Stoopid Stuff

The Myth of the Foreign Fighter

Why is it that the Bush administration is so focused on convincing the American people, and the world, for that matter, that the bulk of the insurgency in Iraq is composed of foreign fighters, jihadis and the organization headed by Zarqawi? Not withstanding the very strong possibility that Zarqawi doesn't actually exist, an issue we will address shortly.

The key point is that the vast majority of the insurgency in Iraq is Iraqis who don't want to be occupied by a foreign military, expecially an outspokenly Christian one. Think about it. How would most Americans react to being invaded and occupied by an Islamic military? We would plant roadside bombs, assasinate occupation military and political leaders, and kill Americans who collaborated with the occupation. The history of a people coming together to resist invasion and occupation is as old as the concept of the nation state. No matter what the cause, purpose or outcome, it is simply unacceptable to countenance an occupation force. So for our leadership to tell us otherwise is obviously, provably false. It is an example of this administration's willingness to twist facts, no matter how obviously, that they can stand and deny this. And it is an indictment of the American people and the American press that, time and again, it goes unchallenged.

So why does the Administration stick to this tendency to categorize the insurgents as terrorists and foreign fighters? First, the fact that they keep using the term "foreign fighters" is laughable in it's barefaced hypocrisy. The largest number of "foreign fighters" currently under arms in Iraq is represented by the 150,000 American Troops. How is it that Bush can say that foreign fighters are a problem when he commands most of them? But beyond that, it is most important that Bush create a PR environment where we are welcomed benefactors. Now, this should be impossible under the circumstances, but the political considerations allow him to get away with it. The puppet government we have put in place in Iraq needs our military strength to stay in power. So they help us by saying the things we want them to. The Shia never would have come to power, in spite of being the overwhelming majority, without American military power, so they are willing to play along with the little charade for a while, at least. And Bush can continue to mislead the public about his intentions in the middle east, claiming to be fighting terrorism while he builds permanent military bases and feeds lucrative contracts to his business cronies. Secondly, if we're fighting foreign terrorists, we could make a case that this Iraqi debacle is somehow winnable. But if it's a home grown insurgency, fighting the military occupation of their country, there is no way to ever "win". It would also be important to point out that the biggest terrorist in Iraq is the American Military. No matter how you define "terrorism", the american actions in Iraq will always qualify. You have to ask yourself: When the news reports an American military operation in Iraq, and the article says "29 terrorists were killed", what does that really mean? Well, it's likely (but not necessarily) accurate that 29 people were killed by Gunfire, Airstrikes and Artillery. But were they all "terrorists"? Of course not. The rule of the game is ALL dead Iraqis automatically become terrorists. No innocent civilians are EVER killed, in spite of the use of overwhelming military power in civilian neighborhoods. As an aside, I clearly remember the American squeals of outrage when the Russians ran heavy armored military operations in Grozny, the capitol of Chechnya. And the only difference is that we mostly do it in smaller cities.

Now, what about this character "Zarqawi"? He did, apparently, exist at one time, a small time jihadi in Afghanistan who was not only NOT affiliated with al Quaida, he actually at one time instructed members of his militia to NOT contribute money to Osama bin Laden. Most likely he has been dead for months, if not years. So why do we hear his name so much? And if he's dead, why doesn't the leadership of the insurgency expose this American lie? In an odd convergence of interests, everyone benefits from the fiction of Zarqawi's existence. The Americans get to personalize the conflict, something we have always felt it necessary to do. Whether it was Muammar Ghadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Khomeini or bin Laden, we have always needed to put a face on our enemies. And in this case it makes the enemy not an Iraqi, but a foreign terrorist meddler in Iraq's affairs, not to mention someone who's organization can be defeated militarily. The Shi'ite/Kurd alliance we installed in Iraq's government get someone to blame. When car bombs kill Iraqi civilians, the Iraqi leadership can deflect criticism by vowing vengence on the animals who did this. And, it is additionally helpful that Zarqawi is a Jordanian Sunni, someone the Shia leaders can vow to kill without fear of retribution.

The important thing to remember is much bigger, more broad and has more immediate impact on our lives than the drama playing out in Iraq and the Gulf region. The important thing to remember is that this administration LIES to us. Constantly, every day, about almost EVERYTHING. No matter what they say, whether it's Bush, Cheney, Rice, McClellan or any of an indeterminate number of spokespeople and sympathizers, balance what they say against things we know to be true. View every statement through a jaded lens of "you've never told me the truth about anything important, why should I believe you now" and consider who benefits from a world represented by their statements. And you'll see right through them.

posted by mikey @ 6:24 PM