They didn't rise
Bassam Haddad* explains why Americans remain totally bewildered by the Iraqi's stiff resistance to their self-styled 'liberators'
Perhaps the most interesting observation from both an intellectual and a cultural point of view is the prevailing inability in some circles in the United States to understand that Iraqis could be vehemently opposed to both Saddam's regime and foreign invaders (no matter what their proclamations are).
This inability cannot be explained cognitively: surely, many of us might hold similar views towards two undesirable things, even if they are opposed to one another. The explanation of this inability lies primarily in the prevailing perceptions of the Arab world, or things Arab, of Arabs, a perception that is largely fuelled by distortion and lack of real knowledge of the culture and the history of the region, a perception that is, on average, quite negative, peddled by popular culture, the media, as well as part of academia ("AcaMedia"). It also lies in the perception among many Americans of their government and its role in the world, about its overall benevolence and good will. The combination of distorted perceptions of the Arab world and belief in the benevolence of America's global intervention is explosive and leads, in the best case, to hostile understandings and interpretations that remain impervious to evidence to the contrary.
The net result, so far, has been the refusal to acknowledge what might be called independent Iraqi nationalism, a nationalism that is leading many in Iraq to "rally around their own flag" much as Americans are expected to do when the "country" is in danger, irrespective of who's running it at the time. This Iraqi patriotism, which has its own version here in the states, is attributed to regime intimidation and threat: Iraqis cannot be independently nationalist and patriotic, and cannot die for their country. After all, why should they, when we, the benevolent liberators intend to liberate them, to exercise their patriotism towards their own country, no matter the cost to Iraqis, their families, their property, their limbs, their dignity. Why should they fight against "us"? The two points above (prejudice and benevolence) are connected.
Unfortunately for our foreign policy, bombs, death, and destruction have gotten in the way of our benevolent claims. The devastating (many human rights organisations say criminal) sanctions for 10 years, and the bombs that have been falling on Iraq during that period, in addition to the fierce bombing and rapidly rising death toll among civilians recently, have led Iraqis to view any claim of liberation with extreme cynicism. The memory of false promises to Iraqis in the south in the 1991 Gulf war exacerbates cynicism towards the US even among Saddam's most ardent antagonists. But somehow it is not fair to speak of the devastating effect of sanctions, for they were never a consistent feature in mainstream American media. And when the secretary of state was asked about the resultant monthly death toll among children and others, Albright affirmed that the price was "worth it", that, presumably, Iraqis dying from the effect of sanctions (exacerbated or not by the regime -- food rations and other "food for oil" and medical aid was insufficient, even before it entered Iraqi soil). But even the sanctions were not enough for Defence Secretary Rumsfeld and close circle of friends, posing as the highjackers of US interests. So, if you can't starve them into submission and "rebellion", bomb them into it. Well, bombing is not working either and is producing resistance by those who are being bombed and maimed. Only in an Arab country, it seems, we would find such resistance odd -- and therefore attribute resistance to regime intimidation. It is not that these people are odd or coerced into fighting and dying en mass (an absurd logistical task): it is the way we (mis)understand Arabs and the way we (mis)understand our benevolent foreign policy that makes many among us unable to humanise this particular "other".
At the same time, the Iraqi regime has not initiated any hostility towards any non-Iraqi entity in the past 10 years. When Iraq invaded Kuwait and the US-led coalition repelled the invasion, Iraqis, and nearly everyone else around the world knew that the Iraqi regime had done something wrong to a neighbouring country, that that was a pretext for repelling invasion (notwithstanding the form that war took, as many were opposed to the inhumane destruction the US caused to Iraqi infrastructure and Iraqi lives). Today, Iraqis, and nearly everyone else around the world (even overwhelming majorities in the UK and Australia) do not see a legitimate pretext to attack Iraq. So, clearly, the US attack is viewed with hostility, as an invasion (irrespective of the stated but false idealistic motives), not only by the majority of the global population, but by those whose siblings, fiancés, mothers, sons, and brothers are dying and/or denied food, water, and security under the effect of the invasion in various parts of Iraq. No matter their hostility to Saddam's regime, these people need little other rationale to resist the invasion.
It is odd that we have not heard anyone -- unless I missed it -- ask the question: if independent Iraqis are fighting the invading forces today because of regime intimidation, why did they not fight in 1991? Was the Iraqi regime rising above such tactics, or was it unable to intimidate? Or is it simply impossible (logistically or otherwise) to cause and monitor thousands to fight, fight consistently, with pride, and fight to death?
