The Resistance in Context

[bemildred]

The media's misrepresentation of the resistance in Iraq has been a central component to the Bush administrations ideology for occupation. As an occupying power the US has ostensibly claimed a duty to protect the Iraqi people from the insecurity that the US presence ironically induces. Notwithstanding the many criticisms we could make of the American media in this regard, what is most frustrating is that many on the so-called "left," self-proclaimed critics of the war, have invested in the ideology of occupation.

I was recently involved in a public event at one of the more prestigious universities here in the US where one of the guests-who has spent considerable time in occupied Iraq and who is also another self-proclaimed critic-denounced the Iraqi resistance as an extreme and terrible bid on behalf of "Wahhabists and former Baathists." When I asked the guest how much time he had actually spent with members of the resistance he could not provide me any substantive experience. In other words his intelligence on violence in Iraq was being provided by the same source that initiated the occupation in the first place-the US administration. It is both ironic and comical that little has been done to substantiate the claims being put forth by the American administration in this regard; but most notably there can be no serious hope of the Americans leaving Iraq so long as the majority of the country "fears" what might happen there next. And the administration's presentation of the resistance as a band of wide-eyed fanatics or desperate men "with nothing to lose" has been employed, quite tactfully, to keep up as much American support for the occupation as Iraqi. What I wish to do here is provide a brief anatomy of the resistance-a description of what it is made of and what it hopes to accomplish.

---

The reason I have laid out some of these more central features is not to convince anyone to adopt them, but rather to demonstrate the political context in which the resistance is thinking and to suggest that moral support from around the world should be more forthcoming. Furthermore, unlike US evidence which refers to phantoms and their websites, individuals that no one has access to or ever see in Iraq, members of the Association of Muslim Scholars or the People's Struggle Movement, amongst others, are available for comment or elaboration and can provide definitive accounts of the Iraqi resistance, its nature and goals. In addition all such groups have adamantly condemned the targeting of Iraqi civilians, after all, why would they not, they are Iraqis. What has been most disturbing has been the ease by which westerners have attributed the most draconian and cruel features to the Iraqi resistance while absolving the US of any duplicity in their occupation. The administration's insistence that the Iraqis (or other "foreign" Arabs) are trying to start a civil war within their own country has never been supported by any logical analysis. Meanwhile it remains true that so long as there is chaos in Iraq the Americans must remain to insure "security."

Just as much of the world regrets investing too heavily in the Bush administration's cries of WMD, so long as the occupation continues there should also be a greater scrutiny of the US's reasons for remaining there. Several things are clear: The United States invasion of Iraq was illegal, immoral, unjustified and destructive. With that in mind it would be insidious to future relations with Iraq and the Arab-Muslim world in general if people in the west are going to deny the right of Iraqis to defend themselves. Secondly, many of the acts of destruction that have been connected to the "insurgency" have found no resonance with the major groups of the Iraqi resistance; in addition there is a broad based political platform that is available to the wider world and which can be reached in this regard. The organized Iraqi resistance has been adamant about its principles and methods but has yet to receive the necessary attention from those in the west who are likewise committed to justice and ending the illegal occupation of Iraq.

CounterPunch

[mike_c]

1. kick!

:kick:

[oblivious]

2. I wish I could find more about this. The truth must out.

This information is hard to find.

a tiny bit on Molly Bingham
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3641767

Some hints from Dahr Jamail
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000242.php#more

And this counterpunce article by LAITH AL-SAUD.

Any more?

[bemildred]

3. One sees these from time to time.

The are a relatively small portion of the information stream,
but the ideas are not at all new or original. Ms Bingham has
the situation right. The US public is not yet ready to awake
from it's stupified and alienated state; but it is not the case
that information from outside the hermetic seal of the US media
empires cannot be had if one cares to look.

[Puzzler]

4. It's a resistance!

You notice how the MSM never uses the word "Resistance" when referring to the opposition to the Iraq occupation? It is, of course, actually a "resistance"... but the problem is that the word "resistance" has positive connotations (as in French WWII resistance, Greek WWII resistance, etc).

-P

[bemildred]

5. Yes, you could spend a great deal of time analyzing the selective

use of language in the state propaganda organs, which in a
backhanded way can tell you a great deal about what is happening
in the "reality based" world. That that must be fended off and
explained away may generally be taken as a perceived threat, for
example; and likewise that which is demonized may be assumed to
be seen as a threat, although not the the US or it's people so
much as the imperial agenda. Compare the treatment of al Sadr
or Chavez for example with that of Karimov or Latortue.