| |
When a liberator is an
occupier
By Nir Rosen
BAGHDAD
- The most common complaint heard soon after the Iraq
war ended was that the Americans came as liberators, but
now they are occupiers. This is not just a question of
semantics as the liberation vs occupation debate has
immense implications in Iraq.
This was
demonstrated in a June 2 Iraqi council meeting hosted by
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) for nearly 300
tribal leaders of all religions and ethnic groups.
Ambassador Hume Horan, who is a political advisor to CPA
chief L Paul Bremer, was also present. Horan, a former
ambassador to Saudi Arabia and fluent Arabic speaker,
addressed the audience in Arabic about the efforts the
coalition was making and the need for their support.
After Horan finished speaking, Sheikh Munthr
Abood from Amarra thanked President George W Bush for
removing the Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein and stated
that he had seen the mass graves of Shi'ites in the
south (killed by Saddam in the aftermath of the first
Gulf War of 1991) and was firmly opposed to Saddam. He
then asked Horan if the coalition forces in Iraq were
liberators or occupiers.
Horan responded that
they were "somewhere in between occupier and liberator".
This was not well received by the audience. Sheikh Abood
stated that if America was a liberator, then the
coalition forces were welcome indefinitely as guests,
but that if they were occupiers, then he and his
descendants would "die resisting" the occupiers. This
met with energetic applause from the audience. Several
other sheikhs echoed the same sentiment. Then the
meeting deteriorated and one third of the audience stood
up and walked out, despite the efforts of Horan and
other organizers to encourage them to stay. This brought
the meeting to end. It was not a public relations
success.
The problems associated with being a
"liberator" or an "occupier" impacted on the war right
from the outset. "For political reasons, leaders
declared that US forces were 'liberating forces' rather
than occupying forces," admits a confidential After
Action Report written by the US Army's Third Infantry
Division. Up to 15,000 Third Infantry Division (3rd ID)
troops fought in Iraq, and 44 soldiers from this unit
that formed the bulk of the ground invasion from Kuwait
to Baghdad were killed in battle. The authors of the
leaked report, which is 281 pages long, are not known,
but they provide a critique of the war and its aftermath
that candidly reveals the army's view.
The
failure to call the occupation an occupation, the
authors state, "may have caused military commanders to
be reluctant to use the full power granted to occupying
forces to accomplish our legitimate objectives". They
assert that "as a matter of law and fact, the United
States is an occupying power in Iraq, even if we
characterize ourselves as liberators. Under
international law, occupation is a de facto status that
occurs when an invading army takes effective control of
a portion of another country. If necessary to maintain
this public affairs position, our national command
should have stated that while we were 'liberators', we
intended to comply with international law requirements
regarding occupation."
Occupation status "would
have provided us authority to control almost every
aspect of the Iraqi life, including the civilian
population, government, resources and facilities, making
it easier for us to accomplish all SASO [stability and
support operations] missions." They apparently believe
this would have been productive. According to one
frustrated army major, the 3rd ID report is just a
"cover to obscure their failure to plan and take the
most basic preventive measures to secure property and
stop looting. There was never a question about their
capabilities and obligations. What they said at the time
was that they had other priorities. Now they are saying
they felt legally constrained."
Although the UN
Security Council only recognized the US occupation of
Iraq on October 16, Iraqis had no doubt how to describe
their new condition from the moment foreign troops first
encroached on their country. "This is an occupation!"
has been the ubiquitous refrain from angry citizens
throughout Iraq. In his "freedom message to the Iraqi
people", General Tommy Franks, the former commander of
coalition forces in Iraq, announced that they "have come
as liberators, not occupiers", adding that they have
come "to enforce UN resolutions requiring the
destruction of weapons of mass destruction" (that do not
seem to exist). Iraqis assumed a liberator would bring
liberty, not chaos, anarchy and insecurity.
Lawyers working for the CPA readily acknowledge
that the American presence is an occupation and it is
their task to apply international law to what they
perceive as a legal occupation and the obligations
resulting from it. "There is no liberation law" said one
colonel, only "occupation law". International law does
not recognize the concept of liberator, only occupier,
and the holder of this status assumes certain
responsibilities. A major working in civil affairs
rationalizes that "it's a legal occupation but a moral
liberation".
For Americans, "occupation"
conjures images of occupied Germany or Japan, and the
repair of damaged societies. In Arabic, tahrir,
or liberation, and ihtilal, or occupation, have
much greater moral and emotional and even religious
significance. Ihtilal means the Crusaders who
slaughtered Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christians, it
means the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in the 13th
century, it means the British imperialists who divided
the spoils of the Ottoman Empire with the French and it
means the Israelis who oppressed the southern Lebanese
and imposed their will brutally on the Palestinians. "We
removed Saddam and we brought one thing to the people,
freedom to talk," said a dejected staff sergeant with
the Free Iraqi Forces, Iraqi exiles who volunteered to
return with the American forces. His wife accuses him of
being an occupier when he calls her back in America. "We
warned them," he says of the Americans, "but they didn't
listen. They are turning a thousand friends into enemies
every day."