It is hardly surprising that Iraqis will fight against invading forces, with or without regime intimidation. Those of us who receive e-mails from friends or listen to journalists in Baghdad and Basra know full well that Iraqis who have been suppressed and mistreated by Saddam are also angry at the coalition forces, at the death and destruction they are causing in their cities and among their families. One Iraqi resident professes: "Saddam will strike you if you oppose the regime, but leaves you alone if you stay out of politics. So you have a choice. But the bombs that fall on your building or in the market leave you with no choice to survive." [paraphrased]
Imagine a foreign army is invading Washington DC, bombing and shelling, killing and injuring Washingtonians, friends, family, and fellow human beings. Imagine how our response would be, whether we like the leadership or not. Whether the invaders proclaim benevolent intentions or not.
Consider how 11 September changed us. How it changed our tolerance to threats and risk, to particular foreign forces and movements. How it changed our readiness to give up some of our civil and, in some cases, political freedoms. How it created in us distrust of those who attacked us, and so on. In short, consider how 11 September created among us some sort of defensive, sometimes militaristic mood.
Multiply the atrocities of 11 September many times over, in some cases a hundred times (as in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon), and you will begin to approximate the kind of defensive and often militaristic mood that prevails in the Arab world. Whether it is decades of colonialism, foreign occupation, legal and moral double standards applied by foreign forces; whether it is false promises, the support of local dictators and oppression by foreign powers, or direct invasion and destruction by the same powers, the net result in the Arab world is cynicism, distrust, and hostility towards local governments (usually authoritarian governments) and foreign forces (primarily western countries).
Through empathy, now that we have 11 September, one should be able to appreciate the mood of people in similarly affected countries, notwithstanding the difference in degree.
In order to take Baghdad, the coalition forces may well have to destroy Baghdad, again, but on a far larger scale this time. Destroying Baghdad and killing thousands in that city in particular, is like igniting a global volcano. Baghdad is not Kabul, neither is it the source of the 11 September crime. Sadly, the impending destruction is not likely to increase security in the West, but severely diminish it, for more than a generation.
Today, around the world, especially in the Arab world (more so than the Muslim world), millions of people are willing to come to the aid of Baghdad, to fight, and die.
In short, the moment Baghdad is invaded, all hell is likely to break real lose. Baghdad symbolises a great deal. I cannot explain adequately the importance of the city of Baghdad in the Arab world, and, indeed, in the history of civilisation.
People in the Arab world today feel as though they are being suffocated every time the bombs fall on Baghdad. People are crying in their homes, people, by the millions, in the Arab world, are livid. They cannot believe that Iraq is being invaded, that Baghdad is going to be destroyed. We don't see that on television, we do not hear about that, certainly not on CNN. We only see the sensationalist pictures/footage of angry demonstrators in the streets. We do not see crying mothers, sisters, brothers, at home, simply at the thought that Baghdad and Iraq is being unjustifiably attacked and devastated, that homes of fellow Arabs are being bombed to the ground. It would do us well to take note of this.
The infinitely poor judgment of administration analysts and the plethora of think-tanks that surround it regarding the question of independent Iraqi nationalists, and then, the even more disgraceful explanation that the growing Iraqi opposition is a result only of regime intimidation and not nationalist self-defence, all of this hodgepodge of analysis about independent Iraqi nationalism is belied by the thousands of Arabs who are illegally crossing the border into Iraq from all over the Arab world, especially Syria ("the heart of Arabism"). These people have crossed the border not through the legal channels, but through arduous terrain and random spots along the border, knowing full well that the old rifles they have are useless against military might. But the thought that Iraqis are dying and Iraq is being invaded is considered intolerable. These thousands of entrants are but a reflection of tens of millions who share their views. I presume that Rumsfeld and others will also attribute this influx to the intimidation of the Iraqi regime. The poor judgment of our government, let alone the media, regarding the Middle East, never ceases to amaze serious observers. Only this time, poor judgment, ignorance, and prejudice comes at a high price for the United States, a price paid by soldiers, sons and daughters not of Rumsfeld and Bush, but of the average American who would never benefit from this war, not matter the outcome.
When will we understand that aggression, occupation, colonisation, and mass murder is not going to work?
* The writer is adjunct professor in the Department of Government in Georgetown University.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 10 -16 April 2003 (Issue No. 633)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/633/op12.htm