Arab World Is of Two Minds About U.S. Involvement in Iraq
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
[Edit: sounds like the Arab world's dilemma described here is similar to the reaction in Europe and the US: People in and out of government say they hope Washington will suffer for its perceived arrogance in taking on Iraq without international approval and for its unequivocal support for Israel. There is also fear that an easy victory might translate into dispatching the American military elsewhere to replace leaders.
On the other hand, many Arabs say they do not want the United States to fail either, fearing that the inevitable chaos would slosh across the entire region. Failure would open the door in Iraq for the kind of war among the sects that plagued Lebanon for 15 years. More important, if Islamic militants carry out attacks and triumph, Islamic extremism could well reignite.
But, personally, I don't see how the situation in Iraq will result in anything but bitterness, murders, and endless reprisals, long term. Even with an elected Iraqi govt will end up being temporary, maybe a year, maybe 3 years--the pretense that a "democratic" govt will solve the problems of Iraq, or even that simply removing Saddam will do so, is a Rovian/Wolfowitz pipedream that will lead to as bad a situation there as post-Tito Yugoslavia, IMHO. The Arabs are right to be fearful, very fearful. Yeah, I know, I'm just a peacenik fearmonger.]
Published: October 29, 2003
AIRO, Oct. 28 — The bright red headline across four columns in an Egyptian government-owned newspaper, Al Gumhuria, on Tuesday trumpeted the latest bombings in Iraq as somehow religiously sanctioned: "Five Consecutive Martyrdom Operations Rock Baghdad."
Yet both Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher and the Arab League condemned the bombings, singling out the attack on the International Committee of the Red Cross as particularly appalling. In Beirut, the respected daily Safir labeled the bombings a "crime," not least because in the paper's view they will serve to prolong the American presence.
Advertisement
Across the Arab world, opinion toward events in Iraq has taken on a kind of split personality that deepens with each new attack, particularly after gory explosions like those on Monday, which killed dozens of Iraqis and wounded hundreds more.
On one hand, it is rare to find outright support in the Arab world for the United States to succeed. People in and out of government say they hope Washington will suffer for its perceived arrogance in taking on Iraq without international approval and for its unequivocal support for Israel. There is also fear that an easy victory might translate into dispatching the American military elsewhere to replace leaders.
On the other hand, many Arabs say they do not want the United States to fail either, fearing that the inevitable chaos would slosh across the entire region. Failure would open the door in Iraq for the kind of war among the sects that plagued Lebanon for 15 years. More important, if Islamic militants carry out attacks and triumph, Islamic extremism could well reignite.
"The general feeling is that the U.S. put itself in a position that it deserves, it serves them right," said Khaled M. Batarfi, the managing editor of Al Madina, a newspaper published in Jidda, Saudi Arabia. "The U.S. was always saying, we know better, we understand the stakes and everything will be fine.
"But the other feeling is worry that the U.S. might leave without finishing the job first," he went on. "It will be like a jungle."
This quandary has resulted in more paralysis than usual. The latest bombings elicited few public statements from senior officials — although this is also partly because attacks have become so frequent.
Muhammad Kamal, a political science professor at Cairo University, said Arab countries faced a dilemma. "They don't want to leave Iraq, this big Arab country, to the U.S. to shape its future, they don't want the U.S. to do that exclusively," he said. "But they are also reluctant to do anything which might be interpreted as helping the U.S. as an occupier of Iraq."
In addition, the idea that their heads might be on the block next is never very far away from the thoughts of most Arab leaders.
"Iraq is something confusing for the governments here," said Sawsan Shair, a Bahraini columnist. "If the U.S. succeeds in Iraq, so that it really is a democratic country, this is scary for them. If the U.S. fails, on the other hand, what is happening in Iraq will spread, and this is bad for them as well."
Swings in the press coverage reflect the uncertainty. Some papers refer to the attacks against the American forces or the Iraqi police they have trained as "martyrdom operations" implying that they somehow carry the stamp of religious approval as legitimate resistance. Others condemn them.
If there is one element of consensus, it is that the United States failed from the very beginning, when it allowed mobs to loot Iraqi ministries, to provide sufficient security. The only way to dampen the violence now is to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis under United Nations auspices, or at least to announce a rapid timetable for doing that, according to newspapers and commentators across the region.
"A quick handover of power to the Iraqis is the only way out," wrote Al Akhbar, another Egyptian newspaper run by the government. "What the U.S. administration has forgotten is that all Iraqis, except the traitors and agents, look at the presence of the U.S. forces as an invasion, a colonization and an occupation, despite all that's being said about assistance, reconstruction and the promotion of democracy."
Fighting the United States is not the same as supporting Saddam Hussein, the paper added.
Other voices were also critical, not to say horrified, at the fact that so many of the victims were Iraqis.
"There are borders between resisting occupation and massacring the impoverished, the hopeless who are unfairly accused of serving the occupation when they were simply earning their bread," wrote Talal Salman, the publisher of Al Safir.
There was some outright criticism of the attacks. One Jordanian columnist was particularly aghast that the suicide bombers had used a booby-trapped ambulance to attack a humanitarian organization.
On the streets, too, there was a feeling that the Americans were getting what they deserved, yet sympathy for the victims.
"If the Americans end their occupation and allowed the Iraqis to govern their own country, such explosions would not take place," said Salwa Attiyah, a Cairo accountant.
"It is sad to see those poor Iraqi victims killed," she said. "It is also sad to see the Americans killed every day there."
Whatever their stripe, Arab commentators were completely dismissive of President Bush's remarks that the attacks were being inspired by growing American success.
"Remember how Saddam Hussein talked about winning the mother of all battles?" said Muhsen Awaji, a Saudi Islamist lawyer. "It is the same disease."
nytimes.com |
