Questions over a non-existent mission

Oct.18, 2007

Questions over a non-existent mission


AMONG the points being raised in the ongoing debate in the US over the Blackwater scandal is whether the security company's actions in Iraq have undermined what is conveniently described as the US mission in the country.
Let us put in the right perspective the Blackwater killing of 17 innocent Iraqis pm Sept.16 and the murder of two other Iraqis by the Australian Unity company this month. Blackwater, Unity and the horde of foreign security companies which flocked to post-war Iraq are nothing but hired mercenaries . The marked difference though is that both the uniformed American soldiers as well as the privatised mercenaries a are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping. They are eplaying the field like masters whose actions have little regard for human life in a land where the authorities are in no position to protect themselves let alone their people.
The simple reality is that the privatised mercenaries as well as the uniformed American soldiers are using massive violence against the very population they are supposed to be helping.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq might indeed have beeen a mission for some people in the US, but for the international community it was an act of gross deception and an inexcusable violation of every code of conduct and international charters and conventions.
As such, the question linking the so-called US mission in Iraq to the behaviour of foreign security companies like Blackwater does not exist except in the minds of the hawks in Washington for whom the people of Iraq are only pawns in a sinister game involving US/Israeli geopolitical and energy interests and the American quest for global supremacy.
Well, for us in the Middle East and indeed in the broader global scene, there is no bad, good or better war. There should be no war except of course in cases where there is no other option but use of military force in defence of upholding human rights, international legitimacy and the rights of people and countries as enshrined in the UN Charter and all other related conventions and treaties. Again, there has to be a global consensus before exercising the option of use of military force.
The US war against Iraq has no relation whatsover to this basic premise. The US has no legitimacy in post-Iraq except as an occupation power. That also removes any ground for legitimacy in Iraq for anyone hired by the US.
Another point of debate in some of the mainstream reporting in the US is whether companies like Blackwater and Unity are turning a good war into a bad war and whether it is possible to wage a better war against the insurgency in Iraq.
Members of the US Congress are demanding to know "whether failures to hold Blackwater personnel accountable for misconduct undermine our efforts in Iraq." They assert that Blackwater's "actions may be undermining our mission in Iraq and really hurting the relationship and trust between the Iraqi people and the American military."
What an irony! It is naive at best for anyone to assume that there is a relationship of trust between the people of Iraq and the US military, for such has been the US behaviour in the country. There might be a handful of people who have allowed themselves to be enlisted to co-operate with the US military against foreign insurgents, but they represent only a small minority. For an overwhelming majority of Iraqis — including the dominant groups — the question is when the US military will pack up and leave the country and take along with them the privatised mercenaries.