|
As the British Government have discarded one set of lies about
Iraq, used to justify the invasion, they have replaced them
with a new set - this time aimed at justifying the ongoing
military occupation.
Thus, at
press conference with the US-appointed Iraqi Prime Minister
(and former CIA
asset) Ayad Allawi on 19 Sept, Tony
Blair declared that we are now fighting a “new Iraqi
conflict” which he identified as “the crucible
in which the future of … global terrorism will be determined.” According
to Mr Blair, this “new conflict” pits an Iraqi
government that is “trying to create … [a] democratic
[Iraq] … [that] respects human rights” against “former
regime elements and … outside terrorists.” Given
the source it should come as no surprise to learn that every
one of these statements is false.
Big
lie #1: ‘outside
terrorists’
Blair’s emphasis on the role of “outside terrorists” – and
his conflation of the ongoing war in Iraq with “global
terrorism” – ‘runs counter to the US military’s
own assessment that the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily
a home-grown problem’ (LA Times, 28 September). Indeed, ‘US
military officials said Iraqi officials [who have spoken of
foreign insurgents “flooding” into the country]
tended to exaggerate the number of foreign fighters in Iraq
to obscure the fact that large numbers of their foreign countrymen
have taken up arms against US troops and the American-backed
interim Iraqi government.’ “They say these guys
are flowing across [the border] and fomenting all this violence.
We don’t think so,” a senior military official
in Baghdad explained. “What’s the main threat?
It’s internal.”
30% or 2%?
In one recent interview, the US-appointed Iraqi PM Ayad Allawi
claimed that foreign fighters constituted 30% of insurgent
forces. In reality they probably form less than 2% - maybe
much less. Indeed, in a Sept. 26 TV interview, the head of
US Central Command, Gen. John Abizaid, ‘estimated that
the number of foreign fighters in Iraq was below 1000’ [1],
while the former deputy commander of coalition forces puts
the number of insurgents at around 50,000 (Independent on
Sunday, 3 Oct). Furthermore, much of the resistance appears
to be actively hostile to Zarqawi and his followers [2].
Ba’athists?
At the same time as debunked the one myth, however, Abizaid
appeared to be replacing it with another, claiming that, “the
primary problem we’re dealing with is former regime
elements of the ex-Baath Party.” While it is certainly
true that there are former Ba’athists among the insurgents,
it is unclear how large a role they actually play [3]. For
obvious reasons the US and British governments like to present
the insurgents as either ‘Saddam loyalists’ or ‘foreign
fighters’. However, since their assault on the vehemently
anti-Saddam Sadrist movement in April, they’ve been
forced to admit a third category: Sadrist ‘militiamen.’ Nonetheless,
there appear to be plenty of insurgents who fall into none
of these categories.
“We
had to act”
One such individual was recently profiled by Jason Burke
in the Observer (12 Sept). ‘Abu Mujahed’ was ‘pro-American
before the invasion,’ Burke writes, but ‘his
faith in the US was shaken when, via a friend’s illicitly
imported satellite TV system, he saw ‘barbaric, savage’ pictures
of civilian casualties of the fighting and bombing. The next
blow came in the conflict’s immediate aftermath, as
looters ran unchecked through Baghdad.’ “When
I saw the American soldiers watching and doing nothing as
people took everything, I began to suspect the US was not
here to help us but to destroy us,” he explained. “I
thought it might be just the chaos of war but it got worse,
not better.” He quickly found that many in his neighbourhood
shared his anger and concluded that ‘the time had come … “we
had to act”.’ ‘Nothing had been planned
in advance … and the others in his group were not working
to any plan. Everything they did was improvised. And each
of the seven-man group had a different motive: “One
man was fighting for his nation, another for a principle,
another for his faith.”’ According to Burke, ‘His
justification for the struggle was an inconsistent mix of
political and economic grievances and wounded pride: “We
are under occupation. They bomb the mosques, they kill a
huge number of people. There is no greater shame than to
see your country being occupied.”’
