The
Catastrophic Military Occupation Of Iraq Is Rarely Described Accurately
In The U.S. Media
By Kevin Zeese &
Dahr Jamail
30 October, 2007
Countercurrents.org
An Interview with independent
journalist Dahr Jamail “The bogus idea that if the U.S. leaves
things will worsen is both inherently racist and ignorant.”
Dahr
Jamail’s MidEast Dispatches, which can be seen at http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com,
are essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what is happening
in Iraq. (You can sign up on the site to receive his reports via email.)
Dahr has spent a total of 8 months in occupied Iraq as one of only a
few independent US journalists in the country. In the MidEast, Dahr
has also has reported from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. Jamail writes
for the Inter Press Service, The Asia Times and many other outlets.
His reports have also been published in The Nation, The Sunday Herald,
Islam Online, the Guardian, Foreign Policy in Focus, and the Independent
to name just a few. Dahr Jamail’s current book, Beyond the Green
Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, can
be purchased on-line or in book stores.
Kevin Zeese: Compare you
experiences in Iraq with how the media generally described the events.
Do you think most people, Americans in particular, are getting an accurate
picture of what has occurred in Iraq? Is occurring in Iraq?
Dahr Jamail: From the invasion
until now, with few exceptions the so-called mainstream media in the
West has portrayed a drastically different picture of what Iraq is really
like under U.S. military rule. We regularly see stories from the military
point of view, and rarely, if ever, how catastrophic the occupation
has made life for the average Iraqi. Thus, most people are in no way
getting an accurate picture of what has occurred, or what is occurring
today. For example, how many mainstream outlets cite the only scientific
survey which has been done to tally the number of Iraqis killed? Known
as the Lancet report, and conducted by scientists from John's Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Health in conjunction with Iraqi doctors from al-Mustanceriya
University in Baghdad, it found that 655,000 Iraqis had died as the
direct result of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. Over 90 percent
of the people they tracked had death certificates provided by family
members to the researchers. Yet the mainstream media does not cite this
survey, which was authenticated by British Government. Why not? This
is but one example of countless examples.
KZ: You were in Fallujah,
describe how long, when and under what circumstances. I understand you
were there right after the four Blackwater operatives were killed in
Fallujah? I've heard commentators describe the U.S. role in Fallujah
in heroic terms, like something out of a World War II movie. How do
you see the role of the U.S. military in Fallujah?
DJ: I went into Fallujah
several times; first-before the siege to see that the military had an
ongoing policy of collectively punishing the cities residents by cutting
water and electricity everytime they were attacked.
Then during April I went
as the siege was in progress. After the siege ended I returned several
times in May to chronicle what happened. Later, during the November
siege, I covered it by interviewing doctors and refugees from the city.
What the U.S. military did
in that city, under orders from the White House, likens it to a modern
Guernica. Most of the city was destroyed during the second attack-70%
of it was destroyed. Restricted and illegal weapons like cluster bombs
and white phosphorous were used by the military. Marine snipers were
shooting anything that moved in the city.
Horrible war crimes took
place there. Yet, again, the corporate media portrayed it as a heroic
action to free the people of the city from fighters, yet it was mostly
the people from the city themselves fighting to defend their homes,
and their city, from the military. Of all I saw in Iraq, Fallujah stands
as the worst action the U.S. military took, aside from the initial invasion
of the country.
KZ: Were women, children
and the elderly being killed? Was it accidental? Intentional? The U.S.
military talks about precision bombs, what kinds of weapons was the
U.S. using?
DJ: From what I saw in April,
at a small clinic inside Fallujah, it was mostly women, children and
elderly being shot by marine snipers. Everyone I saw coming to the clinic,
people from different parts of the city coming at different times, were
all telling the same story. That snipers were shooting everything that
moved since they were being kept out of the city by the resistance.
It definately appeared to be intentional, and soldiers later verified
this. Later, during the November siege, military leaders declared the
entire city a "free fire zone," meaning they gave soldiers
license to shoot anything they wanted.
As far as "precision"
bombings-there is no such thing. Just the blast radius alone for many
of the munitions means that by definition there will be damage to nearby
locations, which usually means civilian homes.
