|
La
Resistance
An American’s
Perspective
Anyone
following the “peace” – and I say that with tongue-in-cheek – in Iraq
also knows that there is an ongoing resistance working against the American
troops who find themselves in the position of an occupying army. This has so far
made itself manifest by the almost daily attacks resulting in the deaths of
American soldiers and the frustration of an administration that declared an end
to hostilities after the quick, overwhelming victory of the Anglo-Alliance over
Saddam Hussein’s much depleted and demoralized military.
While
nobody in their right mind can defend Saddam on grounds of human-rights,
economic foresight or diplomatic right-mindedness, there were those of us who
argued about the ethics behind pursuing military action against the Iraqi
regime. There were cries of WMD (weapons of mass destruction), none of which
have been found to date. There have been constant reminders of the horrors
committed during the reign of President Hussein, such as the mass graves and the
torture cells. This is indeed horrific, and we should applaud any effort by
humanity to eradicate such despotic rule.
China
has murdered thousands of her own citizens and routinely employs
torture as a method of interrogation. |
|
Still,
one cannot help but ask the question why Iraq alone? If Saddam is a murderous
tyrant, Kim Jong Il is worse. Saddam may have killed his tens of thousands but
the North Korean despot has killed millions, partially through starving his
people to death and leading a police state where there are modern day
concentration camps that would make Himler smile. China has also been
responsible for murdering tens of thousands of her own citizens and routinely
employs torture as a method of interrogation. One can honestly make the case for
a dozen states currently operating as despotic totalitarian regimes employing
torture and murder as ordinary methods of state control.
So
why Iraq?
Many
of those on the left asked questions such as these before Bush commenced the war
against Iraq. However, the thing that rankled most to me personally was the
apparent lack of a post war game plan for Iraq. With the constant reminders of
“good vs. evil” and the talk about World War II, one would do well to
remember that before the conclusion of that war Allied leaders met multiple
times to hash out the post-war issues. Even during the latter years, at Tehran
and Yalta, and despite growing arguments between the Soviet Union and the United
States/England, both sides met up so that after Germany had been defeated there
would be law, order and a clear path for the future of Europe. We had no such
meetings like this, nor was there graphed out a clear plan to either the
American people or the world in general.
Anyone
remember Afghanistan? |
|
Anyone
remember Afghanistan? Anyone remember concepts such as nation building, helping
to re-structure the military and forming an effective democracy? Yes, we’re
trying to do the same thing here but it’s seen in a much different light. How
so? Quite simply put Afghanistan was seen globally as a reaction by the United
States to the events of 11th September and, in spite of some voices
outside the circle, could be argued successfully as a justifiable war. Iraq was
seen in much a different light. It was seen by many as being two-fold: first, it
was a war for oil in the views of many. Second it was seen as a method for the
United States to gain a staunch foothold in the region in spite of pulling
forces out of Saudi Arabia.
Compounding
the international political problems with prosecuting this war came the
unsettling fact that the Bush Administration had no clear game plan as to what
could happen in the aftermath. The case presented to the public was as follows:
Iraq’s people were being kept in virtual slavery. Upon “liberating” we
would be welcomed by crowds throwing rose petals at our feet. Questions about
occupation (and the cost thereof) were dismissed as being secondary to the good
we’d be doing to the people of the region. It was also seen as a way to bring
further peace in the region, mostly by removing the last major threat to Israel
and thus the peace accords (Saddam was by all accounts paying quite handsome
sums of money to the families of suicide bombers). With Egypt having been bought
off long ago, Jordan more recently and Syria no longer really a threat to anyone
but Lebanon, it left Iraq as the only state still capable of launching a
military assault on Israel.
The
Bush Administration had no clear game plan as to what could happen in
the aftermath. |
|
Sure,
there was talk at the press conferences about the fact that Iraq was made up of
at least three major ethno-religious groups: Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shi’a
Muslims, but this was seen more in a positive light, meaning there existed the
ability to divide and conquer. But nobody seemed to remember the story of
Yugoslavia and Tito. When that country, long held together by a repressive
communist regime, fell apart, the ethnic tensions which had existed just
under the surface for decades boiled over. There was out and out genocide
complete with the concentration camps, rape camps (where Muslim women were
repeatedly gang-raped by Serbian soldiers in order to impregnate them with
bastard children) and general civil war raged for most of the early-mid 1990s.
While
certainly this is not the case in Iraq, there are multiple complex political
issues at hand here concerning power sharing between the ethnic groups: the
desire of the Kurds to have a homeland in the north, the desire of the Sunni
Muslims to keep the concentration of power in their hands and the desire of the
Shi’a in the south to take that power away. Much is made of the fact that
after the first gulf war (for Americans in any case) Saddam restored power and
general civil order within a few days of his reassertion of control over the
areas. It has been over one-hundred days since Americans took over the majority
of Iraq and still there are shortages and outages. Many Iraqis now see this as a
sort of bargaining chip to be held against the ongoing attacks: turn over those
who are waging the guerilla campaign and we’ll give you back power, fresh
water, etc.