The 3rd ID report acknowledges that
"occupation law also imposed upon us obligations to
protect the civilian population to the best of our
ability. Because of the refusal to acknowledge occupier
status, commanders did not initially take measures
available to occupying powers, such as imposing curfews,
directing civilians to return to work, and controlling
the local governments and populace. The failure to act
after we displaced the regime created a power vacuum,
which others immediately tried to fill."
The
report laments that there was "no civilian authority in
place prepared to serve as civilian administrator of
Iraq" despite the fact that "the president announced
that our national goal was "regime change" and adds that
"there was no timely plan prepared for the obvious
consequences of a regime change ... as late as April 15,
the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance
(ORHA) had, at best, a working draft plan of post Saddam
Iraq ... despite the virtual certainty that the military
would accomplish the regime change, there was no plan
for oversight and reconstruction, even after the
division arrived in Baghdad. Higher headquarters needs
to understand the immediate need and impact of the local
police in the aftermath of war. The people wanted police
and needed security. But we had no plan to accomplish
this." The authors recognize that "At first, the people
were anxious to get started and looked to the US for
assistance. They soon saw us as being unable or
unwilling to get anything done."
Iraqis grumble
about their invisible ruler, Bremer, who has also
rejected representation for them, declaring them not
mature enough to decide their own fate. Iraqis had three
dictators in three months, Saddam replaced by the
bucolic Jay Garner and then the urbane Bremer, while
others such as Franks and Bush issue edicts that affect
their lives and Arnold Schwarzenegger visits but does
not greet his Iraqi fans. Even the name of their
government has changed three times, ORHA being replaced
by a new acronym, OCPA.
In its section on
"trophies and property damage", the 3rd ID report admits
that "soldiers destroyed, damaged, or removed property",
and makes the recommendation to "prevent soldiers from
looting or unnecessarily damaging property". The foreign
troops have become an onerous presence as the burden of
Saddam was removed and a new one imposed. Iraqis now
have to suffer the numerous intrusive checkpoints, the
traffic jams they cause, the many roadblocks, the tanks,
the lines for gasoline. They are awakened by rumbling of
tanks through streets, or the sounds of gunfire. Many
Iraqis wonder what are these words "fuck" and "shit"
that Americans use all the time. Frustrated young
soldiers point their machine guns at grandmothers and
tease Iraqi youths about how easily they could kill
them.
Iraqis are lost and confused before the
American juggernaut. There used to be ministries, ways
of getting things done, now they have to march through
long paths carved out with barbed wire and stand in the
sun, with gun barrels facing them, as they are searched,
patted down, questioned, their IDs declared unsuitable,
told they cannot be helped, sent elsewhere. Tempers are
lost and Americans scream in English as Iraqis shout in
Arabic, neither understanding the other. American
soldiers do not sympathize with the inconvenience. "We
stand in the sun all day," said one soldier, looking at
hundreds of men standing or squatting, waiting.
Iraqis continued waiting long nights without
electricity, living in darkness by gas lanterns,
listening to sounds of gunfire all night, suffering from
heat without air conditioning, sleeping outside to
escape the saunas in their homes, sitting on the curbs
or standing in clusters, living in boredom, fear,
frustration and futility. There is no security. Saddam's
regime had a monopoly on violence. It was possible to
accommodate oneself to life under Saddam, and to live
without arousing the state's ire or incurring its wrath.
The present violence is random, collaboration with it is
impossible.
Meanwhile, coalition soldiers live
removed from Iraqis, hiding in Saddam's palaces. They
are increasingly vulnerable and nervous as the high
security of the first weeks after the war is restored
due to increasingly successful attacks against
Americans. Some attackers are indeed the lingering
remnants of Saddam's regime. Nihilistically they shoot
power stations with rocket-propelled grenades and blow
up water pipes, damaging Iraqi communities for the sake
of propaganda.
Many of those who attack
Americans are not former regime elements, they are men
who opposed Saddam and welcomed the Americans but their
pride is wounded, they are humiliated by the treatment
they receive and they need to restore their self esteem.
Iraqis feel shame for their country's quick capitulation
after predictions of last stands and bloodbaths and
boasts that American soldiers would not be able to deal
with the heat. These successful attacks demonstrate
their virility and the American vulnerability and
gratify most Iraqis subconsciously, as evident by how
fast detailed and accurate rumors of the attacks spread
throughout the country.
American soldiers are
confused by why anybody would want to attack them, since
they are liberators after all. Others are cynical and
question why they were sent to Iraq at all. One enlisted
marine wanted to know what it was like back home during
the war, if Americans supported them, and if they knew
why the war had been fought. When asked why he thought
he was in Iraq, he responded, "its obvious, for oil, the
first thing we did was secure the oil field in Basra."
He scoffed, "Americans are blind, there were no weapons
of mass destruction, we barely even took any fire."
Other soldiers complain that they were sent to do a job
they were not trained for. How long will their patience
last?
