|
CounterPunch
February
20, 2003
We Will Not Be Pawns in Their
Game
War Will Bring
Disaster, Not Liberation
by KAMIL MAHDI
Having failed to convince the British people that
war is justified, Tony Blair is now invoking the suffering of
the Iraqi people to justify bombing them. He tells us there will
be innocent civilian casualties, but that more will die if he
and Bush do not go to war. Which dossier is he reading from?
The present Iraqi regime's repressive practices have long been
known, and its worst excesses took place 12 years ago, under
the gaze of General Colin Powell's troops; 15 years ago, when
Saddam was an Anglo-American ally; and almost 30 years ago, when
Henry Kissinger cynically used Kurdish nationalism to further
US power in the region at the expense of both Kurdish and Iraqi
democratic aspirations.
Killing and torture in Iraq is not random,
but has long been directly linked to politics--and international
politics at that. Some of the gravest political repression was
in 1978-80, at the time of the Iranian revolution and Soviet
intervention in Afghanistan. But the Iraqi people's greatest
suffering has been during periods of war and under the sanctions
of the 1990s. There are political issues that require political
solutions and a war under any pretext is not what Iraqis need
or want.
In government comment about Iraq, the
Iraqi people are treated as a collection of hapless victims without
hope or dignity. At best, Iraqis are said to have parochial allegiances
that render them incapable of political action without tutelage.
This is utterly at variance with the history and reality of Iraq.
Iraqis are proud of their diversity, the intricacies of their
society and its deeply rooted urban culture.
Their turbulent recent history is not
something that simply happened to Iraqis, but one in which they
have been actors. Iraqis have a rich modern political tradition
borne out of their struggle for independence from Britain and
for political and social emancipation. A major explanation for
the violence of recent Iraqi political history lies in the determination
of people to challenge tyranny and bring about political change.
Iraqis have not gone like lambs to the slaughter, but have fought
political battles in which they suffered grievously. To assert
that an American invasion is the only way to bring about political
change in Iraq might suit Blair's propaganda fightback, but it
is ignorant and disingenuous.
It is now the vogue to talk down Iraqi
politics under Saddam Hussain as nothing but the whim of a dictator.
The fact is that leaders cannot kill politics in the minds of
people, nor can they crush their aspirations. The massacres of
leftists when the Ba'athists first came to power in 1963 did
not prevent the emergence of a new mass movement in the mid-1960s.
The second Ba'ath regime attempted to buy time from the Kurdish
movement in 1970 only to trigger a united mobilisation of Kurdish
nationalism. Saddam co-opted the Communist party in the early
1970s only to see that party's organisation grow under a very
narrow margin of legality before he moved against it. In the
1970s, the regime tried to control private economic activity
by extending the state to every corner of the economy, only to
face an explosion of small business activity.
The regime's strict secularism produced
a clerical opposition with a mass following. When the regime
pressurised Iraqis to join the Ba'ath party, independent opinion
emerged within that party and Saddam found it necessary to crush
it and destroy the party in the process. In the 1980s, the army
was beginning to emerge as a threat, and the 1991 uprising showed
the extent of discontent. In the 1990s, Saddam fostered the religious
leadership of Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, only to see the
latter emerge as a focal point for opposition. Even within Saddam's
family and close circle, there has been opposition.
Of course Saddam Hussain crushed all
these challenges, but in every case the regional and international
environment has supported the dictator against the people of
Iraq. It is cynical and deceitful of Tony Blair to pretend that
he understands Iraqi politics and has a meaningful programme
for the country. Iraq's history is one of popular struggle and
also of imperial greed, superpower rivalries and regional conflict.
To reduce the whole of Iraqi politics and social life to the
whims of Saddam Hussain is banal and insulting.
Over the past 12 years of vicious economic
blockade, the US and Britain have ignored the political situation
inside Iraq and concentrated on weapons as a justification for
their policy of containment. UN resolution 688 of April 1991,
calling for an end to repression and an open dialogue to ensure
Iraqi human and political rights, was set aside or used only
for propaganda and to justify the no-fly zones.
Instead of generating a real political
dynamic backed by international strength and moral authority,
Iraqis were prevented from reconstructing their devastated country.
