When a liberator is an occupier
By Nir Rosen
BAGHDAD - The most common complaint heard soon after the Iraq war ended was that the Americans came as liberators, but now they are occupiers. This is not just a question of semantics as the liberation vs occupation debate has immense implications in Iraq.
This was demonstrated in a June 2 Iraqi council meeting hosted by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) for nearly 300 tribal leaders of all religions and ethnic groups. Ambassador Hume Horan, who is a political advisor to CPA chief L Paul Bremer, was also present. Horan, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and fluent Arabic speaker, addressed the audience in Arabic about the efforts the coalition was making and the need for their support.
After Horan finished speaking, Sheikh Munthr Abood from Amarra thanked President George W Bush for removing the Ba'ath regime of Saddam Hussein and stated that he had seen the mass graves of Shi'ites in the south (killed by Saddam in the aftermath of the first Gulf War of 1991) and was firmly opposed to Saddam. He then asked Horan if the coalition forces in Iraq were liberators or occupiers.
Horan responded that they were "somewhere in between occupier and liberator". This was not well received by the audience. Sheikh Abood stated that if America was a liberator, then the coalition forces were welcome indefinitely as guests, but that if they were occupiers, then he and his descendants would "die resisting" the occupiers. This met with energetic applause from the audience. Several other sheikhs echoed the same sentiment. Then the meeting deteriorated and one third of the audience stood up and walked out, despite the efforts of Horan and other organizers to encourage them to stay. This brought the meeting to end. It was not a public relations success.
The problems associated with being a "liberator" or an "occupier" impacted on the war right from the outset. "For political reasons, leaders declared that US forces were 'liberating forces' rather than occupying forces," admits a confidential After Action Report written by the US Army's Third Infantry Division. Up to 15,000 Third Infantry Division (3rd ID) troops fought in Iraq, and 44 soldiers from this unit that formed the bulk of the ground invasion from Kuwait to Baghdad were killed in battle. The authors of the leaked report, which is 281 pages long, are not known, but they provide a critique of the war and its aftermath that candidly reveals the army's view.
The failure to call the occupation an occupation, the authors state, "may have caused military commanders to be reluctant to use the full power granted to occupying forces to accomplish our legitimate objectives". They assert that "as a matter of law and fact, the United States is an occupying power in Iraq, even if we characterize ourselves as liberators. Under international law, occupation is a de facto status that occurs when an invading army takes effective control of a portion of another country. If necessary to maintain this public affairs position, our national command should have stated that while we were 'liberators', we intended to comply with international law requirements regarding occupation."
Occupation status "would have provided us authority to control almost every aspect of the Iraqi life, including the civilian population, government, resources and facilities, making it easier for us to accomplish all SASO [stability and support operations] missions." They apparently believe this would have been productive. According to one frustrated army major, the 3rd ID report is just a "cover to obscure their failure to plan and take the most basic preventive measures to secure property and stop looting. There was never a question about their capabilities and obligations. What they said at the time was that they had other priorities. Now they are saying they felt legally constrained."
Although the UN Security Council only recognized the US occupation of Iraq on October 16, Iraqis had no doubt how to describe their new condition from the moment foreign troops first encroached on their country. "This is an occupation!" has been the ubiquitous refrain from angry citizens throughout Iraq. In his "freedom message to the Iraqi people", General Tommy Franks, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, announced that they "have come as liberators, not occupiers", adding that they have come "to enforce UN resolutions requiring the destruction of weapons of mass destruction" (that do not seem to exist). Iraqis assumed a liberator would bring liberty, not chaos, anarchy and insecurity.
Lawyers working for the CPA readily acknowledge that the American presence is an occupation and it is their task to apply international law to what they perceive as a legal occupation and the obligations resulting from it. "There is no liberation law" said one colonel, only "occupation law". International law does not recognize the concept of liberator, only occupier, and the holder of this status assumes certain responsibilities. A major working in civil affairs rationalizes that "it's a legal occupation but a moral liberation".
For Americans, "occupation" conjures images of occupied Germany or Japan, and the repair of damaged societies. In Arabic, tahrir, or liberation, and ihtilal, or occupation, have much greater moral and emotional and even religious significance. Ihtilal means the Crusaders who slaughtered Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christians, it means the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in the 13th century, it means the British imperialists who divided the spoils of the Ottoman Empire with the French and it means the Israelis who oppressed the southern Lebanese and imposed their will brutally on the Palestinians. "We removed Saddam and we brought one thing to the people, freedom to talk," said a dejected staff sergeant with the Free Iraqi Forces, Iraqi exiles who volunteered to return with the American forces. His wife accuses him of being an occupier when he calls her back in America. "We warned them," he says of the Americans, "but they didn't listen. They are turning a thousand friends into enemies every day."
