Voices From The Iraqi Street
full report crisisweb.org
OVERVIEW
As this briefing paper went to press, all eyes were on the United States and
United Nations, the weapons inspectors, war preparations and the Iraqi
regime's posture toward them. Yet, as has been true throughout this crisis,
the unknown variable in the equation is the view of the Iraqi population.
Living under a highly repressive and closed regime and bereft of genuine
means of expression, the Iraqi people have largely appeared to the outside
world as passive bystanders in a crisis that is bound to affect them more
than anyone else. Speculation about how Iraqis view the current crisis has
varied widely, with assessments often tailored to buttress political
arguments regarding the wisdom of a U.S.-led war.
Proponents of regime change typically assume that the Iraqi people would
favour or even welcome an invasion leading to the overthrow of the regime.
For example, making the case for an American military operation and
referring to the Iraqi regime's record of repression and human rights
violation, Professor Ajami asserted: "We shall be greeted, I think, in
Baghdad and Basra with kites and boom boxes". But concern for the Iraqi
people and their suffering also has been cited in support of the opposite
case. Under this view, ordinary Iraqis are believed to oppose any military
intervention – and military intervention by the U.S. in particular – based on
fear of its inevitable human and material costs, patriotic rejection of outside
interference, and longstanding resentment of the U.S. for its sanctions
policy. The goal of this briefing paper is to go beyond such assumptions and
offer a snapshot of what Iraqis on the ground are saying about the ongoing
crisis, their immediate concerns and their visions of the future.
On-the-ground research is constrained, of necessity, by several factors. The
nature of the regime is a key consideration. Outside researchers face
significant obstacles, and security concerns are critical – those of the
interviewer as well as those of the interviewee whose anonymity must be
preserved. Moreover, the Iraqis interviewed for this briefing paper do not
constitute a scientific or representative sample. ICG has sought to talk to
individuals from different backgrounds, belonging to various age brackets,
walks of life, and religious groups. Nevertheless, a majority of the dozens of
Iraqis who were interviewed at some length and in a number of cases on
more than one occasion came from urban areas, principally Baghdad and
Mosul. This paper and the statements made by Iraqis should be read and
filtered with these limitations in mind.
Still, during the course of a three-week field-visit undertaken in Baghdad,
Mosul and Najaf in September-October 2002, ICG found virtually all Iraqis
with whom it spoke to be far more willing then expected – and surprisingly
more willing than on prior occasions – to talk openly and shed some light on
their attitudes toward the regime, the opposition, and a possible U.S.-led
war. This fact alone is a strong indication of the regime’s diminished ability
to instil fear and of the feelings shared by many Iraqis that some kind of
political change is now unavoidable. ICG also found unanticipated
homogeneity in the views of those it interviewed. The most notable
conclusions to be drawn from ICG’s interviews are:
The Iraqi regime is embarked, its diplomatic efforts aside, on a multi-faceted
endeavour both to co-opt large segments of the population and to tighten
its control.
For many Iraqis, a U.S. strike now appears inevitable, and preparations are
being made in light of it. Indeed, in a number of instances, Iraqis seemed to
be making life-plans based on that assumption, dividing between pre- and
post-intervention periods.
Attitudes toward a U.S. strike are complex. There is some concern about the
potential for violence, anarchy and score settling that might accompany
forceful regime change. But the overwhelming sentiment among those
interviewed was one of frustration and impatience with the status quo.
Perhaps most widespread is a desire to return to "normalcy" and put an
end to the abnormal domestic and international situation they have been
living through. A significant number of those Iraqis interviewed, with
surprising candour, expressed their view that, if such a change required an
American-led attack, they would support it.
Thoughts about a post-Saddam Iraq remain extremely vague and
inarticulate. Iraqis at home appear genuinely uninterested in topics that
currently are consuming both exiled Iraqis and the international community
– such as the make-up of a successor regime and the question of federalism
as a means of accommodating the conflicting political aspirations of Iraq’s
various communities, in particular the Kurds. The Iraqi regime’s repression
has devastated civil society and any autonomous form of political
organisation. The result is a largely depoliticised and apathetic population.
The opposition in exile, touted by some in the international community as
the future foundation of Iraq's political structure, is viewed with
considerable suspicion and, in some instances, fear. The notion of leaving
the country’s destiny in the hands of an omnipotent foreign party has more
appeal than might be expected – and the desire for a long-term U.S.
involvement is higher than anticipated.
It should not be assumed from this that such support as might exist for a
U.S. operation is unconditional. It appears to be premised on the belief both
that any such military action would be quick and clean and that it would be
followed by a robust international reconstruction effort. Should either of
these prove untrue – if the war proved to be bloody and protracted or if
Iraq lacked sufficient assistance afterwards – the support in question may
well not be very long sustained.
Nor does all this mean that another war is either advisable or inevitable.
Even in the event some significant "further material breach" is established
within the meaning of UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the costs of
military intervention – in terms of loss of life, material and economic
damage, regional spillover effects, hardening the attitudes of future
generations of Arabs and distracting from and even complicating a war on
terrorism that, as recent events demonstrate, remains unfinished – must be
carefully balanced against potential benefits, with the impact of intervention
or non-intervention on the credibility of the UN itself of course having to be
part of the calculation.
What ICG's field findings do say, rather, and in stark terms, is that a wide
gulf separates the attitude of Iraqis from that of much of the rest of the
world. For the international community, the principal question today is
whether war should or should not be waged. For the Iraqi people, who
since 1980 have lived through a devastating conflict with Iran, Desert
Storm, a decade of sanctions, international isolation and periodic U.S./UK
aerial attacks, a state of war has existed for two decades already. The
question is not whether a war will take place. It is whether a state of war
finally will be ended.
Amman/Brussels, 4 December 2002 |