Most Iraqi clerics have told their
congregations to be patient, that the time is not right
to attack Americans and they should give them six months
or a year to fulfill their promises. But if they fail,
or if they remain in Iraq too long, it is legitimate to
attack them.
Imam Muayad of the Abu Hanifa
mosque in Baghdad's Adhimyia district is the leader of
Iraq's most important Sunni mosque. "All good people of
the world reject foreign occupation," he said, "whether
they are Muslim or not. Americans rejected British
imperialism, so why do they deny other people the right
to do what they did? We as Muslims reject any foreign
occupation because Muslims do not recognize slavery to
anyone but God."
On the main street in the town
of Huseiba, a young man in a cafe shouted, "This is an
occupation! They don't respect civilians, they laugh at
us and insult us." The owner of the cafe interjected
angrily. "We have no dignity now because of American
soldiers. We are very angry that American soldiers don't
respect civilians. Now we are all mujahideen. Any man
who can't fight will give his money to fighters. Even
Saddam was better to us and gave us more respect." A
passerby agreed, "It's not freedom, it's an occupation."
Sheikh Mudhafar Abdel Wahab Alani could be heard
sermonizing to his congregation of 1,200 devout from the
Huseiba's biggest mosque. The 40-year-old religious
leader berated his audience for what he said was their
sinful behavior since the foreigners occupied their
country, loudspeakers atop the mosque made his furious
opprobrium audible throughout the city. As he completed
his khutba, or sermon, and the noon prayer ended,
he emerged, wearing a white robe and white turban, a
thick black beard on his reddish brown face and an
aquiline nose defining his angular distinguished
features. He walked swiftly past the departing devout
smiling, greeting passersby warmly and wishing everyone
peace and god's blessings, and he was happy to share his
views with a stranger.
"We reject this
occupation, as I said in many of my sermons," he began,
"No country would accept an occupation. We have lost our
dignity." Of the Americans he said, "Until now we have
not seen anything good except killing, searches and
curfews. There is a reaction for every action. If you
are choking me I will also choke you. We have a
resistance just like the Palestinians, Chechens and
Afghans." When asked if the Americans should leave soon,
he snapped, "They should leave today." The Americans had
done nothing to improve life, he said so "how much worse
can it get? It has never been so bad." He was not
opposed to the anti-American attacks. "I did not tell my
people not to attack the Americans."
In the
nearby town of Ubeidi, 20 kilometers from Huseiba,
Sheikh Mudhafar's close friend Sheikh Kamal Shafiq Ali
leads the Mustafa mosque and its congregation of about
1,000. The jovial Sheikh Kamal also donned a white robe,
as well as a white cap, and his clipped white beard made
him look older than his 45 years. Sheikh Kamal explained
that Iraq's religious leaders "said we have to wait" and
give the Americans a chance to fulfill their promises
before attacking them. "No country wants an occupation,"
he says, "the Koran says that Allah promised the
believers that infidels will never rule them.
"Of course it is an occupation, it is in the UN
resolution that it is an occupation. But if Saddam
doesn't return and the Americans keep their promises it
is a liberation." Sheikh Kamal certainly preferred
American soldiers to fellow Muslim or Arab soldiers,
saying that "Americans are more kind than Arab or Muslim
soldiers would be." Of course, even Sheikh Kamal is not
extending his country's hospitality indefinitely. "A
government must be established, security must be
provided, there have to be elections and a constitution,
and after they finish all that they have to get out, as
they promised," he admonishes.
In Baghdad's
Aamriya district, two other friends of the sheikh are
both mosque leaders. Sheikh Husein, the rotund
34-year-old of the Maluki mosque explained that "there
is Islamic law and international law and both agree on
the resistance to aggressors, and this is a legal right
for every people to resist." He recalled that "when Iraq
occupied Kuwait", Arab countries and the West united to
end that occupation. His friend Sheikh Walid, leader of
the nearby Fardos mosque, concurred. "Every Muslim
rejects occupation," he said, adding "and we hate
America."
The two friends agree that America
helped rid Iraq of Saddam, but, Sheikh Husein explained
"every citizen can answer that he rejects the
occupation. America is worse than Saddam. In spite of
all the flaws of Saddam and his oppression of us when we
compare Saddam with the Americans he is much better than
them. By no means do we want Saddam back, but our
suffering and our situation today makes us miss the old
days." Even if Iraq were occupied by Muslim forces,
Sheikh Husein would not accept the foreigners.
"Occupation by one country of another is against Islam,"
he said, "and if a Muslim attacks another Muslim then he
should be fought and rejected. Americans think Iraqis
won't attack another Muslim, but in Islam we have to
fight the occupation despite any characteristics of the
enemy." He concluded that "we are very happy with the
resistance of the Iraqi people to the American
occupation but we don't support killing civilians."
Their Shi'ite counterparts view the foreign
presence with no less hostility. In every Shi'ite public
demonstration, banners proclaim in large letters "No, no
to occupation."
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