The 3rd ID report acknowledges that "occupation law also imposed upon us obligations to protect the civilian population to the best of our ability. Because of the refusal to acknowledge occupier status, commanders did not initially take measures available to occupying powers, such as imposing curfews, directing civilians to return to work, and controlling the local governments and populace. The failure to act after we displaced the regime created a power vacuum, which others immediately tried to fill."
The report laments that there was "no civilian authority in place prepared to serve as civilian administrator of Iraq" despite the fact that "the president announced that our national goal was "regime change" and adds that "there was no timely plan prepared for the obvious consequences of a regime change ... as late as April 15, the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA) had, at best, a working draft plan of post Saddam Iraq ... despite the virtual certainty that the military would accomplish the regime change, there was no plan for oversight and reconstruction, even after the division arrived in Baghdad. Higher headquarters needs to understand the immediate need and impact of the local police in the aftermath of war. The people wanted police and needed security. But we had no plan to accomplish this." The authors recognize that "At first, the people were anxious to get started and looked to the US for assistance. They soon saw us as being unable or unwilling to get anything done."
Iraqis grumble about their invisible ruler, Bremer, who has also rejected representation for them, declaring them not mature enough to decide their own fate. Iraqis had three dictators in three months, Saddam replaced by the bucolic Jay Garner and then the urbane Bremer, while others such as Franks and Bush issue edicts that affect their lives and Arnold Schwarzenegger visits but does not greet his Iraqi fans. Even the name of their government has changed three times, ORHA being replaced by a new acronym, OCPA.
In its section on "trophies and property damage", the 3rd ID report admits that "soldiers destroyed, damaged, or removed property", and makes the recommendation to "prevent soldiers from looting or unnecessarily damaging property". The foreign troops have become an onerous presence as the burden of Saddam was removed and a new one imposed. Iraqis now have to suffer the numerous intrusive checkpoints, the traffic jams they cause, the many roadblocks, the tanks, the lines for gasoline. They are awakened by rumbling of tanks through streets, or the sounds of gunfire. Many Iraqis wonder what are these words "fuck" and "shit" that Americans use all the time. Frustrated young soldiers point their machine guns at grandmothers and tease Iraqi youths about how easily they could kill them.
Iraqis are lost and confused before the American juggernaut. There used to be ministries, ways of getting things done, now they have to march through long paths carved out with barbed wire and stand in the sun, with gun barrels facing them, as they are searched, patted down, questioned, their IDs declared unsuitable, told they cannot be helped, sent elsewhere. Tempers are lost and Americans scream in English as Iraqis shout in Arabic, neither understanding the other. American soldiers do not sympathize with the inconvenience. "We stand in the sun all day," said one soldier, looking at hundreds of men standing or squatting, waiting.
Iraqis continued waiting long nights without electricity, living in darkness by gas lanterns, listening to sounds of gunfire all night, suffering from heat without air conditioning, sleeping outside to escape the saunas in their homes, sitting on the curbs or standing in clusters, living in boredom, fear, frustration and futility. There is no security. Saddam's regime had a monopoly on violence. It was possible to accommodate oneself to life under Saddam, and to live without arousing the state's ire or incurring its wrath. The present violence is random, collaboration with it is impossible.
Meanwhile, coalition soldiers live removed from Iraqis, hiding in Saddam's palaces. They are increasingly vulnerable and nervous as the high security of the first weeks after the war is restored due to increasingly successful attacks against Americans. Some attackers are indeed the lingering remnants of Saddam's regime. Nihilistically they shoot power stations with rocket-propelled grenades and blow up water pipes, damaging Iraqi communities for the sake of propaganda.
Many of those who attack Americans are not former regime elements, they are men who opposed Saddam and welcomed the Americans but their pride is wounded, they are humiliated by the treatment they receive and they need to restore their self esteem. Iraqis feel shame for their country's quick capitulation after predictions of last stands and bloodbaths and boasts that American soldiers would not be able to deal with the heat. These successful attacks demonstrate their virility and the American vulnerability and gratify most Iraqis subconsciously, as evident by how fast detailed and accurate rumors of the attacks spread throughout the country.
American soldiers are confused by why anybody would want to attack them, since they are liberators after all. Others are cynical and question why they were sent to Iraq at all. One enlisted marine wanted to know what it was like back home during the war, if Americans supported them, and if they knew why the war had been fought. When asked why he thought he was in Iraq, he responded, "its obvious, for oil, the first thing we did was secure the oil field in Basra." He scoffed, "Americans are blind, there were no weapons of mass destruction, we barely even took any fire." Other soldiers complain that they were sent to do a job they were not trained for. How long will their patience last?
