Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

'Army of Occupation' Can Not 'Liberate'

12:20 / 29.03.03

As if Americans are in a war of liberating Iraq! We can assume this claim from messages by the US commanders and the one-eyed media.

But, if anyone judges this issue from a linguistic, lexical or historical point of view, an 'army of occupation' can not fight a 'war of liberation', it's just insane to claim thus.

People are supposed to 'liberate' themselves, not rely on some external force to come to their land and fight a proxy war for them. It is stupid if anyone tries to do so or claim so, give freedom to Iraqis.

Probably, this is for the first time in history, a country is claiming to be engaged in a war to liberate another country. It's unprecedented and totally illogical!

12:38 / 29.03.03

It's not at all unprecedented.

When the Chinese army marched into Tibet in 1955, their byword was "liberation"—bringing the People's Glorious revolution to a nation under the thumb of a decadent, backward theocratic monarchy, as they characterized it.

And, to use a far more palatable example and a far more genuine liberation: when the Allies stormed into Germany in the final days of WWII, was their goal not liberation? Was not the Marshall Plan, encompassing as it did military occupation, economic assistance, infrastructure rebuilding, and deNazification, a liberating force? Was it not an occupying army that laid the foundations for democracy in Japan?

The goal in World War II was always liberation, not simple containment. It's not an absurd or illogical premise at all: liberation can happen from within, with the formation effective resistance movements inside a nation—but in police states like Nazi Germany, or like Iraq, such movements cannot coalesce under government repression. Opposition parties, if they form at all, will form in exile communities, and wars of liberation will have to be carried out with outside assistance: the French, of all people, should remember that.

It's not an absurd premise—liberation of comeone else's nation can be a noble cause, hen undertaken for the right reasons and in the right manner. But, as with so many other things in life, it ain't what you do, but it's the way that you do it—that's what gets results.

13:04 / 29.03.03

I agree with you that a war of liberation is completely possible
Jack, but you're not suggesting that this war is a war of liberation
are you?

Incidentally and from the Washington's point of view, World War II
was a war fought to defeat two aggressive expansionary powers and
obtained control of resources required to face a third expansionary
power. It was hardly about freeing the victims of Nazi aggression,
especially not the Germans or the Jews.

I saw a cartoon recently of Mr Bush liberating an oil well. That's
not accurate but it's pretty close. This is a war for control of
resources, like most wars.

13:12 / 29.03.03

Jack... you're not suggesting that this war is a war of liberation are you?

That wasn't the question that was asked, and it's the not the question that I answered.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

14:00 / 29.03.03

A war of liberation this is not, nor do I think Jack was saying so.

Even if it was, I think it would be pretty much doomed to failure- not only does the Arab world have a history/culture of resisting outside forces (whereas the West has a culture of being on the other side), therefore rallying around whoever (no matter how evil) is looking out for YOUR country against anyone seeking to invade... but last time there was an uprising we fucked 'em over.

tasneem- I know you weren't suggesting otherwise. Just thought I'd chuck that in.

15:07 / 29.03.03

Incidentally and from the Washington's point of view, World War II
was a war fought to defeat two aggressive expansionary powers and
obtained control of resources required to face a third expansionary
power. It was hardly about freeing the victims of Nazi aggression,
especially not the Germans or the Jews.

The massive amount of money, manpower, energy and materials that went into reconstructing Germany and Japan and establishing democratic institutions there in the postwar period would seem to contradict that.

You may argue that this was in large part to set up beachheads against Soviet expansion, and I wouldn't dispute that. But the sheer scale of post WWII reconstruction went far beyond a simple containment strategy: there was a genuine interest in establishing democracy for its own sake.

17:00 / 29.03.03

Sorry that I did something wrong with the topic abstract. Can anyone suggest how can I fix this mess?

Now back to the topic .... :-)

See, using a 'byword' by the Chinese can never be an example of 'liberation'. We can clearly see that even today some Tibety elements are still resisting. There is a clear diffrence between a claim/byword and a fact.

If I 'march' into your house and say "pal, I am here to set you free from your disturbing conjugal life", it will be insane. If I really care, I will share your feelings and give you advice, instead.

If Germany was 'liberated' then, why on earth it was broken into pieces between the allied qualition?

