Not accepting it
Repsonse to RTE News Editor Vincent Delaney concerning a news item on 2fm news where the news reader stated that Iraqis had 'accepted' US/UK occupation. His email can be found below, under "Not quite getting it..."
Dear Mr Delaney,
Iraqis may have accepted occupation as a fact, for it is an undeniable fact, it would be fanciful not to. But they haven't accepted occupation. Pedantic as it may sound, the report implied Iraqis in Basra have accepted occupation. If they accepted occupation there would be no violent struggle, no democratic struggle etc. It is certainly not the case they have accepted it as the status quo, reference to this seems strange.
Logically it is not credible to state that Iraqis have accepted occupation, simply thinking about what that would mean. The accepting of a foreign force occupying your land, taking charge and soon ownership of your natural resources, the accepting of a force that holds to no recognisable law etc etc. Secondary school Irish history evidences this.
The report should, in my opinion, have read "Iraqis forced to accept US occupation." In any other form acceptance has little meaning, since Iraqis have not been able to exercise free will in this 'acceptance'.
That Pentagon favorite Ahmed Chalabi puts the 'status quo' quite succinctly, "The Iraqi people do not understand occupation. The Iraqi people do not want to be occupied, and the mistake initially was in not creating a provisional Iraqi government that would be the ally of the United States in the war against the terrorist, fascist Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. "
In my opinion the recent elections and military withdrawal are not even remotely linked. No timetable is in place and it has long been made clear a coalition presence will be maintained for at least 10 years. Elections take place inspite of occupation.
Thanks again for your time.