[Marxism] 'Our troops' and theirs

[John M Cox <coxj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.zmag.org

Our Troops and Theirs
      by Suvrat Raju ; December 27, 2003


          Nicholas Kristof tabulated the casualties of the war in the New
York Times on Nov 19: "... at a cost so far of 400
          American lives and (one study suggests) at least 11,000 Iraqi
lives".(1) I was struck by the obvious racism.
          Kristof does not mention it, but he is counting American troops
and Iraqi civilians. The 30,000 Iraqi soldiers who
          perished in the war are not awarded the status of human beings.
Kristof is a meek liberal but turning to more
          radical sources, I was distressed to find the same attitude. For
example, writing for Counterpunch, David Vest
          argued that reconstruction benefits should be awarded to
American troops and Iraqi civilians.(2)
          <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

          The American government has set out the terms of discourse for
discussions on the cost of the war. "We did not
          mean to kill their civilians, but those who took up arms against
our boys deserved to die. You dare not suggest
          otherwise". The anti-war movement, in a display of rare
unanimity, has accepted these rules. In the mainstream as
          well as the alternative media, I have read dozens of articles
discussing the plight of American troops. It is almost
          laughable to think of an article devoted to the travails of
Iraqi militants. We seem to have accepted that they are
          illegitimate terrorists. I believe that this is part of a larger
problem that we need to grapple with: our attitude
          towards the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />U.S. military and
          the Iraqi resistance.

          The right wing has tried hard to appropriate the troops. Before
the war, I remember counter-protesters at anti-war
          rallies yelling at me to 'support the troops'. Michael Moore
points to this: "One thing was for sure -- if you said
          anything against the war, you had BETTER follow it up
immediately with this line: 'BUT I SUPPORT THE
          TROOPS!'"(3) Bush, with his foray to the USS Abraham Lincoln and
his daredevil visit to Iraq, has tried hard to
          associate himself with the troops. This tendency has been noted
and criticized.

          What has not been noted is that the anti-war movement has also
tried to appropriate the troops. Lest anyone
          suspect Moore of blasphemy, he quickly adds: "people like you
have ALWAYS supported 'the troops'." Moore
          typifies a branch of the anti-war movement that proceeds with a
highly romanticized view of the American army.
          In this view, 'our kids' oppose the occupation and would like to
return home.

          This viewpoint has its merits. It is undeniable that military
service is a form of oppression. To quote Moore again:
          "They are our poor, our working class". Moreover, it is true
that many troops are speaking out against the
          occupation. Organizations like Military Families Speak Out
[MFSO], are an important part of the anti-occupation
          movement.

          However, this view cannot accommodate Corporal Ryan Dupre who
was quoted during the war: "Wait till I get
          hold of a friggin' Iraqi... I'll just kill him"(4) or the hubris
captured in the famous photograph of American troops
          ensconced on Saddam's throne. Neither does it account for the
fact that occupation troops are now guilty of
          every crime in the book ranging from rape and murder to petty
larceny. Not a day passes without the emergence
          of a new story of the sadistic exploits of 'the troops'. Tens of
thousands of Iraqis have died. 'The troops' killed
          them.

          In my view, the romantic outlook is untenable. I find it
especially troublesome because it blinds us to the real
          victims. This was brought home to me when I visited the Vietnam
Memorial in Washington while attending the
          anti-occupation rally on Oct 25. Now, this is an embarrassingly
obvious propaganda monument. It was not built
          out of any sympathy for the troops but rather to whip up
patriotic feelings and direct people's anger away from
          difficult questions into a tangible symbol of tragedy. However,
it is amazing that people can look at this
          monument and not ask the obvious question: "Why is there not a
monument about 60 times as large
          commemorating the Vietnamese who died in the war? Indeed, why
isn't a single inch devoted to them?" It is a
          short step from this disgusting structure to casting the US as a
victim of the Vietnam War. "The destruction was
          mutual", President Jimmy Carter explained.(5)

          I am also troubled by the argument that we must concentrate on
American casualties, because that constitutes
          the most effective propaganda. If this is true, we are sunk. Not
only does this imply massive racism within the
          population it also means that we will never be able to organize
against wars like the Kosovo war, which as
          Wesley Clark proudly pointed out recently, was prosecuted
without a single American casualty.(6)

          I do not deny that we should continue to organize the soldiers,
help them to desert and support them in their
          efforts against the occupation. But this should be done with an
eye to the reality of the American army.
          Moreover, I believe that our primary appeal should be a
humanistic appeal focusing on the people of Iraq.

          Details of the Iraqi resistance have been hard to come by. The
media has glossed over the role of organized labor
          choosing to focus on the militants. I would like to discuss the
attitude of the anti-war movement towards the Iraqi
          resistance as a whole and then specialize to the militants. In
both countries, the movements are extremely diverse,
          so I am wary of generalizations.