Big
lie #2: ‘democracy
and human rights’
Turning to Blair’s claim that the US-appointed Iraqi
Government is “trying to create … [a] democratic
[Iraq] … [that] respects human rights,” once again,
the reality is very different. Thus Jason Burke notes that ‘the
lineaments of a new nation are emerging. Ironically, much of
it looks like Saddam's Iraq, though without the systematic
repression … The new police see their job as maintaining
order - in a brutal, often lethal fashion - not protecting
citizens against crime. The government has responded harshly
to media criticism … [and] Allawi has even created a
secret intelligence service and talked of ‘emergency
powers’ to counter violence. All of this confirms a pre-war
memorandum to Tony Blair from senior UK government advisers … pointing
out there was no certainty that any ‘replacement regime’ in
Iraq ‘will be any better’ [than Saddam's]’ (Observer,
19 Sept) [4].
In July
a reporter for Knight Ridder Newspapers was invited by ‘an Iraqi lieutenant Colonel, an intelligence officer
under Saddam Hussein’s regime … to observe an afternoon
of his interrogations. What followed was a scene that would
probably have sparked a scandal had American forces been involved,’ she
noted (19 July). Prisoners, blindfolded with scraps of cloth
and bound by plastic ties were subjected to ‘interrogations
that included blows to the head and threats against their families.’ “Don’t
talk to me about human rights,” one interrogator told
her. “When security settles down, we’ll talk about
human rights. Right now, I need confessions.’
‘Leave … [or]
be shot’
Iraq’s democratic and human rights credentials were also
on display in Najaf during the three-week-long siege of the
Imam Ali shrine. Journalists who protested police orders to
leave the city were told: “You have been warned. You
have two hours. If you don’t leave you will be shot.”’ (Independent,
16 August). The police then ‘followed up [these] earlier
threats by arresting one journalist, Ahmed al-Saleh, who [wa]s
working with al-Arabiya TV network and firing warning shots
at the Sea of Najaf hotel, where nearly all foreign and Arab
journalists are staying’ (Independent, 17 August). Journalists
at the hotel were then told by a police lieutenant: “We
are going to open fire on this hotel. We are going to smash
it up. I will kill you all. You did this all to yourselves”,
claiming that ‘four snipers would be positioned on the
roof of the police station to fire at any journalist who left
the hotel.’ Nonetheless, ‘Downing Street warned
against journalists in Najaf making claims that there was a
clampdown on the media. “I think we should not be too
hasty to turn this into a debate about free speech,” a
No 10 spokesman said, responding to news of the death threats. “There
is quite a lively media in Iraq for the first time in years … We
are sure that any action taken by [the Iraqi authorities] is
consistent with the security situation,” he explained
(Independent, 17 August).
On 7 Aug, at the start of the assault on Najaf, the Iraqi Government closed
the offices of the Arab television station al-Jazeera and banned it for 30
days (AP, 7 Aug) - the ban was later extended indefinitely (Guardian, 6 Sept)
‘Unusual compromises’
On 24 Aug 2003, the Washington Post reported that the US had ‘begun a
covert campaign to recruit and train agents [from] the once-dreaded [Iraqi]
intelligence service to help identify resistance to American forces.’ Whilst
these officials ‘acknowledge[d] the sensitivity of cooperating with a
force that embodies the ruthlessness’ of Hussein’s regime and the ‘pitfalls
in relying on an instrument loathed by most Iraqis and renowned across the
Arab world for its casual use of torture, fear, intimidation, rape and imprisonment’ they
claimed that ‘an urgent need…ha[d] forced unusual compromises.’ According
to Iraqi security sources, ‘about two-thirds of the new [Iraqi National
Intelligence Service] [i]s made up of former members of the Mukhabarat and
other intelligence groups that worked under the old regime’ (Chicago
Tribune, 4 Aug); a strange way to set about creating an Iraq that ‘respects
human rights.’
‘Putting
democracy on hold’
But what about Blair’s claim that there is currently
a process “to get Iraq towards democracy”? Is this
the saving grace? Well, elections are scheduled to take place
by the end of January 2005 but, as the Independent’s
Patrick Cockburn notes, ‘[i]n present circumstances it
will be impossible to hold elections which have any meaning
in Iraq. Iraqis will not recognise as fair an election in which
the ballot box is strapped to the back of a US tank’ (18
Sept).
