Cleric says anti-U.S. resistance in Iraq a duty

using their influence in such ways. I don't care whether they're Christian or Jewish or Muslim. I heartily wish they'd STFU, except for condemning a culture of violence.

...used their influence to prevent Hitler from killing millions during the 1930's and 40's if they could have ?

Don

I wish religious leaders would loudly condemn injustice and the culture of violence. Sending people off to die in Iraq in the name of God doesn't fall into that category. Yes the war is wrong. Yes George Bush and co. are culpable of starting an unjust war and occupation, and yes 100,000 people are tragically dead from their actions, but I don't believe it's right to encourage people to believe that the war between Islam should be fought on Iraqi soil at the expense of Iraqis. It's bad enough as it is.

I'm caught between two utterly opposed wishes. The first being that the U.S. war in Iraq is a total disaster, hopefully ensuring that we won't soon embark on another pre-emptive invasion, and secondly, that things improve in Iraq and elections are held, wherein the Iraqis boot out the American puppet and elect people of their choosing. I don't think the latter is likely, but it certainly would be the best scenario for Iraqis.

...definition of a "culture of violence"? I am not putting words in your mouth. I am only asking.

In my opinion all religions should be condemning the USA's war of aggression against the Iraqi people. Short of that they are in so many words telling the Iraqis to be quiet now, listen to their new master, and get up in them cattle cars. I got news for you. The Iraqis are not going to get up in no cattle cars as some people have done in the past. They are going to fight to the death for their country.

And maybe you don't believe that the war between Islam should be fought on Iraqi soil at the expense of Iraqis. I don't either. But the Iraqis didn't bring the war to us. We brought war to them. And we can end it all any time we wish. Iraqis don't have that option.

As for "foreign fighters" coming to the assistance of the Iraqis, if America were to ever find itself in the same position as Iraq, I would be terribly disappointed if we did not have some Canadian and Mexican "foreign fighters" coming in here and give us a hand driving the invaders out. Because after we went down they would be next anyway. I think it works the same over there.

Don

That much is clear. Let me try to express myself as directly and respectfully as I can. If you read my second post you know that I condemnded the war as a criminal undertaking in no uncertain way. Why even suggest, as you did with the following question, that I did anything but:

"Sending off our soldiers to kill and be killed for OIL does not fit your definition of a "culture of violence"?

Here's where I suspect our differences lie: Much as I condemn this war, I am not about to romanticize some of those fighting against it. I refuse to ignore injustice and ugliness wherever it comes from. It's that simple. Kidnap 19 Nepalese and execute them and you earn my excoriation. Car bomb 39 children. Same thing. Not for one second am I excusing bushco and this illegal war, I believe bush is a war criminal. How much clearer can I be? I am condemning some of the tactics that some of the people are using to fight it.

I do not understand the difficulty so many people here have with condemning brutality wherever it comes from.

>>>I do not understand the difficulty so many people here have with condemning brutality wherever it comes from.<<<

America won its Independence by using brutality. We were not taught in school the things that were done by this countries founding fathers to convince Britain, which had the most powerful military in the world at that time to pack up and leave here. We were taught the romantic version. Minutemen, Paul Revere, and all that other bullshit. I know the colonists were not playing patty cake with the British soldiers during that time or they would still be here. There had to have been some serious bloodletting or we would be all singing some song about a queen at cricket games. Thats just the way it works. The Iraqis are fighting for their Independence now. They are not going to play nice either. If they did the US would never leave. Would we? See what I mean?

Don

American forces did not torture and kill thousands of tories. They ran them out in some cases, burned their businesses and homes, but did not pracice wde spread murder of civilians. I've read enough history to know that. However, for the sake of argument, let;s assume they did. I'd condemn it. What Americans did to Native peoples is a better example of shameful and inexcusable behavior. I certainly condemn that. And where in this argument is there room for Ganhi or Mandela or King?

At first, I thought it said "Chirac says anti-U.S. resistance in Iraq a duty". I was already getting geared up to hear the right wing screaming bloody murder. Oh well, nevermind.

ALL clerics of Islam, not just those of Iraq.

how should they stand up to us. Should they urge all Muslims to fight in Iraq? Is that what the Iraqis want? Is any act in the name of God, or fighting oppression justified, no matter how heinous that act might be? Does the injustice perpetrated by American policy and force justify other acts of injustice?

to drive the shameless invaders from Iraq! I am totally disgusted. I hear on TV and read in the newspapers about the war crimes committed by the "good guys." If the good guys invade another country, destroy its infrastructure, and cause the death of thousands of its civilians, and commit war crimes, what can we expect from people so many in the West consider inferior? How do YOU think they should 'stand up to us?'

NOT by killing innocent Iraqis, not by kill UN and other NCO workers. Even better, if the vast majority of the Iraqi people are against the occupation and the government, organize, organize, organize: Massive marches, shut downs and strikes.

... and it's a tragedy that "God" seems to have become little more than a political football no matter where we go in this world. Yet I don't want to launch into an argument against religion -- at least not in this thread.