          In a recent article, the editors of Monthly Review recalled that
Kipling, on the verge of the annexation of
          Philippines, encouraging the US to take up its new racial
responsibilities.(7) Kipling wrote:

          "Your new caught sullen peoples,
           Half devil and half child."

          It is easy to analyze the Bush administration within the
framework of "The White Man's Burden". However, I
          suggest that this paradigm applies equally well to sections of
the anti-war movement.

          It is arguable that the anti-war movement, through US public
opinion, has a say in running Iraq. The movement
          has accepted this strange power with effortless grace and has
proceeded to furiously debate the future of Iraq.
          This tendency is prominent among the supporters of Howard Dean.
To them, it is obvious that the US must
          continue to rule Iraq. It is just that Bush and his cronies at
Halliburton are doing a bad job; they would do better.
          In this worldview, the Iraqi resistance is a minor irritant.

          Large groups of activists proceed with the idea that the
re-liberation of Iraq is crucially dependent on them. This
          also accords very little respect to the Iraqi resistance. [The
counter-example is again to be found in organized
          labor. US Labor Against the War [USLAW] has formed excellent
partnerships with Iraqi trade unions.]

          In a recent article for Signs, Iris Marion Young argues that the
appeal of the war derived from the imagery of
          'masculinist protection' that the Bush administration
invoked.(8) This paradigm also applies to the peace
          movement. Sections of the movement adopt a protective attitude
towards Iraq. "'We' need to protect 'them' from
          the Bush monster". This hypothesis is admittedly far-flung but I
would argue this is one of the reasons that the
          peace movement focuses on Iraqi civilians. They arouse its
protective instincts whereas Iraqi militants do not.

          First and foremost, we need to acknowledge the right of the
Iraqi people to resist imperialism in any way they see
          fit. This includes the right to violent resistance.

          I am not discounting the role of non-violent resistance. It is
just that I believe it is somewhat futile for the anti-war
          movement to debate the strategic merits and demerits of militant
resistance in Iraq. We are not in Iraq. We need to
          focus on our responsibilities in the U.S.

          It is clear that violence will continue to be important in the
resistance. It is also clear that the administration will
          use this violence as an excuse to perpetuate the occupation.
Hence, it is incumbent upon the anti-war movement
          to take a public stance on the issue. We need to explain the
reasons for the violence to the American people.

          A few days ago, a person I was speaking to told me that "Iraqis
are nasty people because they are blowing up the
          troops." It is essential that we fight a propaganda battle
against this mindset. Whether or not we believe violent
          tactics are effective, it is our responsibility to publicly
point out that the militant resistance is not composed of
          'terrorist' but is a legitimate, grassroots movement against the
occupation. Our aim should be to ensure that the
          next time Bush uses the phrase 'terrorist attacks on our
troops', everyone doubles up with laughter.

          The militants gain further legitimacy when we recognize that the
resistance is directed against American military
          targets with precautions -- such as warning signs in Arabic --
to avoid Iraqi casualties. I do not wish to
          dehumanize American troops soon after pointing out that the
American government dehumanizes foreign troops.
          However, I do believe that an American soldier has no right to
walk down the streets of Baghdad with a gun,
          humiliate or in any way exercise power over the native
population. I also firmly believe that the people of Iraq
          have a right to self-defense.

          The only resolution to this dilemma, respecting the human rights
of the Iraqi people and the occupation troops, is
          to bring the troops home.


          Notes

          1. Safety First, Nicholas Kristof, New York Times, Nov 19, 2003.
          2. Bush Drops the Mask,  David Vest, Counterpunch, Dec 11, 2003:
          http://www.counterpunch.org/vest12112003.html
          3. Letters the Troops Have Sent Me, Michael Moore, Dec 19, 2003:
          http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
          4. US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death,
Mark Franchetti, Sunday Times(London), Mar 30,2003.
          5. "Well, the destruction was mutual. You know, we went to
Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to
          impose American will on other people. We went there to defend
the freedom of the South Vietnamese, and I don't
          feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves to
assume the status of culpability." Transcript of
          President's News Conference on Foreign and Domestic Issues, New
York Times, Mar 25, 1977. Also see: The
          Holocaust Industry, Norman Finkelstein, Verso(2000), Pg 84.
          6. A New Approach to Iraq, Wesley Clark, Harvard Crimson, Dec 8,
          2003:http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356666
          7. Kipling, the 'White Man's Burden,' and U.S. Imperialism,
Monthly Review, Nov 2003:
          http://www.monthlyreview.org/1103editors.htm
          8. The Logic of Masculinist Protection: Reflections on the
Current Security State, Iris Marion Young, Signs,
          Vol.29, Autumn 2003.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=4766




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism