Op-Ed
WAR IS OVER! (if you want it)
Email: 
Share: 
Guest Room | Alexander Immerman ’09
Here in the United States of America, we have seen the fruition of heartbreaking milestones. The fifth year of the Iraq War has passed. 4,000 American soldiers have been killed there and 30,000 wounded. These numbers are upsetting and tragic, but often overlooked in this paper and in the media nationwide is the catastrophic toll on the Iraqi population.
Estimates of Iraqi deaths due to the American invasion differ greatly between sources. IraqBodyCount.org has thus far confirmed nearly 90,000 documented civilian deaths from violence. The Lancet study, published in 2006, estimated 654,965 excess Iraqi deaths related to the war. The Opinion Research Business (ORB), an independent U.K. polling firm, estimated in 2008 a death toll of 1,033,000. With regard to causality, ORB claimed that 89 percent of these deaths were a direct result of violence, 48 percent as a result of gunshot wounds. The United States Government has repeatedly denounced such studies as “inflated,” though it does not keep track of Iraqi civilian casualties itself. The true number of Iraqi civilian deaths attributable to the American attack and occupation may never be known, but it is, indisputably, staggering.
Moreover, Iraq has become the epicenter of an enormous and ever-growing refugee crisis. The Brookings Institution’s latest publication puts the total number of displaced persons at 4,775,000. These statistics imply that 20 percent of Iraq’s total population has been killed or displaced because of American national policies of aggression and occupation. The attention given to American losses is obviously disproportionate to those of the Iraqis. This discussion was initiated with a biased prompt: how the war affects people here, as opposed to people there—as if the former were significantly more demanding of our attention. An open conversation nevertheless serves the interest of Americans, Iraqis, soldiers, students, veterans, and all people.
I would like to make clear that it is American national policy, not American soldiers, that groups like Campus Antiwar Network (CAN) and Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) protest. On the contrary, CAN has been outreaching to and working with veterans, active-duty soldiers, and ROTC cadets and midshipmen here at Cornell and at Fort Drum in upstate New York. IVAW recently held the historic Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan investigation in the spirit of the 1969 Winter Soldier Investigation, conducted by Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and the Citizens Commission of Inquiry. These investigations include testimony of veterans regarding war crimes and atrocities, which they have personally committed or witnessed.
The objective of the Winter Soldier investigations was to demonstrate that war crimes, such as the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam (the killing of 347-500 unarmed civilians, primarily women and children, by American soldiers) or those at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, were neither caused by a few figurative “bad apples,” nor were dismissible instances of the tragedy inherent in all war, but these atrocities were, in fact, precipitated by national policy. In the case of Vietnam, policies such as “tally all dead as Viet Cong,” were tailored to produce favorable public perceptions of the war, rather than tangible positive results. Such policies are a travesty, not only for the victims of atrocities, but also for the soldiers ordered to commit them. Today such national policies include the denial of human rights at Camp X-Ray in Guantánamo Bay, the slaughter of civilians by mercenary contractors not subject to judicial review, and the routine torture of prisoners.
It is not activists and protestors, but the United States Government, which is failing miserably to provide sufficiently for wounded and traumatized American soldiers and the resulting statistics illustrate an astoundingly higher price for war than the already astronomical figures often cited regarding the cost of war. According to a 2005 CBS News Investigation, in that year alone there were more than 6,250 suicides among those who had served in the armed forces. That means 120 veterans each and every week die from suicide (this figure is not limited to veterans of Iraq). That is also more than have died in combat in Iraq since the invasion and occupation began five years ago. And again, that is in just one year. The Federal Times reported that as of 2006 the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs had a backlog of 400,000 pending claims. Furthermore the Government barred press access to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to conceal atrocious conditions and has banned the filming of fallen American’s caskets in an effort to thwart negative perception of the war.
CAN opposes all American wars of aggression, including the occupation of Iraq. The United States’ invasion and prolonged occupation of Iraq is in direct opposition to any reasonable construal of self-governance or economic self-determination. American employment of “divide and conquer” strategies has promoted sectarian conflict where previously none existed and the presence of a foreign occupation force has posed a total hindrance to the Iraqis’ capacity for self-determination.
