|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Just Go... |
Current rating: 0 |
by river
(No verified email address) |
11 May 2004
|
|
I don't understand the 'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling? |
People are seething with anger- the pictures of Abu Ghraib and the Brits in Basrah are everywhere. Every newspaper you pick up in Baghdad has pictures of some American or British atrocity or another. It's like a nightmare that has come to life.
Everyone knew this was happening in Abu Ghraib and other places… seeing the pictures simply made it all more real and tangible somehow. American and British politicians have the audacity to come on television with words like, "True the people in Abu Ghraib are criminals, but…" Everyone here in Iraq knows that there are thousands of innocent people detained. Some were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, while others were detained 'under suspicion'. In the New Iraq, it's "guilty until proven innocent by some miracle of God".
People are so angry. There’s no way to explain the reactions- even pro-occupation Iraqis find themselves silenced by this latest horror. I can’t explain how people feel- or even how I personally feel. Somehow, pictures of dead Iraqis are easier to bear than this grotesque show of American military technique. People would rather be dead than sexually abused and degraded by the animals running Abu Ghraib prison.
There was a time when people here felt sorry for the troops. No matter what one's attitude was towards the occupation, there were moments of pity towards the troops, regardless of their nationality. We would see them suffering the Iraqi sun, obviously wishing they were somewhere else and somehow, that vulnerability made them seem less monstrous and more human. That time has passed. People look at troops now and see the pictures of Abu Ghraib… and we burn with shame and anger and frustration at not being able to do something. Now that the world knows that the torture has been going on since the very beginning, do people finally understand what happened in Falloojeh?
I'm avoiding the internet because it feels like the pictures are somehow available on every site I visit. I'm torn between wishing they weren't there and feeling, somehow, that it's important that the whole world sees them. The thing, I guess, that bothers me most is that the children can see it all. How do you explain the face of the American soldier, leering over the faceless, naked bodies to a child? How do you explain the sick, twisted minds? How do you explain what is happening to a seven-year-old?
There have been demonstrations in Baghdad and other places. There was a large demonstration outside of the Abu Ghraib prison itself. The families of some of the inmates of the prison were out there protesting the detentions and the atrocities… faces streaked with tears of rage and brows furrowed with anxiety. Each and every one of those people was wondering what their loved ones had suffered inside the walls of the hell that makes Guantanamo look like a health spa.
And through all this, Bush gives his repulsive speeches. He makes an appearance on Arabic tv channels looking sheepish and attempting to look sincere, babbling on about how this 'incident' wasn't representative of the American people or even the army, regardless of the fact that it's been going on for so long. He asks Iraqis to not let these pictures reflect on their attitude towards the American people… and yet when the bodies were dragged through the streets of Falloojeh, the American troops took it upon themselves to punish the whole city.
He's claiming it's a "stain on our country's honor"... I think not. The stain on your country's honor, Bush dear, was the one on the infamous blue dress that made headlines while Clinton was in the White House... this isn't a 'stain' this is a catastrophe. Your credibility was gone the moment you stepped into Iraq and couldn't find the WMD... your reputation never existed.
So are the atrocities being committed in Abu Ghraib really not characteristic of the American army? What about the atrocities committed by Americans in Guantanamo? And Afghanistan? I won't bother bringing up the sordid past, let's just focus on the present. It seems that torture and humiliation are common techniques used in countries blessed with the American presence. The most pathetic excuse I heard so far was that the American troops weren't taught the fundamentals of human rights mentioned in the Geneva Convention… Right- morals, values and compassion have to be taught.
All I can think about is the universal outrage when the former government showed pictures of American POWs on television, looking frightened and unsure about their fate. I remember the outcries from American citizens, claiming that Iraqis were animals for showing 'America's finest' fully clothed and unharmed. So what does this make Americans now?
We heard about it all… we heard stories since the very beginning of the occupation about prisoners being made to sit for several hours on their knees… being deprived of sleep for days at a time by being splashed with cold water or kicked or slapped… about the infamous 'red rooms' where prisoners are kept for prolonged periods of time… about the rape, the degradations, the emotional and physical torture… and there were moments when I actually wanted to believe that what we heard was exaggerated. I realize now that it was only a small fragment of the truth. There is nothing that is going to make this 'better'. Nothing.
