Print Story
E-mail Story
Apr. 4, 2004. 01:00 AM
Time for U.S. to cut and run
RICHARD GWYN
Other than his hometown of Tikrit, Falluja is where sentiment for Saddam Hussein is strongest. "Long live Saddam" graffiti is still scrawled on its walls, in fresh paint.
It would be wrong, though, to attribute the outpouring of hatred, of gleeful barbaric hatred, against the mutilated bodies of the American "contractors" to an expression of support for Saddam.
No evidence exists that any Iraqis other than a small number of former Baathist officials who lost all power and prestige want him back again.
Nor is there much evidence that the attacks on the American and other troops have been caused by Al Qaeda cells or other foreign terrorists.
Of the nearly 12,000 Iraqis detained as suspects in terrorist attacks and who are now being held in various jails and compounds across the country, fewer than 150 have been identified as coming from other countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.
Instead, Falluja expresses, in an extreme form, an anger and a resistance that is wholly local in its form and that would exist whether or not Saddam had once ruled the country.
Two causes for this anger and resistance can be guessed at. One is nationalism.
Nationalism is a stronger force in Iraq than in almost any other Arab country, excepting perhaps Egypt, with its long, distinctive history. The very fact that Iraq is so divided, ethnically between Kurds and Arabs, and between the Sunni and Shiite branches of Islam, means that either it is nationalist or it could not exist at all.
Before the Americans, the British, during their occupation, had to contend with a decade-long nationalist resistance for which there are few parallels in the Middle East.
The other driving force is that of a sense of honour. The most common word used by all Iraqis these days, and by all Arabs, is humiliation. Throughout the Middle East, there is a deep sense that an old and proud people have been defeated and betrayed.
There are some foreign terrorists in Iraq. There are considerable numbers of criminals who add to the insecurity by kidnapping Iraqis for ransom and who carry out burglaries. There are revenge attacks on Saddam's former officials and policemen. And, there are bored teenagers out to prove they have grown into men.
But nationalism and honour are almost certainly the driving forces of the insurgency. It is by no means a general, popular uprising. It's limited almost entirely to the so-called "Sunni triangle," and to parts of Baghdad.
The very fact that it is not ideological nor is organized to achieve any concrete political purpose — "Yanks out" of course, but many Iraqis are glad to have them around — means that it is going to be excruciatingly difficult to repress.
Claims, such as those by Gen. Mark Kimmitt, that his troops are going to "pacify" Falluja, are sheer braggadocio. Shut down in one place, the attacks will break out elsewhere; indeed, as soon as the troops who've moved into Falluja or wherever have turned their backs.
Which raises the question: Why should the Americans go on and on spending their blood and their money? The justification for the Americans being in Iraq has been that they just might be able to turn it toward democracy and so begin change throughout the Middle East. That's a valid objective, and a far more generous one than world opinion yet recognizes.
But it's become clear that the very presence of the Americans prevents democracy taking root because the presence of American troops there justifies, most certainly provokes, the insurgency against them. That insurgency also repeatedly aborts attempts at economic reconstruction: A Baghdad industrial fair, planned for this week, has been cancelled because of the insecurity.
We are approaching a tilting point. President George W. Bush will never change his policy. And American public opinion shows no signs of wanting to cut and run.
But Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry — a Vietnam hero and so armoured against accusations of "appeasement" — has to be considering whether to make a campaign pledge to pull out of Iraq.
Such a step would be highly risky, politically. It could seem like appeasement or worse, as a trampling on the graves of American soldiers.
In the end, though, the only way to win a war that cannot be won is to declare victory and bring the troops home.
To give up on the attempt to bring democracy to the Middle East would be a sad, sad, moment. But perhaps those who said democracy could only come from the people themselves were right all along.
The attempt was well worth making. But if it cannot be done, better, and braver, to end the affair sooner rather than later.
thestar.com |