I do want to point out, however, that governments, religious leaders and the media all play their little games of semantics. When we (the US) call other nations to join us in invading a sovereign nation -- and one which had committed no crime against us -- we call that a coalition. Though most of these countries are pressured or bribed to become a part of said "coalition of the willing", those governments which refuse to take part are publicly ridiculed, ostracized and/or economically punished. Those fighters who join us from other countries are called allied forces. Even those who are paid to fight are called not mercenaries but "contractors". Those unwilling to fight this war are called cowards.

On the other hand, those Iraqis who fight in their own country against invading forces are called insurgents, even "anti-Iraqi" forces. Their allies are called foreign fighters, their coaltion a band of thugs, terrorists and murderers. Unlike the Americans, who can bring enormous pressures -- including economic pressures -- to bear on world governments, the Iraqis have no such power and can only wield the power of their faith in order to draw allies to their side. It is, in the end, their only draw card against the mightiest military and economic power in the world.

Yes, the dead men, women and children strewn about their cities are called "collateral damage", whilst our dead are called heroes. Each video detailing some act of violence or murder at the hand of an "insurgent" is decried as an example of their barbarism, whilst we drop 500 pound bombs on their homes and give such acts deceptively uplifting names like "Operation New Dawn". Their Imams call out the faithful over loudspeakers from the very mosques being shelled by Abrams tanks whose guns are adorned with rosaries.

Who can claim the moral high ground among a landscape of such madness? You ask, should the Imams urge all Muslims to fight in Iraq? Have we not pressured others to do the same in our name? Stripped of semantics and any religious color, the bottom line is that we have militarily invaded a sovereign nation without invitation or pretext to do so, and are in the process of leveling it to the ground. Would we so decry and condemn violent resistance were the situation reversed? I don't know -- when it comes to a people resisting an overwhelming force by a mightier nation, perhaps we could ask the Czechs, the Poles, the French, or the Native Americans in our own country, then condemn them for their tactics or recruitment of allies.

In the end, If we want to stop this merry-go-round of violence and insanity, we can and must start right here at home. Until our voices put a stop to the killing fields in Iraq, the calls of the Imams will continue to speak for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and many Muslims throughout the Middle East. We have set no example for anyone to follow.

Thanks for writing it. You're absolutely correct that no one can claim the moral high ground. We certainly haven't set an example- unless it's one that declare through the dropping of massive bombs, that we don't give a tinker's damn about the lives of Iraqis. We need to get out of Iraq. What would happen, in that event? We can't know, but we do know that the current course is disasterous.

... is precisely what has happened throughout the history of countries and governments -- civil war. Freedom and democracy can only succeed where there exists the will of the people to sustain it, and that journey must be an internal one. It cannot be imposed upon a people, it must be embraced and championed by them and FOR them. This holds true whether you're talking about Russia or France, America or Iraq.

I fear that civil war is inevitable in Iraq. Saddam, much like Tito in old Yugoslavia, merely postponed that inevitability by sheer force, keeping opposing religious factions subdued only via brutal dictatorship. Those warring factions still exist, however, and the animosities have simmered for generations beyond measure. They will not disappear simply because we have marched into their streets and imposed a template of false democracy on a society still reeling from the shock of "freedom", or at least our brand of it, which consisted solely of deposing Saddam.

"Democracy", unlike Saddam, exists as an abstract ideal, a concept which to many Iraqis now (and who can blame them) seem like an ironical farce compared to reality of Saddam. They no longer have Saddam's secret police to fear, but our tanks in their streets, our helicopter gunships over their homes, our bombers over their skies. American-style "democracy" has brought them a Vichy government perfectly willing to slaughter entire cities of its own citizens, children who have less to eat now than they did under sanctioning, and a re-emergence of old sectarian rivalaries as each jostles in a power grab to fill the vaccuum. Little wonder Sistani responded with such resounding silence at the slaughter of Sunnis in Fallujah.

For all of these reasons and more we will never succeed in Iraq by military might alone. We thumbed our noses at the U.N. and even the voices of reason among old allies, those very parties the Iraqis will truly need to mediate between rival factions within the country. I fear it is now too late for that, so whether we stay or leave tomorrow we have not prepared the ground for what will follow, January elections aside. Who will now clean up the mess we have made, the humantiarian crises we have created, the future generations of terrorists we have fostered?

As we so painfully learned during our own wars of revolution and civil war, the birth of a nation can be a monstrous and painful experience, but it must be an indigenous one just as it has been here or in so many other nations throught the world. Perhaps it is also part of a national evolution that must be experienced before it can truly be tested. At some point the compassionate observer will want to either turn away or abort that process by intervention, but do we have that right? If we do, then at what point does intervention and mediation become a necessity, even a moral duty? We could look to Israel and Palestine as examples, and the failures there are not encouraging.

I truly don't have any answers nor would I presume to suggest any -- I have only questions and an increasing dread. We can only hope there are men and women of great wisdom out there who can help us to find our way. Unfortunately, the re-selection of George Bush has not given me any hope that the American people are the least bit interested in wisdom -- and I'm sure that message has been received loud and clear in the Middle East and around the world.