Failed
Policies Masked by Cosmetic Procedures
By A.E. SOUAIAIA
May 2004
There is no doubt
that this US administration has failed in its assessment of the
Iraqi threat, in its strategy to deal with the presumed threat, in
is estimations of the Iraqis’ tolerance to occupation, in its
post-war governance, and in its plan and implementation of the
historical responsibility it shouldered by venturing into
international affairs. Here are just some of the examples of the
hesitant and badly planned steps and the bill of
mismanagement and lack of steady leadership. The receding rhetoric
from the war camp and their failed predictions are strong
indications of an administration that is arrogant and that continues
to run forward from its mistakes.
The “shock and awe”
that was promised by Donald H. Rumsfeld and the so-called
administration's hawks are real: people all over the world are indeed
“in shock and awe” at how low the credibility of this country has
sunk since the launch of the Iraq war. The murder, torture and abuse
of prisoners will undoubtedly figure to be the straw that broke the
camel’s back. This administration claims that it does not govern
according to polls and incidental events, but the fact that the
president speaks to the American public on the heels of every
positive or negative event shows that the handlers of the leaders of
this administrations manage every thing in terms of political gains.
The most recent address by the president is a good example of their
skill in spinning events at crucial political times. Just as his
approval rating dropped to an all time low since he took office,
Bush talked to the nation. Here is what he had to say and thereafter
the reality on the ground as it can been seen by an informed citizen (excerpts from the speech are
colored).
“I've
come here tonight to report to all Americans, and to the Iraqi
people, on the strategy our nation is pursuing in Iraq and the
specific steps we're taking to achieve our goals.”
The president is launching a new effort to stem the plummeting loss
in public confidence in his Iraq policy and to tell us that he has
yet another new strategy. Had this administration articulated a
clear and solid strategy before the war, we would not be in this
situation. So this is a good example of trying to tell people that
every thing is going according to plan; and no one believes that
claim after the many changes of course since he declared the end of
combat a year ago.
“Mr.
Saleem was assassinated by terrorists seeking the return of tyranny
and the death of democracy. We've also seen images of a young
American facing decapitation. This vile display shows a contempt for
all the rules of warfare and all the bounds of civilized
behavior. It reveals a fanaticism that was not caused by any action
of ours and would not be appeased by any concession.”
The assassination and decapitation are criminal acts that could
never be justified. But after the revelations of torture and abuse
of prisoners in the hands of the US troops, and the illegality of
indefinite detention of hundreds of prisoners after the invasion of
Afghanistan, this regime has lost the moral clout to appeal to fair
and human “rules
of warfare and all the bounds of civilized behavior.”
The perpetrators of car bombings and decapitation are recognized as
terrorists and criminals as the president himself admits. No one
expects criminals to abide by the rules of engagement. But the
entire world expects a self-proclaimed democracy and champion of
human rights to live by the treaties and laws they adopted and
ratified. Yes terrorists’ actions may not be “caused by any action
of ours” but terrorists could and did justify their crimes as a
payback for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners. It is an
application of the childish and unoriginal thinking based on the
cliché “whatever you do I can do better.” The worst may yet to come
as those images of humiliated Iraqis will be featured in extremists' recruitment
literature and media. Sure one may not be able to appease them by
any concession; but failure to win the hearts and minds of
Iraqis and Muslims around the world is in fact the best way to
appease them: those images are the best gift you can offer an entity
that builds its strength on the distrust of the US rhetoric.
“We
suspect that the man with the knife was an al-Qaida associate named
Zarqawi. He and other terrorists know that Iraq is now the central
front in the war on terror, and we must understand that as well.”
Until a little over a year ago, Iraq, just like all other Arab
regimes, was not a democracy. It was ruled by a self-serving clique
that appeases some and abuses others. There was no link whatsoever
between that regime and al-Qaida. In fact Saddam was a sworn enemy
of al-Qaida and similar groups. The war that was initiated by this
administration is the one responsible for opening this brutal front
of violence and mayhem. What we must understand is that this new
front was unnecessarily created and it diverged resources from the
real front of the war against extremism and terrorism. Moreover,
this front that the administration has opened in Iraq was the
primary cause of the loss of goodwill and universal sympathy after
the 911 attacks. Recently, the London-based the International
Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think-tank warned that it was
the Iraq war that extended the reach and recruiting ability of al-Qaida.
"In counter-terrorism terms, the intervention has arguably focused
the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers while
diluting those of the global counter-terrorism coalition that
appeared so formidable following the Afghanistan intervention in
late 2001," it said in its annual Strategic Survey 2003/2004.
“These
elements of Saddam's repressive regime and secret police have
reorganized, rearmed and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics.