> liberation of someone else's nation can be a noble cause

May be on theory. But it has never happened. I do not think so :-)

Liberation means and must have a primary initiative from the people who are to be/will be liberated. The case we are talking about here (Iraq), is far from this criterion.

17:09 / 29.03.03

Hello Jack,

sorry for not responding promptly. My best friend is watching
Germany play Lithuania in soccer and it'd be traitorous to
leave her to her fate.

The USA did indeed help Europe rebuild after the war and in
great style. She also, she is a she isn't she, preaches
democracy, though this concept sometimes comes across as more
akin to some religious state of grace than to a political
system like that of the Weimar Republic but without the deadly
flaws.

Do you think that those of her representatives who interest
themselves for such work or consider it important will have
the upper hand when what's left of Iraq when this is over
must be stabilised? Do you think Iraq has a similar meaning
to America now that Europe had then? I may be too cynical,
but I doubt it.

17:34 / 29.03.03

Wasn't talking about Iraq, was I?

Was in fact very pointedly talking NOT about Iraq, but about World War II. As were you.

Do not attempt to move the goalposts.

18:22 / 29.03.03

Ok,

please neglect the last paragraph of my previous post.
Take care. Goodnight.

Solitaire Rose as Tom Servo

00:04 / 30.03.03

I think that WW II will stand out in history as one of the few times that things were done correctly after the war. The Allies understood that the system used at the end of the first World War was a massive failure on every count, and a new way of dealing with an enemy needed to be tried.

This system (including the Marshall Plan) was massively unpopular in America and lead to nearly 30 years of average US citizens thinking that foreign aid was the largest expendature in the budget and has almost made foreign aid a political "death trap" where supporting it makes you nearly unelectable.

I think that what we are seeing in Afghanistan is more likely what will come after the current war in Iraq...where the government simply pays no attention to the aftermath of the war, and the rest of the world is called on to clean up after the US "Frees" people. The current budget had NO money for Afghanistan in it, and this is after we were sold the war by our leaders by saying we were bringing the people of Afghanistan freedom.

I'm sure there are some leaders who actually could liberate people. Sadly, the current team in the White House seems only to want to liberate countries from their money so their corporate partners can make a lot of money rapidly.

14:54 / 30.03.03

An "Army of Occupation" cannot, pretty much by definition, liberate a country.

However, external agents can quite obviously aid the liberation of a people, through, for example, economic sanctions and political pressure. Frequently the internal resistance to whatever oppression obtains would be entirely ineffective were it not for support from foreign actors, and vice versa. One example is the struggle against apartheid by the armed resistance within South Africa, and the coinciding sanctions and ostracism brought to bear by other countries.

17:39 / 30.03.03

Yes! Aid to liberation is very much possible but not 'liberation' itself.

About W.War II, I do not think, that was a good case of liberation. If you feel so you can call it a 'gurdian regime'. Reconstruction of Germany was not libearation. That was just a 'gurdian regime' on control :-)

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:12 / 30.03.03

People are supposed to 'liberate' themselves, not rely on some external force to come to their land and fight a proxy war for them. It is stupid if anyone tries to do so or claim so, give freedom to Iraqis.

France in WW2 was liberated by military forces of another nation. Kuwait in the last Bush-Saddam war was liberated by military forces of another nation. Egypt, for that matter, was liberated from Persian control by military forces of another nation in the Fifth Century BC. Your contention that "people are supposed to liberate themselves", if by "supposed to" you mean "compelled by linguistics and precedent to", as you seem to, is clearly incorrect.

The novelty here, which is where Germany crops up, is that we see the "oppressors" and the "oppressed people" as ethinically identical. Howeever, the Iraqi in the street, while dodging falling masonry, might point out that Saddam Hussein and most of his circle are from their point of view not primarily Iraqis but primarily Tikritis.

Brigade du jour

20:01 / 30.03.03

Can't help agreeing with tasneem on the point that liberation by an outside force sounds great on paper. I don't agree that it's never happened for real (please refer to Haus' examples), but I can't help (in the most cynical part of my li'l brain) feeling that it was largely by accident. That the primary goal of any 'army of occupation' is very seldom the liberation of anyone.