Through all of this, where is the Governing Council? Under what rock are the Puppets hiding? Why is no one condemning this? What does Bremer have to say for himself and for the Americans? Why this unbearable silence?
I don't understand the 'shock' Americans claim to feel at the lurid pictures. You've seen the troops break down doors and terrify women and children… curse, scream, push, pull and throw people to the ground with a boot over their head. You've seen troops shoot civilians in cold blood. You've seen them bomb cities and towns. You've seen them burn cars and humans using tanks and helicopters. Is this latest debacle so very shocking or appalling?
The number of killings in the south has also risen. The Americans and British are saying that they are 'insurgents' and people who are a part of Al-Sadir's militia, but people from Najaf are claiming that innocent civilians are being killed on a daily basis. Today the troops entered Najaf and there was fighting in the streets. This is going to cause a commotion because Najaf is considered a holy city and is especially valuable to Shi'a all over the world. The current situation in the south makes one wonder who, now, is going to implement a no-fly zone over areas like Falloojeh and Najaf to 'protect' the people this time around?
I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances- just take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your sadistic torturers and go.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com |
Related stories on this site:
Torture in Iraq: Another Reason to Get Out
Soldiers Back in U.S. Tell of More Iraqi Abuses
Iraq Scandal Opens U.S. to Charges of Double Standards
The Mideastization of the US, or: Rumsfeld Must Resign
Private security company in Iraq suppressed labor struggles in US
Forget The Trial Get The Rope: Bush Approved The Torture!!!
Rights Groups Demand That U.S. Open All Detention Facilities
|
Comments
|
Occupation Authority's Own Pollster Says Iraqis' doubts of U.S. deepen |
by Hannah Allam
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
11 May 2004
|
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sadoun Dulame read the results of his latest poll again and again. He added up percentages, highlighted sections and scribbled notes in the margins.
No matter how he crunched the numbers, however, he found himself in the uncomfortable position this week of having to tell occupation authorities that the report they commissioned paints the bleakest picture yet of the U.S.-led coalition's reputation in Iraq. For the first time, according to Dulame's poll, a majority of Iraqis said they'd feel safer if the U.S. military withdrew immediately.
A year ago, just 17 percent of Iraqis wanted the troops gone, according to Dulame's respected research center in Baghdad. Now, the disturbing new results mirror what most Iraqis and many international observers have said for months: Give it up. Go home. This just isn't working.
The prisoner-abuse scandal is only the latest in a string of serious setbacks to the U.S. administration's ambitions for democracy in Iraq. Before that, one essential political ally was lost - the country's Shiite Muslim majority - and another discredited - Ahmed Chalabi and other members of the U.S.-appointed governing council.
A persistent guerrilla campaign is sending dozens of U.S. troops home in flag-draped coffins, and more than half the country is unemployed. Rebuilding projects the coalition started and then abandoned because the worsening security drove away contractors only add to the country's dismal landscape and dim hopes for the future.
There's little to suggest conditions will improve, at least not before the scheduled June 30 hand-over of limited authority to Iraqis. The unraveling occupation has failed to provide security, overhaul the economy, quell ethnic tension or introduce a legitimate government in the year it's been in power.
Still, American officials give confident, optimistic assessments of the situation from Baghdad. "The area of operations remains stable" goes the opening line to almost every news conference, regardless of whether militiamen have captured government buildings in the south or another morning car bomb has jarred the capital awake.
L. Paul Bremer III, the top U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, has yet to announce an interim Iraqi government to attempt to rule until the country is stable enough for elections. Bremer has said the June 30 transfer of sovereignty is on track, despite an announcement last week that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq probably will remain at 135,000 even after a supposedly independent Iraqi government is elected next year.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said at a recent appearance in Denmark that the next Iraqi government would decide to keep U.S. troops in place.
"Obviously, because a large foreign military presence will still be required, under U.S. command, some would say, well, then you are not giving full sovereignty," Powell said. "But we are giving sovereignty, so that sovereignty can be used to say: 'We invite you to remain. It is a sovereign decision."'