They've linked up with foreign fighters and terrorists. In a few
cities, extremists have tried to sow chaos and seize regional power
for themselves.”
The logic in this claim and in previous claims is exactly the very
same danger
a war was destined to create. The blurring of lines between
legitimate resistance and criminal acts is feared to legitimize
terrorism. The simplistic approach that seeks to designate everyone
who opposes the US policies and actions as being “against us” is
more
harmful than helpful. Doing so amounts to labeling all the people of
Iraq as “terrorists.” The resistance fighters are clearly more than
former Saddam henchmen and foreign terrorists. In many cities they
seem to even enjoy the overwhelming support of the citizens. They
are sheltered and protected by the residents of these towns and
villages. Furthermore, in the most recent poll, 80 percent of Iraqis
surveyed reported a lack of confidence in the Coalition Provisional
Authority, and 82 percent said they disapprove of the United States
and allied militaries in Iraq. According to the most recent survey
obtained by the Chicago Tribune over the weekend of May 22
2004, 90 percent of Iraqis consider U.S. troops to be "occupiers"
rather than "liberators." Military power translates into
violence, killing, and destruction and they are far from being a
good ambassador to civil societies . Even American citizens would not tolerate the
presence of heavily armed US troops in the streets of their cities;
so how could we expect the Iraqis to accept foreigners on their land
especially after the broadcasting of the horrible pictures of American
troops with the US flags on their uniforms humiliating their
countrymen?
On the UN role in
Iraq, the President said that “America
fully supports Mr. Brahimi's efforts, and I have instructed the
Coalition Provisional Authority to assist him in every way possible.”
That statement is representative of shifting positions
every time the administration hits a hurdle. From the start of
planning for this war until very recently, the administration
contributed to the discrediting of UN more than in its prestige.
More and more people in the Muslim world now see the UN as a tool in
the hands of the US and the veto-wielding powers. The military
action was not authorized by the Security Council and the role of
the UN was kept marginal. In the light of this damage caused by the
US administration’s unilateralism and disregard for the UN member
states’ consensus, it should not be surprising that even a UN picked
and endorsed Iraqi interim government is rejected.
On security the
president argued that “Coalition
forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies: the terrorists,
illegal militia and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi
people and their future as a free nation.”
That characterization is optimistic at best and misleading to say
the least. There are no indications that the wishes of the Iraqis and the US
plans are the same. Even the choice of words shows the ill-will that
continues to feed the growing distrust of the US. For instance,
terrorism in Iraq did not exist before the war. The only form of terrorism
that threatened the Iraqi civilians was state terrorism that was,
and still is,
practiced by all the tyrants of the region. The Iraqis have adapted
to that and learned to deal with it the same way Algerians, the
Syrians, the Tunisians, the Egyptians, the Moroccans, the Yemenis,
the Sudanese, and all citizens of any Arab country learnt to deal
with it.
It is this war that opened
another kind of terrorism, lawlessness, and anarchism that the Iraqi
people do not know how to deal with and it will take them years
before they do. There is no credible evidence that shows a strong
presence of “Saddam
loyalists” in
the ranks of the resistance. If there were any, the US military
would not be able to pull out Saddam alive from a “grave” with no
one around to protect him or fight for him. Saddam was a lonely man
who commanded through fear and intimidation and not through loyalty.
More troubling is the curious coining of “illegal
militia” as
obstacle before a free and democratic Iraq. When we consider that
Iraq is an occupied country, and realize that the only laws that
exist are those made and enforced by the occupiers, we easily
discover the double standard that is causing this administration
more headaches. What is exactly a “legal militia” as opposed to an
“illegal militia”?
Allow me to
translate. Illegal militia is made out of armed groups that are under the
influence and leadership of individuals or organizations that oppose
the continued occupation of Iraq. A legal militia on the other hand,
is also armed group(s) that is commanded by someone other than the
occupying forces but that someone is inline with the policies and
agenda of the Coalition’s. For example, the Kurdish militia, the
Badr Brigade militia, and even the terrorist organization known as
mujahidi khalq (terrorist according the US state department
might I add) are legal armed groups. The Iraqi people did not chose
any of these armed groups and labeled them as “legal’ or “illegal”
and therefore the US should not have any authority to legitimize one
group and criminalize another. For fairness and for the future of a
peaceful and free Iraq, all militia entities should be deemed
“illegal” and banned until sovereignty is handed back to the Iraqis
or all militia groups are allowed to operate and subjected to one standard.