Then again, of course, one thing I don't believe anybody has pointed out yet (forgive me if I'm wrong) is the fairly obvious point that every individual and united group involved in either side of such a conflict probably has many reasons for occupying or for resisting that occupation. It's usually any combination of money, genuine altruism and political expediency, and let's not forget that even in the current situation there are probably hard-right players in the Bush admninistration who honestly believe they are, as the Blues brothers might say, on a mission from God. Just as there are people in Iraq who genuinely think they've got a good deal under Saddam. Whatever you think of such morally presumptuous or perhaps selfish positions might be the basis of another thread, but I think this diversity is worth pointing out.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

10:32 / 31.03.03

Although I agree with the thrust of tasneen's argument and am against this war, where did he get the term 'army of occupation' from? Because although the US administration has like to claim that they are liberating Iraq, I don't believe they have described the force they are using to do that as an 'army of occupation'. Neither am I aware of any opponants of this who would say that the 'army of occupation' was 'liberating' Iraq unless they meant it ironically. So, unless there's an article that tasneen is referring to here it seems a bit dishonest to write as though suggesting has been suggesting this. But that's just me being a pedant. Bad Flowers.

Then there's
Yes! Aid to liberation is very much possible but not 'liberation' itself.
Tasneen, can you explain what the difference is between the first and second use of liberation in that sentence? Why is the second use of liberation in quotes?

11:57 / 31.03.03

This raises an interesting point. Iraq is/was socialist (socialist military dictatorship?), as are Syria and Egypt, other former Soviet client states. If or when Iraqis are liberated by countries for whom the "free market" and privatization are state religions, will they like trading social security and Stalinist terror for McDonald's jobs and nominal freedom? What if they demand a free press AND a dole?

Hussein is indeed a Tikriti, but under attack he's magically transformed into a brother Iraqi. If the war drags on, he'll be a fellow Arab again.

12:09 / 31.03.03

Sorta getting back to the subject, it's certainly possible that the US Army would liberate Iraq, but it's not likely. I think, given the track records of the US politicians behind the war, they expected to somehow make a profit from it. Certainly Halliburton will clean up, at the expense of 100 million US taxpayers and thousands of dead Iraqis. The American Enterprise Institute / PNAC version of a Marshall Plan. The intense gratitude of the liberated Iraqis goes on the right side of the ledger, as "goodwill." The new pool of cheap educated labor can only help global business, and what's good for OmniConsumer Products...

00:31 / 01.04.03

Although I agree with the thrust of tasneen's argument and am against this war, where did he get the term 'army of occupation' from? Because although the US administration has like to claim that they are liberating Iraq, I don't believe they have described the force they are using to do that as an 'army of occupation'. Neither am I aware of any opponants of this who would say that the 'army of occupation' was 'liberating' Iraq unless they meant it ironically. So, unless there's an article that tasneen is referring to here it seems a bit dishonest to write as though suggesting has been suggesting this

This is just common sense. One is not supposed to use a term which is prescribed by the US administration or anyone else. An army which is attacking another country, and has already 'occupied' some land is an 'army of occupation', this goes very much by the defination.

can you explain what the difference is between the first and second use of liberation in that sentence? Why is the second use of liberation in quotes

Giving it a shot. Aid to liberation is, if I am not wrong, helping the liberation struggle of the people who are to be liberated. Here, an external element can contribute. But, as I have said, 'liberation' is not a thing which can be 'awarded' by an external army.

Please, note that the US lead qualition force in Iraq is just an uninvited guest. They are not supported even by the common pepole there and a liberation struggle is not going on, which they could have aided.

US/UK army in Iraq is just an 'army of occupation'.

behind the war, they expected to somehow make a profit from it. Certainly Halliburton will clean up, at the expense of 100 million US taxpayers and thousands of dead Iraqis. The American Enterprise Institute / PNAC version of a Marshall Plan. The intense gratitude of the liberated Iraqis goes on the right side of the ledger, as "goodwill." The new pool of cheap educated labor can only help global business, and what's good for OmniConsumer Products

What will happen to 100 millon taxpayers, if US fails in this war, if there is a cease-fire?

Our Lady of The Two Towers

19:12 / 01.04.03

tasneem This is just common sense. One is not supposed to use a term which is prescribed by the US administration or anyone else. An army which is attacking another country, and has already 'occupied' some land is an 'army of occupation', this goes very much by the defination.

Maybe it's just me being unnecessarily pedantic. But, by using quotation points as you do in the title and above suggested to me that you were actually arguing with someone who had claimed that an army of occupation could liberate. I don't think it was necessary to mark them as such.