Randy Shannon – 2/10/05

This page was last updated on February 14, 2005.

Speak out against Iraqi war; Randy Shannon; Beaver County Times; February 10, 2005.

I don’t know what Mr. Shannon knows so I can’t call him a liar. That said, his letter is full of falsehoods.

Even countries (France, Germany, Spain, et cetera) that continue to oppose the coalition in Iraq acknowledged the Iraq election was an impressive step along the road to democracy. Mr. Shannon, though, can’t seem to see anything positive.

I stopped being surprised at the language of so-called “peace activists” like Mr. Shannon. I believe Mr. Shannon’s position is wrong, but I wouldn’t resort to name-calling, character assassination, and baseless allegations to “support” my view. The shame is, the tactics “peace activists” use actually make them less credible. Face it, even before we didn’t find WMD in Iraq you could make an intelligent argument against invading Iraq. Instead we heard all kinds of ridiculous claims like “war for oil,” “imperialism,” “war profiteering,” “racism,” et cetera. To hear the “peace activists” tell it, anyone who believed military action was necessary was the second coming of Hitler.

Based on the content of his speech on October 16, 2004, in front of the Beaver County Courthouse, I believe Mr. Shannon uses “peace” as cover for his overarching agenda, Marxism. Many “anti-war” protests are organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R. (Act Now to Stop War & End Racism) and much of the bashing has nothing to do with peace or war. That should not be surprising given that International A.N.S.W.E.R. is a front group for the Workers World Party.

2/14/05 - I noted below that I wondered where Mr. Shannon got his election data given that the vote count had not yet been completed when he wrote his letter. The official vote count was announced on February 13, 2005, at least four days after Mr. Shannon wrote his letter. Mr. Shannon claimed, “almost 75 percent of the vote went for the Sistani coalition.” In reality, the United Iraqi Alliance (Sistani’s alliance) received about 48%, 27% below Mr. Shannon’s claim. The Kurdistan Alliance received about 26%. Interim Prime Minister Allawi’s Iraqi List came in third at about 14%.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The Iraq election was conducted under foreign occupation in the midst of armed rebellion with no list of candidates.”

[RWC] Apparently Mr. Shannon believes it’s “rebellion” when foreign terrorists kill Iraqi civilians. Remember, it’s Mr. Shannon’s “rebels” who proclaimed, “We have declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it.”

The “no list of candidates” comment is false. Though it’s true many ballot selections were for political parties (to help protect candidates from terrorist assassination), there were some names on the ballots. Further, a few days before the election, Iraq newspapers published the names of the approximately 7,000 candidates who would be elected if you voted for a given party or alliance.

“Nevertheless, the Iraqis used the vote to express their overwhelming opposition to the U.S. military occupation.”

[RWC] That’s a novel interpretation, one I also found in Workers World.¹ The coalition encouraged Iraqis to vote and Mr. Shannon’s “rebels” threatened to kill anyone who voted. Despite death threats, anywhere from 60% to 72% of registered voters voted and that’s a show of opposition to the coalition?

An Australian newspaper reported the following. I heard it on a TV newscast so I don’t have the article citation. Prior to the election, terrorists warned the people in a village south of Baghdad that they should not vote. If they did, the terrorists would kill them. Despite the threats, most of the villagers voted. When the terrorists came back after the election to make good on their threats, the villagers – both Shia and Sunni – killed five of the terrorists, wounded the other eight, and burned their vehicle. I suspect Mr. Shannon would consider that a show of support for the “rebels” because eight of 13 terrorists escaped death.

“With 6 million Sunnis supporting armed rebellion and radical Shiites following Muqtada Sadr boycotting the elections, only 50 percent voted. Almost 75 percent of the vote went for the Sistani coalition whose main slogan was, ‘We will tell the Americans to leave Iraq!’”

[RWC] I wonder where Mr. Shannon gets his data. Six million Sunnis support mostly foreign terrorists killing Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni Iraqis? I don’t think so. Mr. Shannon makes the common mistake of assuming that because most of the Muslims in power during Saddam Hussein’s reign were Sunnis, all Sunnis support terrorism. That’s like saying all Catholics supported the IRA in Ireland because the IRA was composed mostly of Catholics.

Even traditionally liberal news sources have reported the voter turnout was somewhere between 60% and 72%. Also, the official vote count has not yet concluded.

For the sake of argument, though, let’s use Mr. Shannon’s 50% and put it in context. From 1924 through 2000, voter turnout for U.S. presidential elections ranged from only 49% to 63%, and nobody was threatening to kill us if we voted. The estimate for 2004 is about 61%. I don’t know about you, but when a people who have never voted in a real election turn out – despite death threats – in numbers equal to or greater than Americans, I call that pretty damn good.

Finally, though everyone eventually wants the coalition out of Iraq, the United Iraqi Alliance (Sistani’s alliance) has said repeatedly it isn’t seeking the coalition’s immediate withdrawal.

“The Occupation Authority required a two-thirds majority for the newly elected assembly to form a government. This was to give Bush’s puppet Allawi leverage to block a new government unless it accepted continued occupation. But Allawi received less than 20 percent of the votes. U.S. Iraqis gave Allawi only 5 percent.”

