicitly join with others who call for his violent overthrow. Nonviolence based on faith simply doesn't have tidy and immediate solutions to many violent political issues. But we do, and must, hold on to the belief that the trajectory of world events, and of justice, will eventually, in the long run, lead humankind, including the people of Iraq, to the beloved kingdom of the Creator's peace and justice.
I am commanded that I must not kill, or advocate murderous actions by others. And my work is not to destroy Saddam. My work is to strive to overturn systems of hatred, economic greed, and violence - in the United States, in Iraq, and wherever - so as to guarantee a different, just, and nonviolent future for both his nation, and my own.
New York (FORUSA) Sept. 1, 2000 - If Saddam Hussein is a brutal thug and an international outlaw, then why not just send a CIA assassination team into Baghdad to "take care" of him? Or kill him with bombs and cruise missiles? Or at least cook up a plot that guarantees his political overthrow?
Before the Gulf War, the dinar was worth approximately three dollars.Now, there are approximately 2,500 dinars to one U.S. dollar.
We've come to expect that kind of talk from the folks at the State Department and the Pentagon and the CIA, who make a living, in part, from creating or obliterating foreign governments, depending on their usefulness to US national (read: business) interests. The corporate media and the State Department have created a feeding frenzy among the US population over the notion of Saddam's ouster, if not his murder. They have made Saddam the rationale for the continuation of ten years of sanctions against the Iraqi people. And arguably, Saddam's persistence as the leader of Iraq is a key factor in justifying high levels of post-Coldwar Pentagon spending, as well as continued US military assistance to Israel.
But all of us must wrestle with this convoluted knot of a problem: How, in fact, do we view Saddam? And what, if anything, should we attempt to do about him?
Given the corporate media view of Saddam put out for mass consumption, it's easy to understand the incredible amount of fear and loathing directed against the Iraqi leader by US conservatives and liberals alike. Saddam is, after all, a man who waged an incredibly bloody (and insane) war against his neighboring nation, Iran; a man who directed the use of deadly chemical weapons (made in facilities built by Western corporations) against his own Kurdish population; and a man who, despite the clear mandate of the United Nations Security Council, reneged on the agreement to allow for UN inspections of biological, chemical, and possibly nuclear weapons. All of this is in addition, of course, to the ample evidence of a litany of heinous crimes directed by Saddam's Ba'ath Party and his military against a wide array of Iraqi dissidents, democratic opposition figures, and even members of his own ruling circle. (The writer Said Abourish, in his tell-all book entitled Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, relates a particularly gruesome story in which, in a fit of rage,
Saddam removed one of his cabinet ministers from a meeting, only to usher the unsuspecting man into a side room of the Presidential Palace where he dispatched him - personally - with a bullet to the head.)
For most of the vast US political mainstream - good people who believe in freedom, justice, and the truth of everything printed in the New York Times - Saddam Hussein isn't just bad for Iraq: Saddam Hussein is Iraq. And never mind the long history of Western arms, money, and intrigue, including evidence of pre-Gulf war CIA intervention in support of Saddam, or even the sheer brutality of the overkill of the war and the (arguably) intentional US attacks on Iraqi people and infrastructure far away from the action in Kuwait. Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti is the epitome of unadulterated evil in the modern world, and this conflated man/nation must be opposed, and neutralized, at all costs. For many, including noted leaders in the civil rights and human rights community, if the cost includes economic sanctions against Iraq, then the cost is worth it.
The religious pacifist positions on the Gulf war, and on Saddam himself, are different. It is not easy to explain to others outside the orbit of our day-to-day work why we don't call for Saddam's "removal" in light of his ghastly record on human rights in Iraq. And given the demonization of Saddam in the US press, it is hard to establish the moral credibility, among some people, of our opposition to Iraq sanctions.
It is obvious to everyone working on behalf of the Iraqi people that the UN/US sanctions against Iraq are immoral and genocidal because they target civilians and kill the helpless and innocent. Yet Saddam's personal character, his penchant for political violence, and even his use of mass murder as an instrument for maintaining power, can neither be ignored nor dismissed as irrelevant to people of faith and conscience. Religious community solidarity against the sanctions (and against the waves of intermittent military attacks upon Iraq) is one thing. The Iraqi dictator is quite another. And while there is no huge amount of anti-Saddam rhetoric flung about in our political discourse (especially by those folks who have occasion to travel to Iraq), it's no secret that Saddam Hussein is regarded as a very, very bad man that most folks would like to go away.
So what do we say about Saddam? And how should that position shape and define our work on issues related to Iraq?
