[R-G] General Kimmit: "Bad people have celebrations too."

[Fred Feldman]

And if the US military has found out anything in a year of occupation,
it is that Iraqis are VERY bad people!  Here are two good points
submitted to the NY-based 107 Peace list:


Just heard on NPR: The occupiers' Goebbels, CPA spokesperson General
Kimmit, in explaining "inconsistencies" over the wedding party
slaughter, and while still claiming it was a base for foreign fighters,
says "There may have been some kind of celebration. Bad people have
celebrations too."

By the way, did you catch the Times' account of the raid on Chalabi's
office?  Right up front they describe in detail the ransacking of his
home, everything ripped open and trashed (much like the standard
treatment when Zionists invade Palestinian homes).  Chalabi may be a
scumbag, but the point is that the occupying troops still are operating
under the assumption that ANYONE they go after is subhuman and neither
he nor his belongings deserve humane or decent treatment.


Comment by Fred F:
Notice that all of Kimmit's statements are aimed exclusively at the US
audience including the troops. He doesn't have the slightest expectation
that the hearts and minds of Iraqis will be turned around by arguments
like, "What the hell were Iraqis doing in the desert!" or by exposes
like "They had jewelry" (Jewelry at a wedding! How unusual!) or "There
were military-age men present." They are now the enemy and the purpose
of the occupation is to defeat them.

Every word Kimmit speaks assumes that the heart and mind of virtually
every Iraqi is now lost to the occupation, and the only issue is "Are we
strong enough to hold them down and are the troops and homefront up for
paying the price." 

This is different from Vietnam. It is even different that Algeria,
although comparisons with both countries are legitimate. 

The deterioration of Washington's base of support in the country has
gone MUCH FASTER than in Vietnam. 
There were MORE elements of  civil war in what was taking place in
Vietnam to the very end than there are here.  There have been civil wars
in Iraq's past, and there may well be civil wars in Iraq's future but
this is NOT a civil war today.  

A civil war is what Washington hoped would come about when the
resistance started, but they have failed to generate one.  That's what
the new army and police and the puppet government, plus the Sunni-Shiite
and Baathist anti-Baathist divisions, which are real, were supposed to
generate as a base of support for the occupation against the resistance.
But this strategy has failed.  This is war of resistance against an
occupation of a country which won a large degree of real political
independence in the 1958 revolution and is not willing to surrender it
now. 

And of course, we have no sympathy with the crook Chalabi, but we oppose
the US attacks on him.  The US has no right to attack Chalabi or anyone
else in Iraq.  And if Chalabi has really shifted his choice of
paymasters from Washington to Tehran (I have my doubts, since the attack
on him may represent the outbreak of civil war within the Bush
administration), that's a step up for him as far as I'm concerned.