The Human Cost of War and Occupation

The occupation of Iraq has been a disaster, the Bush Administration has plans for continuing a perpetual state of war, and the world's governments have lied to their people and will lie again about reasons for the war and occupation, said speakers at a teach-in "The Human Cost of War and Occupation in Iraq" at the University of Pittsburgh on February 10th.  But they also held out hope for a new, vibrant opposition movement that would bring together people unwilling to be complicit in their government's actions. 

They encouraged the group of about 70 students and community members who attended to take part in the anti-occupation actions in Pittsburgh planned for March 20th, the anniversary of the beginning of the US bombing in Iraq.

The speakers included Lou Plummer from Military Families Speak Out, Anthony Arnove from the International Socialist Organization, Dennis Brutus from the University of Pittsburgh, and Roshni Murali from the Pitt Campus Anti-War Network.

Lou Plummer, a former National Guard member, and the father of an active duty service member, spoke about the Bring Them Home Now Campaign, and outlined some talking points that activists can use to talk to others about the war and bringing the troops home from Iraq.  Plummer, who is used to living and organizing among members of the military and their families in North Carolina described a military made up largely of young people who enlist because they see no other way to pay for college or make a living. Yet, the education and job training programs the military sponsors are less extensive and harder to access than Americans often believe.  Plummer described the system as a "poverty trap," and said the military's recruiting efforts are aimed at "the smartest poor kids they can find."

Frustration and ambivalence are high among service members in Iraq right now for several reasons.  Time between overseas deployments for service members is much shorter now than it traditionally has been.  While the Bush administration claims the American occupiers are there to bring "stability" to Iraq, much of the chaos in the country has actually developed and grown in response to the American presence.  The Americans running the occupation are not trained to occupy or govern, and many have doubts about the reasons the United States went into Iraq in the first place.

Anthony Arnove, from the ISO, focused on the lies the government has used to sell the continued occupation of Iraq to the American people, and its real reasons for going to war. The Bush administration has plans for continuing wars throughout the world. Control of Iraq's oil fields will give the US greater control in the global system, making these future interventions easier.  The United States has used brutal violence against Iraqi demonstrators, and, according to a column in the New York Times by Jeff Madrick, plans to institute an extremely neo-liberal economic program in Iraq.  In the meantime the Pentagon budget continues to increase more every year, resulting in more cuts in education and social spending at home.

These policies seem likely to continue even if a Democrat wins the presidential election in November.  Democratic front-runners John Kerry and John Edwards both voted for the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq in the Senate last year, and, while they criticize details related to the style of Bush's foreign policy, they both have said they accept the principle of a US right to launch preemptive wars. Congress has funded the war and occupation, and the United Nations has given US policy legitimacy by agreeing to contribute to the occupation.

Dennis Brutus continued the theme of the national and international systems' complicity in the war, and spoke about the responsibility of all Americans to recognize their participation in these systems through their government and their taxes, and to take action to resist these systems.  He despaired about the UN's power or willingness to resist the US's aggressive demands, but he talked about the possibility of developing a more
grassroots-based international forum, possibly modeled on the World Social Forum whose annual meeting in India he and several other Pittsburghers recently attended.

Roshni Murali, from the Pitt Campus Anti-War Network, took a more personal approach, talking about how she became involved in the anti-war movement.  She spoke about her bewilderment and alienation trying to understand the war in Afghanistan after September 11th, 2001, and her growing sense of connection to others questioning and resisting war during the January 2002 Pittsburgh anti-war convergence, and the march in response to the bombing on March 20^th, 2003.

- Patricia Lietz