Iraqis
have long memories and the dubious honor of being a much occupied and invaded
land. The Romans, Mongols, Turks, British and now Americans to name a few have
all had their turn in trying to hold down what is today Iraq. Of the first four,
they left when their time in power began to set. Americans now stand poised to
occupy for who knows how long; even the administration gives conflicting reports
about the necessary length of occupation. Sometimes it’s a year, sometimes
four, other times it’s “as long as needed until we can restore order and
install democracy.”
It
is doubtful whether Americans can stomach seeing their young come home
in body bags on a regular basis. |
|
But
America has gained an international reputation (deserved or not) in the past
three decades for being a country that is loathe to shed any of her soldiers
blood for a cause. There are serious questions about the ability of the American
people to stomach seeing her young men and women come home in body bags on a
regular basis, which leaves the administration with two choices: ratchet up the
level of involvement in order to thoroughly subjugate the population, or leave.
Neither
option is particularly attractive to US interests in the region or globally.
President Bush swears that America is in Iraq for the long haul, namely as long
as it takes to get the job done. If there was an attack tomorrow that claimed
the lives of several hundred American soldiers in Iraq there would be tremendous
pressure to leave the country coming not from the young men on the streets of
Baghdad but from the young men on the streets of New York City, Detroit and Los
Angeles.
Pressure
to leave could come not from the streets of Baghdad, but of New York,
Detroit and Los Angeles. |
|
Despite
what the administration promises, the resistance in Iraq will likely continue to
grow as the length of occupation goes on. Oblivious to most of the cultural and
religious sensitivities of the Iraqi people, foreign policy makers in Washington
will continue to blunder their way into squandering what little good will we
have left in the region for removing Saddam in the first place. As Americans
continue to die in Iraq, one will be forced to ask “when is enough?” But the
old Latin adage applies here: “the gladiator is making his plans in the
arena,” (i.e. too late!) and for us these are the questions that should have
been discussed before the war.
Anytime
one’s country is at war there is a fine line to walk when discussing foreign
policy. At the same time that one can disapprove of the war itself, there is
always a need to be seen as not opposing the troops themselves. I am very proud
of the American soldier, the individual who went and fought because it’s what
he was told to do. He is what makes America a great country because he is
willing to give his life to protect the multitude of blessings that we enjoy as
Americans, the freedoms that God and the Constitution (despite what Mr. Ashcroft
is trying to do) gave us. I do not bring these things up (i.e. the inevitable
killing of American soldiers as part of an organized resistance) because I
desire it; far from it, I wish that nobody on either side had to die and that no
mother was again faced with a military entourage at her doorstep informing her
that her son had paid the highest price for his country. But with the actions
against Iraq comes the implicit realization that lives will be lost and blood
will be shed.
A
good deal of President Bush’s popularity comes in his ability to wear his
feelings on his sleeve. Namely, after the years of Clinton where many saw him as
a man who shed crocodile tears depending on who was watching, most Americans
view Bush as a man who laughs when he can and cries when he is truly sad. This
simplicity is indeed refreshing in the world of American politics. Yet it is
that same simplicity that has led to many of Bush’s errors in the world of
international relations. The concepts of “good vs. evil” and that things
would all fall into place once we came into an area have led us into major
conflicts in three different parts of the world: Afghanistan, Iraq and now
Liberia, without solving any of the former before embarking on the latter.
It
would be nice if the social, political, ethnic, religious and economic issues
that have been suppressed for the last thirty years in Iraq could be resolved
with a wink, smile and handshake but they cannot, and one can only wonder how
long it will take before the administration realizes that doing things like
humiliating men in front of their wives and sons is not the best way to handle
the post-war rebuilding process.
At
the end of the day the occupation of Iraq will be seen as a watershed of
American foreign policy, at least as far as regards the military sphere. In
order to be successful, however, the American administration (and any future
administrations that continue with an occupation of any sorts) will have to face
one striking fact: the Iraqis will not give up resistance, not now and not in a
few years. And that resistance will get worse, especially as more foreign
factions enter the equation. The ability of the American people to tolerate a
long, drawn out war in a land far away with (to us) strange customs and a desire
to die rather than surrender to a foreign army has been tested before. Whatever
the choice, America must make sure that her stay is seen as little in the light
of an occupation as is possible, else we will be seen in the same light as the
only other power in the region currently known as occupying territory, and any
Arab can tell you what they think of Occupation.
Anthony
J. Aschettino is a scholar in Middle East and South Asian Studies. He is
currently doing freelance work while researching his first book on
Neo-Colonialism and the Muslim World. He has spent time in Pakistan, Egypt,
Israel and Palestine during the course of his studies and travels. You can reach
him at aschettino@islam-online.net
|
