Culp and Culpability. posted by Richard Seymour

There has been a lot of discussion about how much of the present disaster in Iraq the US can be held responsible for. Norman Geras argues that even if the consequences were likely to be disastrous, this should in no way affect the decision as to whether it was just to wage war. He also argues that “The US and its allies are not responsible for this second war [the resistance] - unless you simply assume its legitimacy in advance as a just struggle against foreign invaders.” That indeed may be precisely what is at issue, but others have argued – successfully I think – against Norm’s strictures. Even if the US is not responsible for the ‘second war’ – which is really a continuation of the first, and therefore a continuation of the war which Geras believes the ‘coalition’ is responsible for – it is not obliged to fight it, and it is by no means obliged to fight it in the way that it does. There was always the option of an expeditious withdrawal, allowing a caretaker Iraqi government to organise elections etc. This was the early promise of Jay Garner, but it was swiftly done away with because it would have meant that the US would not have been able to implement its programmes for Iraq’s economy. I might also take issue with how Norm characterise – or caricatures – the resistance as it developed in its infancy. (Its all “Ba’athist remnants” and “foreign fighters”, which therefore means that it cannot have been a legitimate resistance…) Further, as Robin Green points out, if those who initiated the aggression cannot be held responsible for its predictable consequences, how do the pro-war left manage to hold the antiwar movement responsible for being ‘objectively pro-Saddam’? How many times did we hear, “Oh yes, you mean well, but the consequence of what you’re saying is…” At any rate, even if you don’t hold the US responsible for the quite predictable resistance to the occupation, it is responsible for its own actions.

For instance, if the US bombs Fallujah, while anything up to 150,000 residents are trapped inside (and by US admissions, only a few thousand of these were actually resistance fighters), that’s one thing. You can try to put it down to ‘terrorists’ if you like, but I submit that any defense in court that begins “Well, he started it…” isn’t going to get you anywhere. If the government appointed by the US and presumably acting on its instructions moves to prevent doctors treating the wounded , on the other hand…

”The ministry of health instructed us not to provide aid for Fallujans,” says Dr. Aisha Mohammed from Baghdad. ”But then they have not done anything to help them during the siege, and very little at the refugee camps in Baghdad.”

…and also neglects those whom it presumably accepts a responsibility to treat, then the culpability is dripping from ‘coalition’ fingers. And if Fallujah is left “a horror” after the attack, which was justified in part as an attempt to “liberate” the city and its people, then I begin to have questions about someone who tries to exculpate the perpetrators from responsibility.