Most Iraqi clerics have told their congregations to be patient, that the time is not right to attack Americans and they should give them six months or a year to fulfill their promises. But if they fail, or if they remain in Iraq too long, it is legitimate to attack them.
Imam Muayad of the Abu Hanifa mosque in Baghdad's Adhimyia district is the leader of Iraq's most important Sunni mosque. "All good people of the world reject foreign occupation," he said, "whether they are Muslim or not. Americans rejected British imperialism, so why do they deny other people the right to do what they did? We as Muslims reject any foreign occupation because Muslims do not recognize slavery to anyone but God."
On the main street in the town of Huseiba, a young man in a cafe shouted, "This is an occupation! They don't respect civilians, they laugh at us and insult us." The owner of the cafe interjected angrily. "We have no dignity now because of American soldiers. We are very angry that American soldiers don't respect civilians. Now we are all mujahideen. Any man who can't fight will give his money to fighters. Even Saddam was better to us and gave us more respect." A passerby agreed, "It's not freedom, it's an occupation."
Sheikh Mudhafar Abdel Wahab Alani could be heard sermonizing to his congregation of 1,200 devout from the Huseiba's biggest mosque. The 40-year-old religious leader berated his audience for what he said was their sinful behavior since the foreigners occupied their country, loudspeakers atop the mosque made his furious opprobrium audible throughout the city. As he completed his khutba, or sermon, and the noon prayer ended, he emerged, wearing a white robe and white turban, a thick black beard on his reddish brown face and an aquiline nose defining his angular distinguished features. He walked swiftly past the departing devout smiling, greeting passersby warmly and wishing everyone peace and god's blessings, and he was happy to share his views with a stranger.
"We reject this occupation, as I said in many of my sermons," he began, "No country would accept an occupation. We have lost our dignity." Of the Americans he said, "Until now we have not seen anything good except killing, searches and curfews. There is a reaction for every action. If you are choking me I will also choke you. We have a resistance just like the Palestinians, Chechens and Afghans." When asked if the Americans should leave soon, he snapped, "They should leave today." The Americans had done nothing to improve life, he said so "how much worse can it get? It has never been so bad." He was not opposed to the anti-American attacks. "I did not tell my people not to attack the Americans."
In the nearby town of Ubeidi, 20 kilometers from Huseiba, Sheikh Mudhafar's close friend Sheikh Kamal Shafiq Ali leads the Mustafa mosque and its congregation of about 1,000. The jovial Sheikh Kamal also donned a white robe, as well as a white cap, and his clipped white beard made him look older than his 45 years. Sheikh Kamal explained that Iraq's religious leaders "said we have to wait" and give the Americans a chance to fulfill their promises before attacking them. "No country wants an occupation," he says, "the Koran says that Allah promised the believers that infidels will never rule them.
"Of course it is an occupation, it is in the UN resolution that it is an occupation. But if Saddam doesn't return and the Americans keep their promises it is a liberation." Sheikh Kamal certainly preferred American soldiers to fellow Muslim or Arab soldiers, saying that "Americans are more kind than Arab or Muslim soldiers would be." Of course, even Sheikh Kamal is not extending his country's hospitality indefinitely. "A government must be established, security must be provided, there have to be elections and a constitution, and after they finish all that they have to get out, as they promised," he admonishes.
In Baghdad's Aamriya district, two other friends of the sheikh are both mosque leaders. Sheikh Husein, the rotund 34-year-old of the Maluki mosque explained that "there is Islamic law and international law and both agree on the resistance to aggressors, and this is a legal right for every people to resist." He recalled that "when Iraq occupied Kuwait", Arab countries and the West united to end that occupation. His friend Sheikh Walid, leader of the nearby Fardos mosque, concurred. "Every Muslim rejects occupation," he said, adding "and we hate America."
The two friends agree that America helped rid Iraq of Saddam, but, Sheikh Husein explained "every citizen can answer that he rejects the occupation. America is worse than Saddam. In spite of all the flaws of Saddam and his oppression of us when we compare Saddam with the Americans he is much better than them. By no means do we want Saddam back, but our suffering and our situation today makes us miss the old days." Even if Iraq were occupied by Muslim forces, Sheikh Husein would not accept the foreigners. "Occupation by one country of another is against Islam," he said, "and if a Muslim attacks another Muslim then he should be fought and rejected. Americans think Iraqis won't attack another Muslim, but in Islam we have to fight the occupation despite any characteristics of the enemy." He concluded that "we are very happy with the resistance of the Iraqi people to the American occupation but we don't support killing civilians."
Their Shi'ite counterparts view the foreign presence with no less hostility. In every Shi'ite public demonstration, banners proclaim in large letters "No, no to occupation." |
