November 10, 2003
Is This What "Liberation" Looks Like?
As we know, the U.S. military has responded to the latest downing of one of its helicopters by sweeping through Tikrit and blasting abandoned buildings suspected of being used by insurgents as hideouts, and menacing that, "This is to remind the town that we have teeth and claws and we will use them."
More generally, "We are on offensive operations. You can expect to see an increase in the level of intensity and the amount of activity that is occurring, especially in those 'challenging' areas."
Some notes on these latest developments.
Though eyewitnesses reported seeing the helicopter having been fired upon, the U.S. didn't confirm until 24 hours after the event that it had indeed been shot down. Yet, the "retaliation" began before dawn Saturday -- in other words, well before confirmation that it hadn't been an accident. Granted, the initial evasiveness was surely just a PR maneouvre. But if we take the military at its own word, it launched its "retaliation" before even knowing what it was "retaliating" against.
As this blog has noted before now, it is entirely within the rights of those under foreign occupation to engage in resistance. General Assembly Resolution 37/43, passed in December of 1982, "Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle."
To put it in terms the Bush Administration seems to understand: the "coalition" forces are the "bad guys". The resistance may or may not be at least partially comprised of "bad" guys as well, but these bad guys at least have the right to defend their own country.
The "retaliation" destroyed suspected hideouts. Is this how military "justice" works -- by acting upon suspicions? Yeah, that was a rhetorical question (just ask the victims -- numbering into the tens of thousands, by some accounts -- of Bill Clinton's 1998 destruction of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory).
Why, if the U.S. truly suspected these abandoned buildings (and if they really were abandoned) of being insurgent hideouts, did it wait until after the downing of the helicopter to take them out? The "retaliation" may play well on the teevee, but that's clearly what it's designed for: to reassure the viewing public that the "coalition" knows what the fuck it's doing, even while it's perfectly obvious that it doesn't have the slightest clue.
In justifying the newest rampages, one anonymous U.S. official helpfully reminds us that, "Part of warfare is coercion and affecting the hearts and minds of the enemy and certainly a show of force is a tool that can be used by commander." So we're no longer trying to win hearts and minds, but rather to "affect" them? And we're still at war? And freedom is slavery? Got it.
Posted by Eddie Tews at November 10, 2003 02:44 PM
Comments