The Iraqi people, themselves, have overwhelmingly (78 percent) expressed the opinion that the United States military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing. According to the same poll, conducted by the University of Maryland in 2006, 71 percent of Iraqis responded that they would like to see American troops withdrawn within the year. It is frequently objected that the power vacuum that would ensue after an American withdrawal would produce an increase in militia fighting and sectarian violence. Dahr Jamail, an unembedded journalist who has reported from occupied Iraq, spoke at Cornell on March 25 and directly addressed this issue. The Iraqi people, he said in his lecture, understand this risk, but they also understand that such militias do not have F-16s, will not use white phosphorus, and do not have cluster bombs — the risks posed by an American withdrawal pale in comparison to the daily destruction that is guaranteed by continued American occupation. It is with such data and analyses taken into careful consideration that CAN demands the immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq and payment of reparations to the Iraqi people.
If we value our economy, we, the American people, must not condone the reprehensible squandering of tax dollars on wars of aggression and occupation. If we value our civil liberties, we, the American people, must oppose the rapidly growing domestic spying and mercenary contracting industries and stop the racist scapegoating that seeps through our media. If we support our troops and veterans, we, the American people, must bring them home now and provide them with the benefits and medical care they require. If we value our security, we, the American people, must stop forging foes and creating enemies abroad. Until the United States attacked it, there was no “Al-Qaeda in Iraq.” There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no democracy or self-determination in Iraq. We, as the American people, as Cornell students, as veterans, as educators, as service members, and as frustrated human beings must act. We must stop sending our troops to die for lies, we must stop killing people for lies, and we must say “no” to the continued occupation of Iraq.
Alexander Immerman is a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is a member of CAN, the Campus Anti-war Network, and can be contacted at afi2@cornell.edu. Guest Room appears periodically.
Misleading statments and missing objectivity
Every time I read these sorts of posts I tend to wonder who members of groups like CAN are trying tirelessly to impress with twisted statistics and blanket statements where they claim to be "outreaching to and working with veterans, active-duty soldiers, and ROTC cadets and midshipmen here at Cornell." Perhaps they are reaching out to a few, but their examples of methods for doing so are preposterous. Most often groups such as these seek to embrace cooperation with those in the military community who either support or serve to further their agenda. The numbers of letters I get from members in and around the Cornell community displaying agreement with my past article reflect this fact and directly refute Mr. Immerman's claim. Veterans and service members belonging to groups such as IVAW or those who testify during events such as Winter Soldier fit the profile of those in the military community CAN supports, not the average soldier or veteran.
To put this in prospective the group IVAW boasts 900 members. Let’s assume this represents 1% of the total number of military community members who espouse the particular viewpoint of IVAW. That allows for a lenient total of about 100,000 individuals. Figure in that roughly 1,000,0000 soldiers, sailors and marines have served in these campaigns you can see that the opinion is clearly a minority and it's not because veterans are stupid or stubborn, but because the 'evidence' members of groups like IVAW present of systemic abuse is just not corroborated by a vast majority of the military community. If such practices were policy wouldn't you think that more veterans would be aware of it as it would be in the least distributed as policy to everyone who may need to make use of it?
So left out is the fact that these are still only a few stories of specific instances that have occurred in Iraq or Afghanistan NOT military policy nor do they have anything to do with examples stated of Guantánamo Bay or civilian contractor operations in Iraq. Those things are outside the scope of military involvement in Iraq and concern a national policy that should be addressed outside the scope of military involvement in Iraq. Lumping them together softens CANs argument especially among the military community. Soldiers often dislike these policies as much as CAN does, but it doesn't affect the job done on the ground by soldiers in Iraq.
You can look at the statistics and see the same disregard for the need for full and accurate disclosure. A statement is made that a polling firm states that there are over 1,000,000 Iraqi casualties and that 89% are a direct result of violence and 45% of those being gunshot wounds. Of course the military is going to claim this number is grossly inflated, everyone should see that. In order for there to be even close to 890,000 violent deaths that would be an average of over 450 violent deaths per day, over 200 deaths by gunshot every day since this war began. It should easily be seen as preposterous. I challange anyone to find evidence of more than a handfull of days where there was even close to this level of violence in the country.
What about the claims of the military being the cause of increased sectarian tensions? Maybe the military allowed it to erupt, but we certainly didn't cause it. Statistics used to show that everything was A-OK in Iraq between Sunni and Shia before we arrived are misleading. Mr. Jamail claimed as evidence that 50% of all registered marriages were inter-sect marriages. What's left out is the many couples outside of Baghdad or a few other major city centers even bothered to register their marriages. Along with the fact that in a society where power and influence on even the lowest levels, such as ability just to hold a position of employment in the socialist economy, it was common practice to arrange marriages that furthered this cause. Many Shia looked to have their children marry Sunni partners in order to improve their own status within the community. However, we, as Mr. Jamail does, tend to look at statistics such as marriage from a western perspective, reflecting harmony which it often doesn't represent.