Outside of officialdom, there is little appetite for allowing Americans to stay. Anyone still talking about liberation is shushed as disingenuous, especially now that the image of a Saddam Hussein statue crashing to the ground is no longer symbolic of the coalition's intentions. Instead, many Iraqis said, today's American presence is best summed up in photos of a laughing female American soldier leading a nude Iraqi prisoner by a dog leash.
Dulame's grim poll doesn't even take in the prisoner scandal's effects. It was conducted in mid-April in seven Iraqi cities. A total of 1,600 people were interviewed, and the margin of error is 3 percentage points. The findings, which must go first to coalition authorities, have not yet been made public.
According to Dulame, director of the independent Iraq Center for Research and Strategic Studies, prisoner abuse and other coalition missteps now are fueling a dangerous blend of Islamism and tribalism. For example, while American officials insist that only fringe elements support the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a majority of Iraqis crossed ethnic and sectarian lines to name him the second most-respected man in Iraq, according to the coalition-funded poll.
"I don't know why the (Coalition Provisional Authority) continues in these misguided decisions," Dulame said last week. "But if they pack and leave, it's a disgrace for us as Iraqis and for them as Americans. Their reputation will be destroyed in the world, and we will be delivered to the fanatics."
The coalition's options are dwindling. The Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, an independent think tank, released a study last week that found there is no other way to ease the mounting turmoil in Iraq "than to turn as much of the political, aid and security effort over to moderate Iraqis as soon as possible, and pray that the United Nations can create some kind of climate for political legitimacy."
Under the current conditions, however, any government installed by an outside entity will not be recognized as legitimate - no matter how diverse it promises to be. That reflects experience with the reigning governing council, at best a smart group of politicians whose visions for Iraq languished under American oversight. At worst, they are power-grabbing exiles who have bowed to American demands at the expense of their constituents' beliefs.
The council triumphantly rolled out a new flag while hundreds of Iraqis were dying in the U.S. siege of the flash-point city of Fallujah and in pitched battles with U.S. forces in a Shiite rebellion in the south. Immediately, the move drew criticism for both the insensitive timing and the pale-blue color reminiscent of the Israeli flag.
Doubts about the governing council's competence and legitimacy resurfaced Saturday when about 2,000 of Iraq's top scholars and activists gathered at the Babylon Hotel in Baghdad to form an anti-American political bloc. A highly diverse crowd of Islamists, Christians, secular nationalists, Baathists and communists listened as speakers demanded an immediate withdrawal of American forces and the dismantling of the governing council, whose members rode into Iraq "on American tanks." Even the prospect of civil war sounded better to them than a prolonged occupation.
"We'd like the Americans to go, even if that means a sectarian war," Ahmed al-Baghdadi, a Shiite cleric, told the cheering crowd. "It would be a war among our boys, and old guys like us would be able to settle it quickly."
Others take the prospect of a civil war much more seriously. While the coalition is busy with insurgents in Fallujah and al-Sadr's forces in the south, Kurdish parties in the north are inflaming rivals Arab and Turkmen by angling for more and more power. In most northern cities, they've taken over the police forces, city councils and oil fields. Arabs passing through northern areas report increased harassment from Kurdish authorities and their peshmerga militia.
As the most pro-American group in Iraq, Kurds face more attacks to go with their growing influence. Last week alone, a car bomb exploded at a Kurdish office north of Baghdad, and a Kurdish agriculture department official was assassinated in Kirkuk.
Iraqi scholars say the coalition increased ethnic tension by rolling out early political plans that treated Iraq as a monolithic nation. American officials, they said, came without even a working knowledge of age-old ethnic and sectarian rivalries.
Some observers have likened the embattled U.S. campaign in Iraq to a culture clash of colossal proportions. A major shift in strategy now, they said, is probably too little, too late.
"The Americans have to understand - we are a country with more than 10,000 years of history," said Hadi K. Attar, an Iraqi economist visiting Baghdad this month after 24 years of exile in Britain. "We are many communities all in one. This is not Afghanistan. This is Iraq."
http://www.tallahassee.com |
|