Generations of Iraqis will continue to pay the price of the policy
of sanctions and containment, designed for an oil glut period
in the international market.
Now that the US has a new policy, it
intends to implement it rapidly and with all its military might.
Despite what Blair claims, this has nothing to do with the interests
and rights of the Iraqi people. The regime in Iraq is not invincible,
but the objective of the US is to have regime change without
the people of Iraq. The use of Iraqi auxiliaries is designed
to minimise US and British casualties, and the result may be
higher Iraqi casualties and prolonged conflict with predictably
disastrous humanitarian consequences. The Bush administration
has enlisted a number of Iraqi exiles to provide an excuse for
invasion and a political cover for the control of Iraq. People
like Ahmad Chalabi and Kanan Makiya have little credibility among
Iraqis and they have a career interest in a US invasion. At the
same time, the main forces of Kurdish nationalism, by disengaging
from Iraqi politics and engaging in internecine conflict, have
become highly dependent upon US protection and are not in a position
to object to a US military onslaught. The US may enlist domestic
and regional partners with varying degrees of pressure.
This in no way bestows legitimacy on
its objectives and methods, and its policies are rejected by
most Iraqis and others in the region. Indeed, the main historical
opposition to the Ba'ath regime--including various strands of
the left, the Arab nationalist parties, the Communist party,
the Islamic Da'wa party, the Islamic party (the Muslim Brotherhood)
and others--has rejected war and US patronage over Iraqi politics.
The prevalent Iraqi opinion is that a US attack on Iraq would
be a disaster, not a liberation, and Blair's belated concern
for Iraqis is unwelcome.
Kamil Mahdi is
an Iraqi political exile and lecturer in Middle East economics
at the University of Exeter. The column originally appeared in
the Guardian.
Yesterday's Features
Steve Perry
Cowboy
Dreams:
War as Hollywood Western
Saul Landau
Cuba's
View of Bush's War on Terror: an Interview with Cuban VP Raul
Alarcon
Jason Leopold
The
Origins of Bush's Iraq War Drive: The 1998 Wolfowitz / Rumsfeld
Memo to Clinton
Lenni Brenner
Lerner
and the WWP:
The Ranting Rabbi Doesn't Speak for All Anti-War Jews
Anthony Gancarski
The Return of Gary Hart:
A Voice of Reason?
Gloria Bergen
Storm Warning!
Imperialist Gangs Stalk Planet Earth
David Krieger
Peace March: We Must Lead This Nation to a More Just Future
Tom Turnipseed
The Peace Movement in South Carolina
Alexander Cockburn
Messy Valentines: Rummy and Frank on the Intrepid
Website of the Day
Protest
Photos
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
home / subscribe
/ about us / books
/ archives / search
/ links /
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
February 15
/ 16, 2003
Alexander
Cockburn
Colin
Powell and the Great "Intelligence Fraud"
Rep. Dennis
Kucinich
The Whole World is Watching
Edward Said
A Monumental Hypocrisy
Wouter Hijink
Report from Amsterdam
"War: Do Not Feed!"
Linda Heard
At Last! Proud to be British
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Taking a Stand on Iraq
Robert Fisk
The Case Against War
Lev Grinberg
Lessons from Israel
A War Without Legitimacy
Chris Floyd
Cold Fronts:
Bush War Profits
Ahmad Faruqui
Stepping Back from the Brink of War
Norman Madarasz
French Kisses from the Citizens of France
Adam Lebowitz
Scott Ritter in Tokyo
Kurt Nimmo
Bring Us the Head of Osama bin Laden
Forrest Hylton
The Revolt in Bolivia
Col. Dan Smith
Irrelevance and Credibility:
Bush, NATO and the UN
Wayne Madsen
The Lies of Tom Lantos
Ranjit Hoskote
The Invisible Modernities of the Islamic World
Emily Zitter-Smith
Who's Safe Now?
An American in Cairo
Rich Procter
Anybody Remember the Powell Doctrine?
Poets Basement:
Eliot
Katz, Scott Handleman, and Bruce Tomczak
Website of the Weekend
Anti-War
Posters
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|