Other statistics are used like the statement claimed to be from some Iraqi's that "at least the insurgents don't have White Phosphorous, cluster bombs and Apache's." One must ask the question, where was Mr. Jamail when he got this response, was it universal. There are just as many Iraqi's in other sectors of Baghdad and outlaying regions of the country who would say "at least the Americans don't blow up our markets, indiscriminately murder our family members, or destroy our mosques" Statistics that are claimed to show Iraqi's don't want American's in their country are often skewed. The polling is unscientific. The question is often a loaded one, who wouldn't agree that Iraqi's don't want American soldiers in their country? American Soldiers don't want to be in Iraq either. The questions left unasked are "What do you think the objectives of the US military are, are they hurting or helping the situation, do you want them to leave right now and if not why will one year be a better time?" Also the responses are not regionalized to take into account factors like areas of major US operations, Sectarian divides (which, yes, do exist regardless of what CAN wants to say), or current economic situation. A poll of individuals in Shula will be drastically different from one taken in Mahmoudiya or Mansour, yet these factors are never accounted for.
This debate is tiring. But people need to maintain objectivity. There are plenty reasons to oppose the war, it's premise, and so on without resorting to disinformation. And if groups like CAN truly wish to 'reach out' to the veteran community they need to present more of this objectivity in their arguments.
Next Sun Columnist?
If the commenter before me actually thinks he's being objective, I've got the cliched bridge in Brooklyn to sell him. No war coverage, or any news coverage for that matter, is truly "objective." Even Fox News claims "Fair and Balanced" rather than the far-fetched myth of objectivity.
That said - excellent article by Mr. Immerman. A few weeks ago I'd bemoaned the lack of an anti-war voice in the opinion section, and this is a fantastic start. I'm glad he mentioned Winter Soldier. We need to hear the voices of the veterans who will tell us what's really happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Sun is in need of a left-wing columnist (left-wing, not Democrat) - perhaps Mr. Immerman could fill that role.
US True Interest in Iraq and the Middle East
I am not going to comment on the issue of objectivity since the writer before me points to the non-objective nature of today's corporate media; that goes without mentioning that coverage on the Iraq war has gone done to 3% in the last months because of presidential elections.
I just wanted to quickly respond to Patrick's question: "What do you think the objectives of the US military are, are they hurting or helping the situation, do you want them to leave right now and if not why will one year be a better time?"
As a member of the Campus Antiwar Network, we understand that everything to justify the war since the beginning has been cloaked in lies. First, it was because Saddam Hussein had WMD, then after finding non (and they new Iraq had non). then it was to bring democracy and to topple the evil dictator, which let us not forget we fully funded through his Bath party in the 1970's to purge any secular left in Iraq and whom we gave chemical weapons to fight against revolutionary Iran. And now, what the Bush administration and many advocates of the war put forward is that Iraq is cloaked in sectarian violence and that they can not govern themselves; hence, we got to stay the course because we need to rebuild their country and enlighten them on what democracy is. Let be clear here, the US ARMY or any armed forces for any matter are not trained to rebuild schools, hospitals, etc. Regarding the sectarian violence, CAN has never said that it does not exist, it argues that the US has actually fueled the divide in order to dive and conquer the Iraqi people by arming each faction so that they do not unite to expel the main occupier. The most recent example of this can be seen with the puppet government of Maliki sending Iraqi troops trained under the US and using US air force against Moqtada-al Sadr and the Mahdi Army in Basra. If pitching the Islamic Supreme Council against the Mahdi Army, which both are Shiite, is not an example of the US promoting the sectarian violence, then what is it then?
The US is there because as an imperial power, it wants to keep its military and economic edge by controlling one of the world largest oil reserves and not letting competitive economic nations (China, Russia, India) get access to it freely. One of the top officials under the Bush administration, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, put it very simply: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil". For this very reason, the US will try to remain in Iraq (and Afghanistan) until it is forced out of Iraq, the region has too much at stake for the economic interest of the US worldwide.
The Campus Antiwar Network and Iraq Veterans Against the War argue for full and immediate withdrawal of ALL TROOPS and PRIVATE CONTRACTORS, for reparations for Iraqi's for the destruction done by the US not only in this recent war but also in the 10 years of sanctions (which killed over 1 million Iraqi children) under the Clinton Administration, and finally for giving the adequate VA help a good number of returning vets get rejected from, specially for PTSD.
I hope this helps to clarify what is our position regarding the interest of the US ruling class in the Middle East and why we need to pull out now.
