blog.zmag.org/ttt -> blog.zmag.org/ttt/
Take, say, Hitlers occupation of Western Europe and Russias postwar occupation of Eastern Europe. In both cases, the countries were run by collaborators, security forces and civilian, with the troops of the conqueror in the background. There was courageous partisan resistance under Hitler, but without extensive foreign support, it would have been wiped out. In Eastern Europe, the US tried to support resistance inside Russia as well until the early 1950s, and of course Russia was in confrontation with the world dominant superpower. Continue reading The Iraq Occupation Posted by Noam Chomsky at 11:09 AM .
At one point, he says The invasion of Iraq brought two murderous regimes to an end: the sanctions regime, and the rule of Saddam Hussein. Based on my observations when I was in Baghdad in January, and on some press reports since then, I think its misleading to say that the sanctions regime was ended. There are no longer any legal restrictions on imports and huge amounts of consumer goods are flooding the markets of Iraq. In a more meaningful sense, however, the sanctions continue and have actually been substantially worsened.
Its not easy to determine the opinions of people under military occupation, and though there are many western-run polls, they tend to evade the crucial questions. In the most recent and extensive polls, on the issue of control over security, about 70 wanted Iraqis to take control and another 5 wanted the US-appointed Iraqi Government Council to take care of security. About 7 wanted US forces to take responsibility, and 5 coalition forces. There were no other choices, so we do not know opinions about UN and security. US-UK policies have vacillated over the years, but there has been one constant strain: Iraqis must not rule Iraq. They can be permitted nominal sovereignty, but under outside control: UK in the early years, US now. That is the perception of Iraqis today as well, so western-run polls reveal. There is a remarkable struggle underway right now over who will rule Iraq. I am not referring to bombings, but to the steadfast refusal of Iraqis to accept the plans for their future of the overlord.
The pre-war demonstrations were without historical precedent, and surely important. The anniversary demos were also without precedent, and again surely will have an impact. Obviously no one expects the same turnout in a mass effort to prevent a war and in a later mass effort to compel the occupiers to grant Iraqis authentic sovereignty, along with a host of other highly significant concerns. Those who participate should understand that demos are doubly significant: first as a message to the rulers, but more important, as one step in the far more important process of popular mobilization and activism that goes on day after day. But they do throw a wrench in the works, raising the costs of the next move. And if they continue and grow, they can halt its course, reverse the course, and dismantle it. But only if they serve the primary function of popular mobilization, bringing people together, energizing them, increasing their commitment to engage in the constant hard work of education and organizing, and undertaking appropriate actions that range from very local to international in scope.
|
http://csua.com/feed/