|
Nazar's PayPal Account |
|
Support thehanoudiletter.com in making a small donation:
|
|
|
|
|
The Violence in Iraq: The Views of a Young American |
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, 16 August 2006 |
I have always hoped that my pieces on this blog would generate a good deal of objective comments and constructive criticism. But it is becoming increasingly evident that the greatest majority of my website's visitors have not bothered to do that! During the last 20 months of this blog’s existence I have received only a small number of comments and responses. On Monday April 17, 2006, I updated the blog with a piece on violence, the history and psychology of the phenomenon with a special emphasis on the violence which is sweeping Iraq at the present time concentrating on the anatomy, the methods and the objectives of the various groups involved. In that piece I confessed that the subject was a very complicated and I asked for serious and honest appraisal of my views, my request was answered by a young American who sent me few weeks later a very honest, thoughtful and an extremely fair response. A response which was so thrilling I asked the young man to use in updating my blog, which he very kindly accepted, the following is the letter almost verbatim except for some very generous praise which I don’t feel I deserve.
Dr. Hanoudi,
Blessing be upon you and your family, I pray for your health and safety in these trying times.
I am often asked by my fellow Americans what I think of the situation in Iraq and the "American adventures" in Eurasia. After a bit of talk I always tell them if they really want to understand Iraq, then they must understand its people. To this end I direct them to your site and a few other blogs I try to keep abreast of. I promised I would review your take on the history of the conflict in your country and so I shall.
I recognize that this is a petty complaint but, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that "our hunter-gatherer ancestors were peaceful and non-violent." "Violence," as expressed by war, is a product need in the face of limited resources. It is true that the hunter-gathers were much more likely to simply move on when the pressure of competition for limited resources became too great. However when their back was pressed to the wall they have also demonstrated an enormous capacity for violence. Witness the plight of the nomadic plains Indians of the American west who moved and moved until there was no place for them to go, first they warred with one another and then with the American new comers.
Britain invaded Iraq at the beginning of the First World War which they justified as a necessity to protect their oil interests in neighboring Iran and their access to the gulf's shipping lanes leading to India. Many Iraqis welcomed the British in the beginning with open hands who vowed to end five centuries of ottoman rule which has grown very corrupt and economically stifling.
It is interesting that in the beginning the British were also welcomed. It is very similar to the early days of the American invasion/liberation. I still remember the pictures of jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets. Pulling down the statue of Saddam et al. I am inclined to believe this outpouring was legitimate, that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Iraqis were indeed overjoyed that, for the first time in decades there was a light at the end of Saddam's long dark tunnel. It is a shame that hope has yet to be realized.
"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators" proclaimed General Stanley Maude the commander of the British forces as his troops marched into Baghdad in 1917.
This sounds frightfully familiar... it's spooky really. President Bush and countless American leaders, military and civilian, have echoed these words over the past three years.
The British never intended to leave Iraq, oil was figuring very significantly in their strategic planning and Iraq already smelled of a lot of oil, they were able to acquire from the League of Nations a mandate to administer it.
I would offer that most Americans, the Honorable Mr. Chaney and Halliburton not withstanding, do not wish more than a nominal and 'welcome' US presence in Iraq. I think this has always been the case, I know for myself and my fellow soldiers that is true. Though we, as Americans, often do a poor job of remembering this, imperial designs are an anathema to our founding design. Our founding fathers set forth to build a place where a man would be judge by his accomplishments and ability, not his heritage. It's most basic tenant being that all men are created equally by a divine hand. Thus, by extension, no one group is inherently superior to another, and free. Read the beginning of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights some time and you will see what I mean. Our high ideals were corrupted by capitalism during the struggle against Communism after WWII; I wonder what will be corrupted by this latest adventure...
Britain's stay in Iraq was not a picnic, it was marred by nationalist fervor, ethnic uprisings, tribal conflicts which finally led to kicking them out of the country at the hands of Brigadier Qassem.
Nor is our stay likely to get any better. I still contend however that we (Americans) owe it to the people of Iraq, and to the memory of the fallen to carry on and make this right.
The current violence in Iraq is an extremely complex phenomenon; it is not like anything that has previously happened in this land the earlier ones had clear-cut structures, methods and objectives. The current violence is the work of at least four different groups which are separate entities each with its own sponsors, its connections its own organization and methods, but there are often tactical but transient alliances amongst some of them.
Absolutely, war is chaos, and by its very nature makes strange bed fellows. Before WWII Stalin was initially allied with Hitler, both sides clearly intended the alliance as a tool to buy time while they rebuilt their war machines. Though Hitler was the first to break the truce, there can be little doubt that conflict between the two was inevitable. They were, however, willing to ally long enough to divide up Poland.
It is the fluidity of the conflict, and the alliances and rivalries between the factions that is the most confusing and difficult for outsiders to understand. Add to this that we Americans are in fact shifting our own alliances on a fairly regular basis and it becomes difficult for us to know who we can trust... if anyone.
The backbone of the violence which the Americans lump under one heading, the insurgency is naïve, a very mistaken approach and a great simplification the backbone of this violence are four distinguishable entities two with very clear backing and objectives, another two which are patchworks of stifling loyalties and alliances. I want to stress again that the most serious member and most difficult to deal with of this unholy assortment is Zarqawi and his group.
I would tend to agree, Zarqawi/Al Qaeda is (was) the worst. They have a host of zealous foreign fighters in their fold. Dangerous men and professional Jihadists from across the Islamic world. They are most dangerous because they are not Iraqis, and do not have the counties best interest at heart. They do not have the same sort of reservations about harming Iraq or fellow Iraqis as an Iraqi would have. For these men there are no innocents, and Iraq is merely a tool, a rallying cry, a sounding board.
I would argue that the Shiite Militia is far from monolithic. For me the biggest concern is their infiltration of the Special Police. It seems like we hear tales of corruption and abuse. When the public cannot rely on those who are meant to be their guardians, no legitimate government exists. Obviously one must also worry about the Iranian influence, but I think this is generally overstated.
It seems to me that most of the Baath Party Loyalists, have been absorbed into other concerns, or at least relegated to regionalism. They also seem to be particularly vulnerable to infighting and tribalism. Both of these opinions are just general impressions.
The Iraqi Nationalists at least have a vision for the country; I can't say that I really blame them for wanting American occupation to end. I would argue, however that many so-called nationalist are really tribalist... i.e. mostly concerned with the freedom and advancement of their family and tribe.
My prayers for your son.
Najeeb Hanoudi
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Baghdad, Iraq
Email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
|
|
|
|