"The most recent example of
"The most recent example of this can be seen with the puppet government of Maliki sending Iraqi troops trained under the US and using US air force against Moqtada-al Sadr and the Mahdi Army in Basra. If pitching the Islamic Supreme Council against the Mahdi Army, which both are Shiite, is not an example of the US promoting the sectarian violence, then what is it then?"
Hmm, let's see. Somehow, the Iraqi government wanting to exercise sovereignty over its only port and huge oil reserves and wrest it from the hands of criminal militias is seen as "promoting the sectarian violence." Never mind that al-Sadr is beholden to Iran. I guess you don't have a problem with Iran funding terrorist militias who are trying to kill our soldiers and Iraqi civilians. The Basra operation needed to happen sooner or later, or we would have a repeat of what is happening in Lebanon with Hezballah. No country can stabilize itself when there are terrorist groups trying to create areas that the central government has no control over.
"One of the top officials under the Bush administration, Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, put it very simply: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil". For this very reason, the US will try to remain in Iraq (and Afghanistan) until it is forced out of Iraq, the region has too much at stake for the economic interest of the US worldwide."
I didn't know Alan Greenspan was an expert on the Middle East, given his economics background. Also, I'm pretty sure he retired a couple of years ago. I also would not call him a "top official under the Bush Administration," seeing as how the Fed is an independent agency and the Chairman serves a four-year term and not at the pleasure of the President.
If we really wanted to control Iraq's oil, we would not have bothered to completely dismantle the former Baathist (not "Bath") government, and instead inserted a different dictator who would have been more US-friendly.
missing the point
actually, the author of the original article says the us military "promotes sectarian conflict where none existed" that is the comment I was replying to. But since you bring up the topic of Maliki's attack on rogue Mahdi Army militias in Basra as some example of promoted sectarian violence, don't you think it is wise for a government, any government to resist or defeat the influence of individuals responsible for vast amounts of the sectarian violence you decry. as well as confront a man, Muqtada al-Sadr who was in the least intimately involved with the murder of several other high-profile Imams and religious figures who may have rivaled his attempt at centralizing power? Warlords in dafur follow this strategy and the world cries out for action. This man does it and you say nothing should be done.
As to the military not being trained to build hospitals and schools, are you kidding me? Seriously, as one example, the military constructs field hospitals all over the world and now the army casualty support hospitals (CASH) in the green zone, in Taji, and in Falujah are the best hospitals in Iraq. It doesnt take much, just appropriating the money in the right ways which is a completely different argument from abandon all support by precipitous withdrawl. The real sollution would be to return the military to the non-privatized, fully functional and independent military that rebuilt Germany, Japan and Italy after WWII. Clinton started guttingthe military and Rumsfeld destroyed it. That's the problem. But it's far different from the problem you perceive. Our failed state department is another problem, but again its far different.
Also my question was meant to be for the Iraqi people to answer. My whole point was that amricans and westerners as a whole are incapable of answering that question for them though we try so ingeniously and insiduoisly all the time as you just did above. I've personally talked to thousands of Iraqi people, literally thousands, from all over the country so I have an opinion on this that doesn't come from someone elsew rehashed arguments. I've asked them those questions above along with hundreds of others, I compiled results that displayed all sorts of responses. The point being that, surprise, this issue is a complicated one for Iraqis as it should be for you. It isnt as simple as saying pull out now, give them some money, and the world will start to heal. (not to mention the fact that a good number of Iraqi people would be insulted that someone would want to just give them money for what has happened to them)
All that I want to know is...
How is CAN outreaching to and working with Soldiers, veterans, ROTC Cadets and Midshipmen from the Cornell and surrounding community and nearby Fort Drum? Please give good examples, not that IVAW hosted the Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan. That is not outreach, it is propaganda. Whatever ounce of truth exists to the stories of the fraction of these veterans, it is overshadowed by a mass of opinionated propaganda and talking points. Please explain the outreach and work.
IVAW and WInter Soldier
How can anyone dismiss the stories of soldiers as propaganda? Winter Soldier testimony was verified by a team of journalists and combat veterans, and many presented photographs and videos to back up their claims. The 55 testifiers represented units from across the Army and Marine Corps, and this group of testifiers was selected from a body of over 150 submissions. Even if you accept the preposterous assumption that a member from every unit participating in immoral military policy testified at Winter Soldier, this body of testifiers represented a huge section soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As for the charge that IVAW represents a minority voice within the military: In 2006, polls by Zogby and the Military Times shows that a large majority of troops wanted out of Iraq within one year. That being said, it's absurd to suggest that large numbers of soldiers would come forward and risk criminal prosecution by admitting to participating in violations of international law. The vast majority of soldiers know these things are happening, but most are too afraid of persecution to speak out. Many have been forced to sign non-disclosure agreements, and anyone who has been in the military knows what happens to whistleblowers.