[RWC] “Occupation Authority” is how Mr. Shannon refers to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA ceased to exist in June 2004, when Iraq once again became a sovereign nation. The two-thirds requirement is part of the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL). Effectively, the TAL is Iraq’s interim constitution, drafted and approved by Iraqi leaders.

The two-thirds requirement is an attempt to ensure no single group can grab power. For example, though Shiites make up over 50% of Iraqis, they couldn’t get two-thirds on their own. Therefore, they would have to reach out to Kurds and/or Sunnis to form a government. There’s a similar provision for ratifying the future constitution. If two-thirds of the voters in three or more “governorates” reject the constitution, it does not become law. Again, the reason for this is to make sure no group gets railroaded. It’s no coincidence that even though Kurds and Sunnis are in the minority countrywide, they each are supermajorities in at least three governorates.

I don’t want to accuse Mr. Shannon of making up numbers, but as of February 12, 2005, the official vote count has not concluded. Given that Mr. Shannon had to write his letter on February 9^th or earlier to have it published the morning of February 10^th, from where did he get his data?

“The Pentagon is now constructing 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. There is now widespread daily bombing of Iraq from Doha air base and the USS Harry Truman. But the Bush plan for permanent occupation and economic pillage of Iraq is threatened by the election outcome.”

[RWC] Again I wonder where Mr. Shannon gets his information. We’ve known about the military bases since at least April 2004; Mr. Shannon makes it sound like a new development. Much of the construction is simply rebuilding existing Iraqi military facilities the Iraqis themselves will need to protect themselves. The remaining bases are to accommodate the coalition forces until they leave. Mr. Shannon wants us to believe the U.S. will have 14 permanent military bases in Iraq.

Regarding the “widespread daily bombing of Iraq,” I’d like to know Mr. Shannon’s definition of “widespread.” Given the old media’s position with respect to all things Bush, does anyone doubt folks like Dan Rather would be splashing this all over the news?

“The Bush plan for permanent occupation and economic pillage of Iraq?” The more Mr. Shannon writes, the more I like it.

“The media are trying to convince Americans that our troops must stay. They are trying to tarnish the image of the Sistani coalition by linking it to Iran. This media campaign is aimed at maintaining Americans’ consent to more war, even expansion into Iran.”

[RWC] Regarding “the media are trying to convince Americans that our troops must stay,” is this the same media that goes out of its way to portray our troops as sadistic killers and torturers? Is this the same media that recently accused U.S. troops of targeting and killing reporters?

Again contradicting Mr. Shannon, most media sources tend to be impressed with Sistani because his has been a voice of reason from the beginning. His leadership helped put al Sadr in his place and Sistani opposes a theocracy in Iraq. To the best of my knowledge, Sistani’s only link to Iran is that is where he was born. Unlike Iranian mullahs, Sistani apparently doesn’t believe in mixing religion and government. I believe the jury is still out with respect to Sistani, but he’s been mostly doing the right things so far.

“If there was ever a time for Americans to speak out against this illegal, immoral, mercenary war it is now. The Iraqis have made it crystal clear with guns and ballots that they want us out.”

[RWC] Blah, blah, blah. Of course Iraqis don’t want us there; who wants to depend on someone else for security? The Germans and Japanese didn’t want us after World War II either. That said, every poll taken in Iraq has indicated Iraqis want more security established before coalition forces leave.

“Why let one more than 1,441 of our family members die for war profiteers? Tell Congress to cut off all funds for war in Iraq. Tell Gov. Ed Rendell to recall the Pennsylvania National Guard from Iraq. Join the Peace Links Saturday vigil at 1 p.m. at the Beaver County Courthouse.”

[RWC] At least Mr. Shannon didn’t try to convince us he “supports the troops.”

For research, I observed the Peace Links “vigil.” I was hoping for some speeches but that was not to be. Here are my notes.

· The weather was mostly sunny and breezy with a temperature of about 40° F.

· I arrived at about 12:50 p.m. and no one was in sight. 1:00 p.m. came and went with still no one in sight. These folks aren’t exactly punctual.

· The first participant didn’t show until 1:07 p.m. This woman appeared to be the designated sign bringer. The next four participants arrived over the next 10 minutes.

· There were a total of seven participants (3 men and 4 women), with the last two arriving at about 1:40 and 1:42.

· The “vigil” consisted of holding/wearing signs (“No war for oil,” “Honk for peace,” et cetera) and waving at traffic on 3^rd Avenue.

· The “vigil” ended at 1:52.

· I’m not sure, but I believe Mr. Shannon was not in attendance.

· I wonder if the participants understood the hypocrisy of holding up a “No war for oil” sign when each attendee arrived alone in a gasoline powered car. In the interest of disclosure, I saw the first six attendees arrive in separate cars. The final attendee approached from the opposite side of the block and I could not see if she got out of a car or walked from a nearby house or apartment.

1. Iraqis want their country back; Fred Goldstein; Workers World; February 10, 2005.