Freedom American Style
April 11, 2003
by Dr. Leslie Jermyn
Baghdad has fallen. It has fallen so far, no one is in control. US forces
will not or cannot control the anarchy of looting or their own soldiers
firing indiscriminately at civilians. Humanitarian efforts by the Red
Cross and Doctors without Borders are grinding to a halt and Oxfam can’t
even get in the door while hospitals overflow with civilian casualties.
The British are making a grand gesture to impose order down south in Basra,
they will send two, yes two whole Ministry of Defense policemen to advise
the troops, while the Pentagon has no plans to send civilian or military
police into Baghdad and asserts that US forces will act as ‘stabilisers’
not policemen. It is unclear how stable they will make Baghdad given that
they cannot seem to agree on how to reopen bridges across the Tigris:
“The chief obstacle to opening them [the bridges] seemed to be a
divide in its way more profound than that between Sunni and Shia - the
divide between the US army, which controls the western end of the bridges,
and the US marines, who control the eastern. The two services did not
appear to be talking to each other.” (Reported by James Meek in
Baghdad for The Guardian, 4/11/03)
Meanwhile, American soldiers are taking this opportunity to pass judgment
on Saddam’s Republican Palace décor, suggesting that Saddam
had bad taste and the overall feel of the place is ‘cheesy’
and ‘cheap.’ The Americans are, however, considering using
this complex for General Jay Garner’s New Iraq HQ as it comes equipped
with a Spanish villa for visitors, a large pool complete with pool bar
and a block of apartments for staff. As the creators of the polyester
safari suit, Early American Colonial and Country Cute, I’m sure
they will make vast improvements on the gilt, marble and mirrors favoured
by the Husseins. Perhaps Martha Stewart will get the decorating contract
– I’m sure she’s a favourite of Dick Cheney with whom
she shares the auspicious title, ‘Insider Trader.’ That they
would install themselves in a place so feared by Iraqis that they dared
not point in its general direction and are still favouring Chalabi –
a wealthy ex-pat who left Iraq in 1963 and has twice been involved in
high finance scandals including an accounting scandal with Iraqi opposition
congress money – as the new civilian leader, leaves the question
of ‘bad taste’ open to interpretation.
The prowar press began celebrating victory this week, suggesting that
all those antiwar protestors and commentators must now be rueing the day
they nay-sayed this glorious episode in Anglo-American military history.
This is a bit like suggesting that one shouldn’t oppose lynching
if the victim dies quickly. Opposition to an illegal, unjustified attack
remains whether or not the attack was successful. And no one opposed to
war has hoped for a long bloody conflict just to prove their point. At
the same time, the worst fears of the antiwar camp are being substantiated
in the mounting civilian death toll (a number neither the US or UK is
prepared to report), the chaos of political vacuum (foreign affairs has
never been Bush’s strong suit) and the apparent US inability to
understand that they are no further ahead in the international ‘hearts
and minds’ campaign than they were 24 days ago. The lead editorial
in Friday’s Guardian sums this up nicely: “Washington's insistence
on retaining ultimate control of all significant aspects of Iraq's postwar
affairs, for as long as it chooses, is another preventable own goal. Its
agenda includes overseeing the distribution of humanitarian aid, to the
dismay of NGO's; the processing of PoWs and the conduct of future war
crimes trials; a US-directed hunt for Iraq's fabled weapons of mass destruction;
the awarding of reconstruction contracts; the administration of Iraq's
ministries and the vetting of former officials; the rehabilitation (prior
to possible privatisation) of Iraq's oil and gas industry; the remodelling
of Iraq's remaining army; the parameters of Iraq's future foreign policy,
including possible recognition of Israel; and, last but not least, the
creation of a "consultative group" of agreeable Iraqis which
will, eventually, translate into an interim authority still under US auspices.”
The war may be over at the level of troop movements and bombing campaigns,
but it is no more right today than it ever was and so far, the coalition
is doing nothing to convince us that either the Iraqis or the rest of
the non-superpower world is any better off for the exercise.