Over the
past 18 months, the US has consistently stalled on one-person-one-vote
elections in Iraq, seeking instead to ‘put
democracy on hold until it can be safely managed’ (Salim
Lone, director of communications for the UN in Iraq until Autumn
2003, Guardian, 13 April). More recently it has made a number
of moves to control the forthcoming electoral process [5].
Furthermore, according to Newsweek (7 June), ‘No one
is better equipped [to use official powers to influence the
planned elections] than [Iraq’s US-appointed Prime Minister
Ayad] Allawi.’ On 27 Sept. Time reported the existence
of ‘a secret “finding” … proposing
a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favored by Washington.’ Meanwhile
the Economist (18 Sept) reports that the opposition groups
that sided with the US before the war are discussing a so-called “monster
consensus list” of candidates – an idea which ‘could
create an essentially a one-party election … look[ing]
uncomfortably like the plebiscites choreographed to produce
98 percent majorities under Saddam Hussein’ (New York
Times leader, 26 Sept, see the 37th voices newsletter for more
info).
“We shouldn’t
be here”
To summarise: all the signs are that occupied Iraq is not
headed for democracy but for some sort of authoritarian regime.
Furthermore the simple truth is that US and British troops
are currently fighting a war against Iraqis resisting the
military occupation of their country by forces that have
killed thousands of Iraqi civilians and have no right to
be there. “I don’t begrudge them,” a Marine
officer told the New York Times, about a mortar attack on
a US base. “We’d do the same thing if some foreign
dudes rolled into San Diego and set up shop” (2 May).
As one Marine infantryman explained to AP: “We shouldn’t
be here. There was no reason for invading this country in
the first place. We just came here and (angered people) and
killed a lot of innocent people. I don’t enjoy killing
women and children, it’s not my thing.” (AP,
22 Sept).
FOOTNOTES
[1] According
to US military intelligence agents in Iraq, the role of Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi – the man allegedly
responsible for scores of suicide bombings inside Iraq – has
been ‘exaggerated by flawed intelligence and the Bush
administration’s desire to find “a villain” for
the post-invasion mayhem’ (Telegraph, 4 Oct). According
to one agent: “The overwhelming sense from the information
we are now getting is that the number of foreign fighters does
not exceed several hundred and is perhaps as low as 200. From
the information we have gathered, we have to conclude that
Zarqawi is more myth than man.” Recent reports for an
Arab intelligence service concur, judging that Zarqawi’s
own group has fewer than 100 members inside Iraq (Newsday.com,
4 Oct).
[2] This goes without saying for the (Shi’ite) Sadrist
movement since Zarqawi reportedly regards Shi’ism as
an “infidel ideology” and is suspected of being
behind an August 2003 attack on a Shi’a mosque in Najaf
(Guardian, 23 Sept). The Kuwaiti daily al-Rai al-Aam recently
reported that several of the Sunni resistance groups, commanding
a total of “7,000 fighters across Iraq”,‘plan
to unite under one umbrella and rein in sectarian attacks by
[Zarqawi’s followers]’ (AFP, 4 Oct) “If Zarqawi
does not abandon his plans to instigate a sectarian rift, the
groups will force him to do so even if that requires taking
up arms against him,” the paper quoted one of its sources
as saying.
[3] Back in April Robert Fisk reported the findings of an Iraqi
academic who lives in Fallujah, who had reported to a conference
on Iraq held by the Centre for Arab Unity Studies in Beirut
that ‘80 per cent of all rebels killed were Iraqi Islamist
activists. Only 13 per cent of the dead men were primarily
nationalists and only 2 per cent had been Baathists’ (Independent,
10 April, the figures presumably refer to the cases that he
had examined).
[4] Note, however, that there is nothing ‘ironic’ about
any of this eg. prior to the invasion, Milan Rai noted that
the evidence suggested ‘that the men leading us to war
are intent on … maintaining the structures of power and
ways of operating much as they are’ (War Plan Iraq, Verso,
p. 133).
[5] Earlier this year the US passed laws banning the Sadrist
movement - which, it has been estimated, would get about a
third of the Shiite vote in a free election - from taking part
in elections; and granting a US-created electoral commission
wide-ranging powers to ban candidates. See voices briefing ‘So
Long as You Win’ for background and sources.
|
