Meet the new boss...

The "official" the end of the Iraq war was announced by
George "I'm willing to let other people die for my
country" Bush weeks back. Someone should tell the
Iraqis. Almost every day, the US body count increases
and Iraqi resentment and hatred of their "liberators"
grows. Pretty much as would be expected, given the real
reasons for US intervention.

Now with it becoming increasingly unlikely that WMD will
be found, Bush and Blair are back peddling like no one's
business. And not very successfully. Bush is now talking
about a "weapons program" rather than the weapons a few
months ago he was so sure existed in vast, and known,
qualities. Now, Bush says, looters may have got their
hands on them. Sure. And given that US troops are under
constant attack, he seems a bit blasé about this
possibility. But as in Vietnam, it's not his skin which
is in danger (although impeachment should make him
sweat).

The pro-"blowing up civilians" crowd seem to have
discovered their argument of final defence. The WMD line
is, understandably, being downplayed in favour of the
"freedom for the Iraqi people" position. The real reason
for the war, it is claimed now, was our deepest concern
for the Iraqi people, a concern strangely missing when
Saddam was our favourite and when we preferred him in
power to a popular uprising in 1991 (this repression
being the source of many of the mass graves now
hypocritically being used to retroactively justify the
invasion).

We should remember that this argument is a lie, given
that no one, including Bush and Blair, asked the
American or British people to liberate the Iraqis. In
fact, Blair and Bush both explicitly said they would
leave the Iraqis to Saddam's tender mercies if he
disarmed. No, Saddam was to be attacked because of the
immediate threat he posed to the US and the UK. The
"humanitarian" excuse was cynically tacked on when it
became clear no one was buying the WMD excuse.

No, we must forget these little inconvenient facts and
concentrate on Iraqi "freedom." The pro-war crowd say
that the Iraqi people are "free." What does that entail?
Well, apparently they are free to be shot by US troops
if they protest against the decisions of the occupying
power. They are free to read the press censored by US
officials. They are free to speak, as long as they do
not say anything the US dislikes. They are free to
protest, as long as its not about something the
occupiers object to (such as the occupation). They have
been freed to have their homes raided and, if arrested,
bound and a hood placed over their head. And free to
experience indefinite detention without trial, prisoners
are also free to be subject to the psychological torture
the US occupying forces have cheerfully admitted to
using. Moreover, Amnesty International reports, they
are, if prisoners, free to be subjected to "cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, banned by
international law" by US troops. Amnesty, incidentally,
was speaking up for the human rights of actual Iraqis
back when Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam's hand and helping
him out with weapons.

The Iraqis have also been freed of the terrible job of
running their own country or even electing those who do.
The US has placed an Iraqi government on indefinite
hold, while the US appointed ruler, Bremer, unilaterally
cancelled local elections and self-rule in provincial
cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to
install their own handpicked mayors and administrators,
many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders. Bremer
opined that "elections that are held too early can be
destructive." While he magnanimously stated that he was
"not opposed to" self-rule by Iraqis, he wanted "to do
it a way that takes care of our concerns." These
"concerns" revolve around who would win the elections:
"In a postwar situation like this, if you start holding
elections, the people who are rejectionists tend to
win." So, Iraqis will be allowed to vote once they pick
the right people.

Ostensibly, Bremer is concerned that "former Baathists"
and "Islamists" may win any elections held now. Yet his
concern over Baathists being in power seems selective,
given that ten weeks into the occupation the cities and
towns outside of Baghdad are largely administered by
former Iraqi military and police officers and people who
had close ties to the Baath Party.

So, in summary, the Iraqi people are "free" while being
subject to an occupying power which bans protests, uses
censorship, mass arrests, indefinite detention without
trail and shots protestors as well as cancels elections
and appoints former regime officials to positions of
responsibility. All from the palaces and prisons used by
the old regime to terrorise and torture its subjects.
What a coincidence...

Should we be surprised? After all, in announcing that it
would not count Iraqi dead during the war, the US
military showed that, both literally and figuratively,
dead Iraqis only counted if Saddam killed them. The same
with Iraqi freedoms. For the pro-war crowd, freedoms
only seem to matter if Saddam was destroying them. If
the US does it, then it is not an issue. Of course US
tyranny is nowhere near as extreme (so far) as their old
pal's Saddam's, but surely we are entitled to demand a
slightly better definition of "freedom" than that?
And given the pro-war camp's concern for "democracy", it
sees strange that these new found friends of Iraqi
freedom are pushers of the "WMD do not matter" position.
After all, they are upholding a deeply undemocratic
position, namely that "our" government can lie to us
with impunity, and it is no big deal. They are arguing
that we are too stupid to make informed decisions about
our lives and we need to be lied to by the elite in
order to acquiesce to the "right" decision. This is a
deeply frightening viewpoint, but as Chomsky has
discussed in great depth on many occasions, the common
perspective on democracy in elite circles.

And it should remind us exactly what kind of "democracy"
Bush and Blair are planning for the Iraqis.

But there is cause for celebration. The "liberation" of
the Iraqi economy from the Iraqi people is forging
ahead. American officials are mapping out a plan to sell
off the state-owned companies to private investors as
soon as possible. That is, without waiting for the
establishment of an Iraqi government. Thus Iraq is being
carved up and sold off to US corporations, with this
instant privatisation ensuring that any government
nominally elected by the Iraqis can do little about it.

Sadly, the "Iraqi Freedom" excuse for war is being
exposed as being a baseless as all the rest. What a
surprise. The anti-war camp has been vindicated yet
again. Iraq is occupied, not free. This was an
imperialist war, nothing else.