While we looked the other way, Ariel Sharon continued on his own war path,
rounding up a thousand Palestinians, killing dozens more and beginning
the settlement of Palestine Jerusalem – this despite Condoleeza
Rice’s explicit request that he not inflame the situation. Bush
and Blair, meanwhile, bleat on about a ‘Road Map’ for the
Middle East which will guarantee Palestinian statehood while watching
Sharon make this ever more unlikely by the sheer fact of geographical
and ethnic discontinuity of Palestinian areas. All three leaders seem
unaware or unconcerned that even liberal Arab sentiment has turned against
them:
"Some people said, before the invasion of Iraq, that solving the
Saddam problem would make the reputation of the U.S. better. Now if the
United States said 2 plus 2 is 4, no one would believe them." Turki
al-Hamad, a Saudi commentator who advocates democratic reforms in Saudi
Arabia, (New York Times, 4/4/03)
and,
"To most people in this area, the United States is the source of
evil on planet earth. And whether we like it or not, it is the Bush administration
that is to blame." Ahmed Kamal Aboulmagd, one of Egypt's best-known
intellectuals, (New York Times 4/8/03)
Let’s hope that the ‘peace,’ such as it is, means that
journalists will finally be safe from the predations of the US military.
After firing on the Palestine Hotel and on Arab news network Al-Jazeera
headquarters in Baghdad last week, the death toll for journalists reached
double digits in this conflict. As with the market bombing last month,
the US is unable to explain why they attacked either target. Al-Jazeera
filed their coordinates with Qatar to avoid a repeat of events in Afghanistan
when their HQ in Kabul were bombed by the US – thus likely sealing
their own fate. Reporters in the Palestine Hotel at the time said there
were no snipers firing from the building when it was attacked as the military
claimed. When asked if ground forces knew that the Hotel was the base
for independent journalists in Baghdad, a spokesman replied, "Our
guys on the ground know best what is going on. They have the first line
of intelligence on what is going on, they are at the tip of the spear
and try in any way they can to avoid civilian casualties. To think that
they haven't got the information to do their job is wrong" (reported
in The Guardian, 4/8/03). I wonder if this un-named spokesman is still
employed… The Pentagon soothed fears that the US is targeting non-embedded
journalists by saying that “a war zone is a dangerous place”
and non-embeds had been warned about remaining in Baghdad. The Secretary
General International Federation of Journalists, Aidan White, is calling
for an enquiry as to whether these attacks constitute war crimes.
Finally, though we still hear nothing about it in the mainstream press,
people around the world are paying close attention to this war and organizing
themselves to resist the hydra-headed monster of US Imperialism. The Bushies
made the first fatal error in shunning any and all international endorsements
for this war, another in persecuting it so brutally in terms of Iraqi
civilian health and welfare and the coup de grace in publicizing their
plans to make Iraq the motor for a hopelessly mired US economy. None of
this is lost on the citizens of other American client states who have
suffered under the heavy hand of the IMF and US Treasury. While arch-conservative,
William Safire, hinted that Australian Merlot was a worthy substitute
for French wine on American tables, untold numbers of world citizen-consumers
shunned Coca-Cola, McDonalds and other Imperial brands in their daily
shopping excursions. As one of the few remaining ‘weapons of the
weak,’ consumer power may prove to be a double-edged sword for American
captains of industry and their media mouth-pieces.
John O’Farrell of The Guardian provides an appropriate closure to
this week’s update:
“McDonald's remains the most potent symbol of the freedoms for which
the American troops have been fighting these past few weeks. The freedom
of choice to have the same food served by the same corporation in every
high street in the world. The only minor rules are that any employees
attempting to form a union will be instantly sacked, any workers attempting
to speak out against the corporation will be hit with massive lawsuits,
and if you haven't got chronic acne, well, don't even think about applying
for a job. The fast food mentality has spread to everything. US foreign
policy is quick and easy and don't think about the consequences. "Big
Mac to go. Fries to go. United Nations to go." And despite closing
hundreds of outlets in the west, McDonald's is still seeking to expand
in the third world. … So that's what this war was all about. Opening
soon: McDonald's Restaurant, Al-Takhrir Square, Baghdad. Surely the Iraqis
have suffered enough?” (4/11/03)
|