Another badge of
failure is the-about-face policy in regards to the status and role
of Baathists and formers Iraqi army personnel. Right after the fall
of Saddam regime, the occupying forces initiated a “debaathification
program” designed to uproot all bureaucrats, low and high level
leaders from the previous regime. During the siege of Fallujah, and
in the absence of a military solution that will not destroy the
city, “So we
have pursued a different approach. We're making security a shared
responsibility in Fallujah. Coalition commanders have worked with
local leaders to create an all-Iraqi security force, which is now
patrolling the city.”
That “all-Iraqi
security force”
is actually made out of, and commanded by, former Baathists and it
is believed that many of the members of that force may in fact be
resistance fighters. So either this administration erred when they
outlawed every Baathist at first, or they are succumbing to
political pressure exerted during an election year and doing the wrong thing
against their best judgment. Neither of these possibilities befits a
president who wants us to remember him as a “steady leader” and
“morally principled” politician. To borrow the president’s own
language and logic, the free world should not negotiate with evil
and the definition of evil should not be dependent on political
stakes, or should it?
The most challenging
event of the month is undoubtedly the documented torture and abuse
of detainees in the hands of the US and UK troops. To that end, Bush
argued that “a
new Iraq will also need a humane, well-supervised prison
system. Under the dictator, prisons like Abu Ghraib were symbols of
death and torture. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful
conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and
disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a
modern maximum security prison. When that prison is completed,
detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then with the approval of
the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib Prison as a
fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning.”
This administration’s obsession with symbolism can be explained by
Bush’s ambitions to be remembered as the greatest president ever. In
order to achieve that goal, the president stood on the carrier in
military fatigues and proclaimed the end of the war. A year later,
Americans and the world are realizing that the war may have actually begun
then. As to the abuse and torture in Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld thought he
can calm the storm by banning mobile phones fitted with digital
cameras in US army installations in Iraq as reported by The
Business newspaper May 24, 2004. Bush on the other hand, is
suggesting that the US taxpayers give more money for building a new prison. Maybe detainees there
should have AC, cable TV, and McDonald’s shops. Once more, the
administration resorts to cosmetics and trivial gimmicks instead of
addressing the issues decisively and faithfully. The political,
diplomatic, and moral damage suffered by the US can only be repaired
by accountability and systematic redress. The US will be better
served by firing those responsible and by spending money on creating
institutions and educational organizations that promote and protect
human rights instead of building another prison or banning the
medium that allowed us all to know that abuse and torture were
taking place under the watch of civilian and military leadership of
the two most powerful nations in the world.
There is no doubt
that the US has been governing Iraq via a trial-and-error process.
For instance, why is this grand transfer of sovereignty taking place
June 30 2004 and not June 30 2003? Why did this administration allow
its status to fall from a wanted and appreciated liberation force
into a despised and unwanted occupation entity? Why did it have to
wait until many good political figures were discredited because of
their membership in an ill-devised interim Governing Council? Why
did it have to wait until more Iraqi civilians were killed, more
prisoners were tortured, more civilians joined the resistance, and
more American soldiers were killed? Why did they have to wait until
Fallujah, Karbala, Kufah, and Najaf embraced the resistance and
shunned the Coalition forces? The answer to all these questions is
simple, the president did not have a vision; and his advisors were
more concerned with ideology than with governance.
The last example of
unnecessary loss in the political capital of this administration is
its support to Israel’s Prime Minister's unilateral disengagement
plan. I do not see the logic, the benefit, and the wisdom of
throwing the US political prestige behind a plan that was few days
later rejected by the Prime Ministers’ own party. Not only did the
US political capital lose value, but the needed neutrality and
evenhandedness to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have
suffered irreparable damage for a move that brought zero return. The
least the administration could have done is to wait and see how the
Israeli public and the governing party act vis-à-vis the plan before
committing to supporting it.
In conclusion,
serious lack of clarity, hesitancy, and lack of reasoned
decisiveness cannot not be easily repaired by the hired spin
machines or the timely speeches delivered before polite audiences.
Human rights violations under the watch of the administration and
loss of credibility and international support to US are not making
America more secure. Any American who loves the freedom to travel
around the world will tell you that Americans are less secure. It is
not true security when one cannot travel outside his or her country
without being threatened by people who used to admire the US values
and long for American way of life. The use of force is legitimizing
violence and Americans will not feel safe and secure with the images
of horror beamed to every home here and around the world. Americans
want security above and beyond the borders of Texas and the wall of
their homes. They want the sense of safety and security at home and
abroad; unfortunately, the formula this administration is proposing
is isolating this once great country and reducing it to a symbol of
arrogance and callousness.
ACTIONS:
>>
email this
article to a friend >>
react to this
article >> more articles
Note:
Please email your
opinion to op-ed@majalla.org; Op-Ed articles are not
peer-reviewed.
New Op-Ed articles
are published monthly, and as special edition when warranted
|