Our Marxist colleagues and fellow activists on the Left have sometimes been moved to defend Saddam as just one more victim of Western imperialism. And I do admit that, generally, the secular Left has a sharper and more historically detailed analysis of political economy than does the religious pacifist community. We should learn from this, and incorporate it into some of our worldview. Imperialism, particularly the US variant of it, is real, bloody, and extraordinarily oppressive, especially to peoples who have suffered from colonization and ongoing domination. The people of Iraq, like most of the non-European world, fall into this category.
But imperialism also requires the complicity of despots, crooks, hustlers, and murderers from the exploited nations, especially those with great appetites for power, glory, and guns.
The "anti-imperialist" camp needs to recognize that Saddam Hussein has, over more than twenty years, played this game to the maximum, especially during the Iraq-Iran war, when he treated the "imperialist" arms suppliers as a personal shopping mall. And while the Iraqi people are clear victims of imperialism, they are also victims of generations of home-grown tyrants who sometimes feed at the plate of empire and sometimes defy the imperialist powers, but always, always, mistreat and abuse their own people.
Our beliefs in both nonviolence and humanity demand that we respond to the mistreatment and suffering of the people of Iraq, whether these are caused by their own government, or by ours. And while confronting the horrendous policies of the US government must remain our first priority, we must not turn a blind eye to Saddam Hussein or dishonestly pretend that he is only a victim of US military violence and power machinations.
But there are some other things that people of faith must not do.
First, the demand for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein only strengthens the hand of the real imperialists - bankers, militarists, and CIA types - who lob cruise missiles and cruel sanctions on Baghdad in the mistaken notion that Saddam can be bombed out of power, or that his people, once sufficiently starved and bludgeoned by economic warfare, will rise up against him. It hasn't happened, and isn't likely to. And even if this scenario were to occur, it would hardly insure the transition to nonviolence and real, popular democracy - not the bogus made-in-the-USA variant - that is so desperately needed in Iraq (and for that matter, nearly everywhere else in the world).
Nor is it plausible to suggest that peace advocates, in conjunction with the US government, should openly encourage, arm, and assist the Iraqi opposition to strike at Saddam. Iraqi opposition leaders remember the last time the US made such promises at the end of the Gulf war. The US then pulled out, allowing the Kurdish and Shi'ite opposition, and innocent civilians, to be slaughtered by the Republican Guard and their chemical weapons. The United States government - the Left is right on this point too, I believe - would only manipulate the anti-Saddam opposition to be more compliant with US, rather that Iraqi, geopolitical interests.
Yet there are some things that we must do in response to Saddam, the US government, and most of all, the Iraqi people.
First, we must passionately advocate nonviolent and non-military solutions to the current crisis in and with Iraq, even when violence, to some, seems both plausible and inescapable. Military attacks, including the imposition of the notorious US-British "No Fly Zone" over Iraqi airspace, are not acceptable. Our long-term - and it may be very long-term - interests are in ending violence and oppression in all forms, not only when they are embodied in individuals whom we just love to hate. And, Saddam notwithstanding, we must relentlessly expose the role that the global arms trade and the multinational oil companies played, and continue to play, in maintaining anti-democratic and corrupt regimes in Iraq, and all over the world.
Second, we must work for the massive rebuilding of Iraqi civil society, and the reintegration of Iraq into the global community. Saddam is not the Iraqi people, and arguably, despite his enormous power, is not the same as their entire government, either. An Iraq suffering from economic attack and isolation isn't likely to be an incubator of either peace or democracy.
Third, we must support the building of a legitimate, strong, and un-bossed UN that can be a real arbitrator of global conflicts and, in the interim (some pacifists may disagree with this, but it's my essay), a genuine international force able to provide real protection for populations at risk of genocide.
Fourth, we must maintain a real arms embargo, but extend it to the entire region. We must create real sanctions against nations and corporations that insist on selling conventional, or other, weapons to Iraq. This embargo must be enforced within the context of a regional arms embargo (including Israel), and while advocating a global commitment to end the arms race, period.
Finally, and centrally, we must challenge the notion of a permanently oil-driven and profit-driven domestic economy. We must call into question the political and military apparatus protecting that economy at the expense of the well-being of the vast majority of the human community, especially the people of the Third World.
I certainly believe that understanding imperialism, as well as opposing it, is necessary. But our anti-imperialism must be, for us, part of a larger and deeper faith-centered opposition to all forms of human oppression and suffering, and not some one-dimensional rhetorical opposition to the United States and its frequently obnoxious foreign policy.
