A fascinating Toronto Star editorial takes a good, hard look at what U.S. soldiers and representatives are saying, and what the rest of the world hears.
“We created in this culture some Iraqis that then had to act because of their value systems against us in terms of revenge, possibly because there were casualties on their side and also because of the impact on their dignity and respect.”
Set aside the awkward lingo. The message is clear enough:
Iraqis are resisting the occupation not because innocent bystanders are getting killed or injured in ill-conceived and ill-executed American operations.
Nor because doors to people’s homes are being kicked down in the middle of the night, their meagre possessions turned topsy-turvy and their cash, essential for survival in the absence of banks, seized.
It’s an interesting piece that shows just how the language of arrogance can be easily interpreted, no matter how politically it might be phrased.
The fact is that, from the start, we’ve had unhealthy notions about our role in the world.
King George II has been one of the worst offenders when it comes to misrepresenting the United States’ role in the world. At times, his voice has echoed those of pre-Revolutionary English monarchy. The Divine Right of Bush, it seems, is to spread good ol’ ‘Merican sussiety about the globe, regardless of what the people may actually want or need. When the U.N. tells him that they will not support his actions, he calls them “obsolete” and “irrelevant” and declares the ‘Merican Way to be the One True Way.
And it’s little shock that the Islamic population of Iraq should believe that Bush is waging a Holy War, what with Dubya constantly singing “God On Our Side” as he marches our troops into ambush after ambush in search of one man. One man he was certain we would capture in the first two weeks.
What Haroon Siddiqui captures is two essential problems with the way America has chosen to deal with post-war Iraq.
First, the administration and the military have chosen not to treat Iraq as a sovereign nation (despite the lip service they’ve paid to the idea). Instead, they have treated Iraq as the “spoils of war” and as an occupied nation. Yes, the Iraqi people are – for the most part – glad to be rid of Saddam Hussein. However, the Iraqi people also – for the most part – wish to be rid of the Americans. While the Americans may be responsible for toppling Hussein’s throne, the Iraqi’s also see them as an occupying force that spends its time executing the neighbors and refusing to protect Iraqi civilization and life (museums are allowed to be looted, hospitals are left defenseless).
Second – the administration relies very heavily on the idea that we’re still fighting loyal Baathists and Fedayeen. More and more reports, however, show that most of the Iraqi guerillas are civilians who see America as an occupying, imperialist force. And with Bush using terms like “spoils of war” and “God on our side”, it’s not that hard to blame them.
Using the demons of the Baath party and Saddam’s elite, however, has allowed the Bush White House to ignore the problem of seeing the Iraqis as people, and it has allowed them to duck questions of intelligence failures and responsibility. It’s never three civilians accidentally killed in a crossfire. It’s three Iraqis suspected of having ties to the Baath party killed. It’s never an Iraqi family rounded up, hustled out into the street, and thrown into the back of a van due to mistaken intelligence. It’s a successful raid on a suspected Fedayeen headquarters.
It’s a matter of perception and labels. As also reported by the Washington Post:
From Bush’s view, it’s a Baath loyalist engaging in terrorist activities.
From our point of view, it’s a disgruntled civilian who found a weapon.
And in Iraq, the headstone reads Shahid – “Martyr”.
