OCCUPATION VS LIBERATION – conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan

By Dr. A. K. Enamul Haque

While I am writing this President Bush is in Iraq (of course, a surprise visit!) and British troops are moving out of Basra Palace, relocating them away from the main city.   Both of these steps are strategically significant for Iraq.  Prime Minister Gordon Brown is currently under pressure from his own party to bring the troops home.  They have been failing miserably to keep Basra, a Shiite province who initially welcomed them, under control.  According to one statistic quoted by BBC Television 90% of all mortar attacks in Basra are directed towards their troops in Basra Palace.  So in a strategic retreat the British military are relocating them in a relatively isolated place at Basra Airport.

Ever since the fall of Saddam the British have preferred to stay in Basra because they thought that here the resistance would be minimum and they would be able to maintain peace at relative ease.  Their other main important task is to keep the supply route for the US Army safe.  Unfortunately. After the initial honeymoon period things did not go as smooth as they had imagined.  Till today many in the West have considered the Shiite population as one singular block.  They would like to define Iraq as a federation of three sectarian groups- the Shiite, the Sunnis and the Kurds.  This type of categorization has been incorrect but the western media and their policy makers always wanted to see it in that way.

My understanding of the Iraqi population is that they are divided into two categories.  The Arabs and the Kurds.  On the other hand, in terms of religious sects they are divided in another two categories: the Sunni (consisting of some Arabs and the Kurds) and the Shiite.  So the three-way categorization is largely a western game, which is unreal.  As a result policies are failing Mr. Bush.  Many Shiites are opposing the policies that were supposed to be liked by the Shiites too.  Similarly while some Shiites may be closely associated with the Iranians many are strongly Arabs. So like many other Arabs they are opposing the occupation by the foreign army.  This should confuse no one.  Let us not forget that the Iraqi military consisted of both Shiite and Sunni population and they fought side by side in the battlefield to prevent the advancing Iranian army in the 80s.

Many analysts are also trying to establish links of a popular uprising with “foreign” intervention.  I have written many times who is the real “foreign” here?  Fellow Arabs!  You may call them Al-Qaeda or Western occupying forces?  In fact, among the common Arabs the Pan-Arabian brotherhood is quite strong.  So whether we like it or not the fight will intensify as long as a “foreign” presence is there in Iraq.  Whether Mr. Bush wants to recognize it or not is a moot point but the ground realities are changing fast in Iraq.  Considering the decision to cage British troops inside Basra airport is a pleasant decision.  Mr. Bush may have to follow this lead very soon.

The problem will not, however, end here.  The Americans have to leave Iraq too.  The sooner it happens the better it is for the world. Otherwise it will be a real quagmire for all foreign troops in the region including Afghanistan!  Signs of uprising against Western forces should be analyzed as a general sympathy against occupation and should not be used to create a chicken-egg problem.  More than half a million deaths in the war cannot be justified using Al-Qaeda or Iranian connections.  Similarly, we hear everyday the so-called success of the western forces because they have been able to “eliminate” insurgents.  Ever wonder how many of them are of foreign descent?  There are probably very few.  The battle is home grown caused by foreign occupation.  So please do not fool the world.  Unlike many other countries, the conflict in Iraq was never sectarian it was more nationalistic in nature (between Kurds and Arabs) As a result, the presence of foreign troops with UN or NATO hats will simply unite them.  The longer they stay the worse the conflict will be.  Hopefully all parties understand this.

We Don’t Understand:  The West Never Seems to Get It
By Philip Shaw M.Sc.

Sitting where Enamul is sitting I’m sure its clear as day.  The British and the Americans are in Iraq and they shouldn’t be.  On the hard scrabble streets of Dhaka; I’m sure I’d get that opinion at every turn.  Bangladeshi’s know everything about rising up in nationalistic fervor.  The 1971 uprising against West Pakistan is testament to that.

Ditto for other parts of the world whether that be East Timor, Ethiopia, Columbia or Iraq.  We are creatures of who we are.  We feel deep inside ourselves who we are.  Western visions of multiculturalism don’t resonate in many parts of this world.  People rise up and fight because “you are over here and your not suppose to be.”  Call them insurgents if you want.  I agree with Enamul.  Nationalistic feelings to get foreign troops out are a unifying feeling in Iraq.  The sooner these foreign troops get out of Iraq, the better.

However, we all know at least in the west it isn’t going to work that way.  In fact what might be a better quip is to say “the west” should have never gone into Iraq.  Now there is no good way out.  Saving face even in 2007 for western leaders is very important.

For those of you in developing countries I’m sure you’re thinking “at what price?”  That’s the kicker.  How many people have been killed in Iraq?  I didn’t ask how many British and American troops have been killed.  Enamul mentioned half a million people dead.  That’s a heavy price, one obviously the west is so far willing to pay.

Still don’t get it?  I know, it’s hard sometimes but you see it in many places in this world.  How many people have died in the Sudan or the Congo in the last few years?  Of course the answer is in the millions.  However, this is a bit different, as they are not occupied by “western powers”.  In fact the west has resisted getting into these regions to stem fighting simply because of the quagmire, which may result out of it.

Vietnam is the answer to the question about why “the west” reacts the way it does when occupying a foreign land.  Enamul talks about a nationalist vision within Iraq to rid that land of foreign occupiers.  In Vietnam, the people spent several decades ridding their country of the French and later the Americans.  The Americans actually got humiliated as they left.  That is one of the biggest reasons you’ll never see American troops leave abruptly from Iraq.  Saving face means a lot even with the spectre of harder slogging in Iraq.

In many western eyes, Iraq wasn’t supposed to be this way.  If you think Germany and Japan post WWII, that was the way it was suppose to be.  That’s hard to believe now, but there were surely people here who thought that.  Remember the bouquets of flowers?  It never happened.  Did somebody say ignorance at the highest level?  I suppose you could say all of the above.

However it wouldn’t be fair to not give President Bush his due.  This is part of a CNN account of what he said on his short visit to the Iraqi desert.

“The level of violence is down, local governments are meeting again, police are in control of the city streets and normal life is returning,” said Bush.
The president credited Anbar citizens who “rejected the dark vision of al Qaeda” and “organized themselves and they took on the terrorists.”
“The result was that many local leaders who had once fought against our forces began to fight alongside our forces and against al Qaeda,” Bush said.
“They didn’t like idea of murderers deciding their fate,” he said. (President Bush September 3rd Al Asad Air Base in Anbar province, Iraq.)

It’s hard not to be critical of President Bush when it comes to Iraq.  Many people in the United States believe in what he says.  Many are the same people who believed in the weapons of mass destruction.  Simply put in many places within the United States his appeal and his cause is still very popular.

Enamul ends his piece with this. “The longer they stay the worse the conflict will be.  Hopefully all parties understand this.”  Sadly my friend it’s not so simple.  It’s becoming clearer to many in the west.  However, that simple solution goes over many of our heads.  In “the west” we hate to “cut and run”.  We hate to leave humiliated.  So the troops stay until the political landscape changes.  Looking for the way out in Iraq has surely proved to be elusive.