Anyone who believes that American soldiers haven't blown up markets, indiscriminately killed civilians, or destroyed mosques should watch Winter Soldier. Even if you refuse to accept the stories of the soldiers, look at the photos of dead civilians and mosques destroyed by U.S. firepower. Watch the video of the officer who brags over the radio about "killing half the population of Northern Ramadi," or the video of soldiers using a mosque for target practice.
Perry, you've went and did it yet again...
Perry,
Oops, you did it again. You have attempted to pass off your view, the minority view, as that of the majority of Soldiers and vets. I am an Iraq vet. Why have I not seen the vast number of atrocities. I dare you to question the role I played in Iraq as a reason for not seeing these events that you mention, because you do not know my experiences and the events that shape my thoughts, opinions and beleifs. I am not satisfied with your snippy remarks and the way you continuously refer to the "vase majority" of Soldiers as either being in on the atrocities or knowledgable. That is an aweful slap in the face. To make claim that the vast majority of Soldiers are too weak, cowardly or lacking of personal courage to come forward, well, Perry, that is insulting. I did want to mention though, I do like the way you plug "Winter Soldier" with the stark and stunning examples...dead civilians and mosques destroyed by US firepower, and the bragging officer...ever hear of sound bites and...yes...propaganda? I leave you with this thought...When an Iraqi was asked about how he felt about US forces being there, and if it were a threat to his or his family's livelihood, he responded "the American forces are not blowing up our markets and mosques, but they are trying to kill those who do kill the innocent. I am greatful for that."
Outreach
For the gentleman who had questions on outreach I would suggest attending our event to see that in action.
We plan on having panelists from Ft. Drum, two to be exact. Also, Rochester's IVAW chapter is planing on coming. What needs to be understood is that we are a political organization which has a point of unity (principle) which calls for immediate withdrawal of Iraq. We don't just simply do outreaching for the sake of doing outreaching, we engage with soldiers that share our opposition to the war and want to immediately end it. In this spirit, we provide all the political support to soldiers that oppose the war in every battle they engage. Right now one of the biggest one in Ft. Drum is the issue of the VA and it not wanting to recognize and treat PTSD. The best example I can think of the top of my head is Eugene Cherry, google him. The struggle, although small, was significant because it sets up the precedent for soldier's to struggle to get the proper care they deserve once they get back. Think about the Walter Reed VA scandal as being one of many a cases, in different shades, throughout the US. The struggles against the VA and the privatized health care stem also relates to the civilian world, were a large numbers of Americans face the same challenges due to the privatized health care system.
Again, I would encourage you to come to our event. It is easy to question and criticize behind a computer screen.
Wow
I'll try to cover a variety of points from previous posts-
1) As for the "ever-changing" excuses comment... looking back at practically every war that has been fought by the US, when have we ever had a war that had a single focus? The Civil War was about slavery, keeping the Union whole, states' rights, etc. Stating that wars need to have only a single purpose is naive - the need to go to war is the result of diplomacy failing to resolve multiple disputes. Oh, and by the way, the US had more than legitimate reasons to invade Iraq based upon Hussein's failure to comply by the cease-fire terms from the Gulf War.
2) As for the suicide statistics, your admission that they are not limited to Iraq veterans makes the point moot.
3) Squandering of the budget? Close to half of our national budget goes towards entitlement programs that are largely failures in themselves. Oh, and that number will continue to rise. The main reason our veterans are not getting the health care they do deserve is because that money is being spent on the general population, including those who aren't even citizens of our nation. Even if the war ended today the conditions for the vets won't improve unless Congress cuts spending elsewhere.
4) As for the Winter Soldier investigations and the feeling of righteousness that many protesters develop over fighting the good fight... they may think they are doing something good, but in the end they are hurting our war effort. I think the statement "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" applies here. A recent Harvard study shows that negative press in the US and worldwide leads to increases in violence in Iraq. Simply put, when the public debate over war is heated due to stories of atrocities or impending failure, the terrorists and others commit violence to take advantage of the situation. Those terrorists are trying their best to help you win the debate. Be sure to thank them.
Now, I'm not saying that you aren't doing your best to do what you think is right. I'm saying that what you think is right is really wrong.