Sadr declared the previous cease-fire officially to rid his forces of "criminal elements," yet the US military volunteered to help, and then continued to detain Sadr's people by the thousands. Apparently Sadr was also re-arming for this fight, timing it for the waning of the "surge," and appears to have out-gunned the Badr Shiite militia, known in the corporate press as "the Iraqi government forces." Rather than simply encouraging the "Iraqi" military in "their" independent fight, the US military is once again deeply involved on every level, from basic decision-making to surveillance, air bombardment, and manning "Iraqi" checkpoints on the ground.

To distract from these embarrassments, once again US generals have made the unsubstantiated claim that Iran is arming US enemies in Iraq. Even if proof were displayed showing that some of the weapons were made in Iran, that wouldn't mean that it is a policy of the Iranian government. There's no reason why Iran shouldn't, except that the US is already arming and supporting the Badr militia forces, the most pro-Iranian group in Iraq. Why spend money to arm your supporters when the US is willing to do it for you?

The Iraqi puppet government has demanded that Sadr's forces give up their weapons and "sign a pledge renouncing violence." Maybe they will, as soon as the occupation forces lay down their arms and renounce violence, the government militia does the same, and the Sunnis are no longer being armed by the US and take the same pledge. The underlying lie is that violence in Iraq is only caused when the Iraqi people resist the occupation and its collaborators. Indefinite detention of Iraqis without charge, dictating the policies of their government, house-to-house searches, and bombing is presented as the opposite of violence, and the means of ending it.

Is "violence" the problem, or the thirst for resources, influence and power? Sadr is the only popular leader in Iraq, with the real grassroots support of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi regime is desperately unpopular and only survives due to the protection and money of the US government. If the "Iraqi" seat of government were not a mere district of the so-called US "embassy," it would have been burned or overrun a long time ago, and Maliki would be just another US puppet ruler shot and mutilated in a popular revolt.

If the US Army were to surround Manchester and Boston, detaining people at will and demanding that every Democrat disarm and sign a statement committing them permanently to Ghandian pacifism, those cities would be in flames, too.

The insistence from the Democratic party leadership, including Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Md., that "It is long past time that we demanded that the Iraqis step up and take responsibility for the future of their nation" ignores the fact that the Iraqis are doing just that - by throwing the American regime out. Of course, the popular Iraqis are not the ones the Democrats are demanding to "step up."

Sadr's movement clearly was and probably still is on-track to sweep upcoming elections this fall, and since he opposes the occupation of Iraq, his people were being rounded up and held indefinitely by the thousands. This is hardly a celebration of democracy when such oppression continues in Iraq, and here in the US.

And sadly, arming and politically backing unpopular despots in the Arab world is the rule rather than the exception. As the Inter-Press Service reported on March 28th, Egypt in particular bans NGO's, locks up political opponents, and otherwise violates the civil liberties of its citizens, yet gets two billion dollars annually in cash and weapons from the US. In January, George Bush told his Egyptian counterpart, "I appreciate the example that your nation is setting."

The most constructive move the US could make to advance democracy and freedom in these countries would be to stop interfering in their affairs.

---
(aired on Making Waves #178)