This has been true since
the initial invasion.
KZ: During the last presidential
campaign I was with Ralph Nader when he was being interviewed on an
international television show and a woman called from Fallujah, this
was after the first battle when Bush pulled back from attacking the
city, and the woman expressed pride that they had pushed back the U.S.
military. At the same time I recall Senator Kerry, who was running for
president, mocking George Bush for backing down on Fallujah. His comments
gave Bush the green light for the second attack on the city where many
more died. Now, I see the top Democratic presidential candidates saying
they cannot promise to get out of Iraq by 2013 and all keep a military
action against Iran on the table. All this is occurring when the vast
majority of Americans want the U.S. out of Iraq and do not want a war
with Iran. What do you make of the political situation in the U.S. and
the electoral choices that peace voters have?
DJ: The silver lining of
this dark cloud we are now living under in our country is that the true
colors of the mainstream candidates in both the Democratic and Republican
parties have the same mindset about U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
I urge people to read the National Security Strategy, along with the
Quadrennial Defense Review Report. These give a pretty clear picture
of U.S. policy in the Middle East-which is essentially to control the
natural resources and the shipping lanes. Until those are addressed
in open debates with politicians, whatever their party, we cannot expect
to see any policy change regarding Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East.
Our political system has been corrupted, and most of the representatives,
aside from a handful, are embedded within that system. It is a systemic
problem, thus, requires solutions which address the system. This means
that voting for one candidate or the other isn't going to address the
real problem.
KZ: What would be the key
false impressions that Americans have about Iraq and how would you correct
them?
DJ: That the occupation has
an end date, that if the U.S. leaves things will worsen in Iraq, and
that by staying they are preventing the civil war from widening. The
occupation, as per the current U.S. strategy supported by all of the
mainstream politicians on either side of the isle, has no end date.
Period. Drawing down the number of troops, if-when it happens, has nothing
to do with moving towards a total withdrawal until the policy is changed.
The bogus idea that if the
U.S. leaves things will worsen is both inherently racist and ignorant.
Iraq is where western civilization began, and the Iraqi people are more
than capable of sorting out the problems within their country. In addition,
the majority of those current problems were caused by and continued
to be propagated by the foreign occupation forces. When the occupation
ends, thus begins the first step towards solving all of the problems
within Iraq.
The rhetoric that the U.S.
is preventing a worsening of the civil war by staying is also erroneous.
Via arming Sunnis and politically supporting Shias, along with facilitating
the death squads, the U.S. presence in Iraq only exacerbates the sectarian
tensions they helped to foster in the first place. Again, total U.S.
withdrawal will be the first step towards reconciliation and peace.
KZ: What advice would you
give the U.S. peace movement and Americans opposed to the Iraq occupation
at this difficult time?*
DJ: I feel the two single
greatest things people can do to help end the occupation are to support
Iraq Veterans Against the War, and to continue to organize locally.
IVAW is the spearhead, I feel, of any movement that will be effective
in ending the occupation, and organizing locally for local, national,
and international issues is paramount for building the infrastructure
necessary to radically change the collapsing system we find ourselves
in today. (Iraw Veterans Against the War can be found at www.IVAW.orghttp://www.ivaw.org/.
If you want to get involved in local organizing contact the author at
[email protected].
KZ: I understand you have
participated in deep ecology workshops with Joanna Macy (see www.JoannaMacy.net)
who is a long-term activist and is now involved in what she calls "The
Great Turning" from the industrial growth society to a life-sustaining
civilization. Do you see connections between the Iraq occupation and
issues like climate change and the ecological crisis?
DJ: They are inseparable.
The runaway train that is this Late Stage Capitalism, of infinite growth
at the cost of human rights and our ecology, brings us the latest symptom,
which is Iraq. The U.S. military is one of the largest polluters on
the planet-thus the direct link of the ambitions for U.S. global empire,
using the military to enforce this, runaway corporatism and all the
destruction to the ecology that that growth entails, and thus, our global
climate change crisis.
Kevin Zeese
is Director of Democracy Rising (see www.DemocracyRising.US) and Voters
for Peace (see www.VotersForPeace.US).
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.