The Supreme International Crime
By Max Kantar
A recent study conducted by U.S. military focus groups last December provided very revealing information regarding the beliefs and values of the Iraqi people. As reported in the Washington Post, the study discovered that, "Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them, and see the departure of [United States] 'occupying forces' as the key to national reconciliation."
Simply put, the Iraqis are espousing America's highest professed values, being those outlined at the Nuremberg Tribunals.
As chief American prosecutor, Robert Jackson clearly stated, a war of aggression "is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Jackson further noted that the tribunals would certainly be a farce if the United States failed to apply the Nuremberg standards to itself in the future.
The hypocrisy of the United States government and the corporate media is exposed very easily if we look back at the U.S. position on the USSR's aggressive invasion and occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s.
According to a U.S. state department bulletin in 1986, the U.S. was calling for the immediate withdrawal of foreign [Soviet Union] troops from Afghanistan, self determination for the Afghans, and the safe and immediate return of the 2-3 million Afghan refugees.
The U.S. statement went on in its self righteous glory to declare that it supports the Afghan "liberation" fighters in their "historic struggle in the cause of liberty."
Conversely, today, when it is us committing these crimes that we harshly condemned the Soviets for, the freedom fighters resisting foreign occupation and tyranny, have now become the terrorists, and the foreign war criminals have become the liberators and heros.
Of course, the media cannot discuss these inherent truths because the responsible class of men and women are engaged in a superficial rhetorical battle over who "supports the troops" the most.
What would we have thought of the Soviets if their people continually blasted dissenters for not 'supporting' the troops who were carrying out mass murder and the supreme international crime?
The framework of the discussion on the Iraq war is of absolutely no moral value. We are constantly told from the so called 'anti-war' side that Iraq is a "failed policy" or a "poor strategy."
These empty remarks only solidify the deeply imperial mentality and ideal that we have the right to commit any kind of international terrorism or aggression that we see fit, meaning, as long as it is good for commercial investment and big business.
Needless to say, it is not of any importance what the Iraqis want. They are nothing more than pawns in this violent game of global monopoly and conquest. Of course they don't know what's best for themselves and who cares anyway?
If we are prepared to accept the most basic moral and legal principles that we profess but do not apply, then we must call for the unconditional and immediate removal of the entire U.S. presence from Iraq and pay massive reparations to the Iraqi public.
Using the most elementary of principles, Iraq must be left to Iraqis, meaning the Iraqi public, not the current puppet government that was forced into power to protect U.S. elite interests.
Iraq has been crushed beyond recognition, with over 1.3 million human beings butchered (Oxford Research Bureau), over five million people driven out, and tens of millions of lives ruined.
This supreme international crime and slaughter is being carried out in our names. We can turn the other cheek, or we can stop it together. You decide.
Max Kantar is an undergraduate of Sociology at Ferris State University. He can be reached for comment at firstname.lastname@example.org