It is important for us to maintain the high ground, and the integrity, of faith-based nonviolence in our Iraq work. We must resist the tendency to either ignore Saddam's violence, or to explicitly or implicitly join with others who call for his violent overthrow. Nonviolence based on faith simply doesn't have tidy and immediate solutions to many violent political issues. But we do, and must, hold on to the belief that the trajectory of world events, and of justice, will eventually, in the long run, lead humankind, including the people of Iraq, to the beloved kingdom of the Creator's peace and justice.
I am commanded that I must not kill, or advocate murderous actions by others. And my work is not to destroy Saddam. My work is to strive to overturn systems of hatred, economic greed, and violence - in the United States, in Iraq, and wherever - so as to guarantee a different, just, and nonviolent future for both his nation, and my own.
Thursday, December 9, 1999
Sanctions Hit Children Hardest
By Ibrahim Abdil-Mu'id Ramey
NEW YORK (USA Today) Dec. 9, 1999 - Can moral Americans watch with indifference as 200 Iraqi children die each day due to the economic blockade imposed against their nation by the United Nations and, more directly, the United States? The Fellowship of Reconciliation, the world's oldest interfaith peace and justice organization, says, ''No!''
The terrible events of the 1990-91 Gulf War created a firestorm of mass destruction and death in Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the conflict, while the coalition's air war destroyed or seriously damaged thousands of Iraqi electrical power stations, water treatment plants, grain fields, factories and food storage facilities far from the front lines. Iraq emerged from the war as a militarily defeated and economically decimated nation.
Severe international economic and military sanctions, imposed on Iraq since 1990, have continued the effects of the war. The military sanctions have ended Iraq's capacity to deploy biological, chemical and atomic weapons. But economic sanctions have impacted Iraqi civilians, resulting in catastrophic shortages of food, medicine, drinkable water and more.
Adequate food cannot be produced because Iraq lacks seeds, fertilizer, tractors and the electricity needed for irrigation equipment. Cities and towns are flooded with untreated waste and unsafe water. Medicine cannot be adequately distributed inside Iraq because of the lack of refrigerated storage facilities.
All of this adds up to the death each day of an estimated 200 Iraqi children under 5 years of age, an April 1998 UNICEF report found. These are not Republican Guard commanders, secret policemen, government officials or even members of Saddam Hussein's family. They are children.
While we celebrate the last Christmas, Hanukkah and Ramadan seasons of the millennium, we should remember that human life, and not political interests, is sacred, and that all weapons of mass destruction -- including deadly economic sanctions -- are abominations in the eyes of God.
The people of Iraq, especially the children, are not our enemies. They must be allowed to live in peace and dignity. In the name of compassion, we must lift economic sanctions now.
NEW YORK (USA Today) Dec. 9, 1999 - Can moral Americans watch with indifference as 200 Iraqi children die each day due to the economic blockade imposed against their nation by the United Nations and, more directly, the United States? The Fellowship of Reconciliation, the world's oldest interfaith peace and justice organization, says, ''No!''
The terrible events of the 1990-91 Gulf War created a firestorm of mass destruction and death in Iraq. More than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the conflict, while the coalition's air war destroyed or seriously damaged thousands of Iraqi electrical power stations, water treatment plants, grain fields, factories and food storage facilities far from the front lines. Iraq emerged from the war as a militarily defeated and economically decimated nation.
Severe international economic and military sanctions, imposed on Iraq since 1990, have continued the effects of the war. The military sanctions have ended Iraq's capacity to deploy biological, chemical and atomic weapons. But economic sanctions have impacted Iraqi civilians, resulting in catastrophic shortages of food, medicine, drinkable water and more.
Adequate food cannot be produced because Iraq lacks seeds, fertilizer, tractors and the electricity needed for irrigation equipment. Cities and towns are flooded with untreated waste and unsafe water. Medicine cannot be adequately distributed inside Iraq because of the lack of refrigerated storage facilities.
All of this adds up to the death each day of an estimated 200 Iraqi children under 5 years of age, an April 1998 UNICEF report found. These are not Republican Guard commanders, secret policemen, government officials or even members of Saddam Hussein's family. They are children.
While we celebrate the last Christmas, Hanukkah and Ramadan seasons of the millennium, we should remember that human life, and not political interests, is sacred, and that all weapons of mass destruction -- including deadly economic sanctions -- are abominations in the eyes of God.
The people of Iraq, especially the children, are not our enemies. They must be allowed to live in peace and dignity. In the name of compassion, we must lift economic sanctions now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
