Will the Iraqis rise up to cheer the Anglo-American forces (let’s stop calling them “coalition forces”) or will they see the U.S. particularly as colonialist invaders? Part of the problem in answering the question is that we have no trustworthy account; conservatives and Iraqi ex-pats are eager to see proof that Saddam needed to be overthrown, and pragmatic-cautious liberals and anti-war leftists are eager to see evidence to confirms their circumspection. Given that I’m no expert on Iraq, its history or its people, I’m agnostic on this question. But a couple of things make me suspicious of the administration’s claim that the Iraqi people will be cheering for the U.S. For one thing, the expectations have already been downgraded. Now the administration and its ideologues say that of course the Iraqi people have been instilled with fear from a nasty dictatorship, so it will take them a while before they relax enough to let their true feelings show. But there is no “of course” about it; just a week ago, people were expecting the kind of reaction we got in Kabul, where more secularized Afghanis were jubilant at the fall of a theocracy. Well, we haven’t seen that level of celebration in Iraq.
Secondly, at every turn, the administration shows itself as unable and unwilling to imagine the mentality of any other nation. Witness the split between the U.S. and Europe, which is not merely a diplomatic chism, but reflect the U.S.’s inability to empathize with the German voters desire to attone for their warmongering past, say, or the Turkish Parliament’s national pride in resisting U.S. bribes. This lack of empathy becomes amplified in our dealings with the Arab world. Compare these two quotes:
(from the President’s March 19 speech):We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
(from The Guardian’s Brian Whitaker):The following quote, sent in by a reader, may be relevant: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men … The people of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws.” The words were uttered by General F S Maude, commander of British forces in Iraq … and the year was 1917.
Maybe the Iraqis don’t think we’re coming in to strip them of their oil. But why should they think otherwise, when U.S. foreign policy since World War II has been so clearly geared toward maintaining regimes friendly to U.S. oil interest (even if we can’t control them enough to stop OPEC cartel)? You don’t have to believe that oil is the reason behind this conflict to think that the U.S. is being tone-deaf even in its propaganda efforts.
No comments have been added to this post yet.