|
Bremer’s
Faux-Pas
|
|
|
Bremer’s
admission that Saddam is not behind the Iraqi resistance poses
many political problems. |
When US politicians and policy makers want to get
a message across to their constituents, the tried and tested tradition is to
take the message to the weekend talk show circuit.
The
most “used” of these talk shows is NBC’s Meet the Press, which airs
on Sundays and usually gives the media a chockfull to discuss in the following
week.
Last
Sunday, Iraq’s Civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer, an expert on
anti-terrorism and the man given the task of bringing order to Iraq made a
startling revelation.
Bremer
told the American public that while he believes Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
is likely still alive and hiding somewhere in Iraq, it is improbable that he is
behind the now daily attacks on American troops and logistics.
Let’s
put aside for a minute that in the two days since Bremer appeared on the talk
shows, five US soldiers and 24 Iraqis were killed, four Humvee and armored
personnel carriers were completely destroyed, Iraqi Shiites in Najaf stoned
retreating US troops, two new Iraqi resistance groups have come to the fore and
sworn to destroy the presence of all foreigners, and no evidence of weapons of
mass destruction.
Putting
all that aside, Bremer’s admission that the guerilla-style war against US
forces is not orchestrated by Saddam opens up a Pandora’s Box of political
problems.
The
war looks like it is just beginning. |
|
The
primary discrepancy is that for the 100 or so days since the tearing down of
Saddam’s statue, US officials have been swearing that the attacks on US forces
are the work of Saddam and Ba’thist loyalists. Some have claimed that Saddam
has a cache of weapons and finances at his deposal and was placing a bounty on
US troops. North American media have made the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam
had placed a 20,000 dollar bounty on each killed US soldier.
Those
claims by the media and US officials have now been systematically debunked by
Bremer’s talk show revelation. If not Saddam, then who?
This
brings into question the second inconsistency. Members of the Washington-based
Heritage Foundation think tank, the US State Department, the Iraqi National
Council, and the Economist, as well as other media outlets, have long held that
Iraqis today are far better off than under Saddam’s “iron fist.” They
persist in this claim despite numerous Arab news reports that Iraqis believe
they led more secure lifestyles during Saddam’s Regime.
If
Bremer maintains Saddam is not behind the attacks, then surely it must be the
Iraqi people themselves who are mounting armed resistance, right? Take, for
example, the video broadcasts of Iraqi resistance groups swearing that they are
absolutely not affiliated with Saddam and are fighting for the liberation of
Iraq from occupation.
|
|
|
If
it is popular resistance, then Iraqis don’t see Americans as
liberators. |
If
the scenario of local resistance were to be pushed to its logical conclusion, it
would mean that US forces have failed to convince the Iraqi populace that they
are liberators and not occupiers.
Not
so fast, say US policy-makers, pointing to the success of the newly-formed
US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council. These same said US politicians may have
chosen to disregard the vocal outpouring of Iraqi rejection of the Council. The
Iraqi Communist party has rejected them as being non-representative of the Iraqi
people. Leading Sunni and Shiite Islamic leaders have also openly rejected the
Council, calling it a pawn of US occupation. On Monday, the Christian Democratic
Party of Iraq, rejected the new interim government and specifically pointed out
their rejection of Kurdish leader Masoud Barazani. The Christian group said it
would not recognize any government, or ruling body, unless it is directly voted
in by the Iraqi people and legitimately represent the aspirations of the people.
The
third option is perhaps the grimmest for US plans in the Middle East. The Bush
administration rode the wave of popular domestic support when it promised that a
war in Iraq would ensure that Islamic militancy and terrorism would be globally
suppressed and eradicated. Fair enough; however, if Bremer says it isn’t
Saddam who is instigating the attacks on US forces, and it isn’t the Iraqi
people themselves, the only remaining option is that members of al-Qaeda, or
other “foreign fighters” have somehow infiltrated Iraq’s porous borders
and started a war of attrition in Iraq, often toying with US lives in the
region.
All
three of the above options represent a defeat of US policies and promises in
Iraq. This was supposed to be a war of liberation, but the “liberated”
people of Iraq are beginning to get restless and openly voice their anger of US
incompetence.
This
was supposed to be a war to prevent the weapons of mass destruction (which every
US politician swore they knew beyond a shadow of doubt that Saddam had) from
threatening the US or falling into terrorist hands. To date, no weapons have
been found, thereby forcing the Bush administration to play with semantics and
claim they are looking for programs that may have led to weapons manufacturing
in the future.
With
235 US and 43 British military fatalities, the war, which was declared over on
May 1st, looks increasingly like it is just beginning.
Firas
Al-Atraqchi holds an MA in Journalism and Mass Communication. He is a
Canadian journalist with eleven years of experience covering Middle East issues,
oil and gas markets, and the telecom industry. You can reach him at firas6544@rogers.com
|
