|
Where's The Iraqi Voice?
By Noam Chomsky
23/02/08 "ICH" -- -- THE US occupying army in Iraq
(euphemistically called the Multi-National Force-Iraq) carries
out extensive studies of popular attitudes. Its December 2007
report of a study of focus groups was uncharacteristically
upbeat.
The report concluded that the survey "provides very strong
evidence" to refute the common view that "national
reconciliation is neither anticipated nor possible". On the
contrary, the survey found that a sense of "optimistic
possibility permeated all focus groups ... and far more
commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly
diverse groups of Iraqis."
This discovery of "shared beliefs" among Iraqis throughout the
country is "good news, according to a military analysis of the
results", Karen deYoung reports in The Washington Post.
The "shared beliefs" were identified in the report. To quote
deYoung, "Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that
the U.S. military invasion is the primary root of the violent
differences among them, and see the departure of 'occupying
forces' as the key to national reconciliation."
So, according to Iraqis, there is hope of national
reconciliation if the invaders, responsible for the internal
violence, withdraw and leave Iraq to Iraqis.
The report did not mention other good news: Iraqis appear to
accept the highest values of Americans, as established at the
Nuremberg Tribunal -- specifically, that aggression -- "invasion
by its armed forces" by one state "of the territory of another
state" -- is "the supreme international crime differing only
from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the
accumulated evil of the whole". The chief US prosecutor at
Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, forcefully
insisted that the Tribunal would be mere farce if we do not
apply its principles to ourselves.
Unlike Iraqis, the United States, indeed the West generally,
rejects the lofty values professed at Nuremberg, an interesting
indication of the substance of the famous "clash of
civilisations".
More good news was reported by Gen David Petraeus and Ambassador
to Iraq Ryan Crocker during the extravaganza staged on September
11, 2007. Only a cynic might imagine that the timing was
intended to insinuate the Bush-Cheney claims of links between
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, so that by committing the
"supreme international crime" they were defending the world
against terror -- which increased sevenfold as a result of the
invasion, according to an analysis last year by terrorism
specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank.
Petraeus and Crocker provided figures to show that the Iraqi
government was greatly accelerating spending on reconstruction,
reaching a quarter of the funding set aside for that purpose.
Good news indeed, until it was investigated by the Government
Accountability Office, which found that the actual figure was
one-sixth of what Petraeus and Crocker reported, a 50 per cent
decline from the preceding year.
More good news is the decline in sectarian violence,
attributable in part to the success of the murderous ethnic
cleansing that Iraqis blame on the invasion; there are fewer
targets for sectarian killing. But it is also attributable to
Washington's decision to support the tribal groups that had
organised to drive out Iraqi Al Qaeda, and to an increase in US
troops.
It is possible that Petraeus's strategy may approach the success
of the Russians in Chechnya, where fighting is now "limited and
sporadic, and Grozny is in the midst of a building boom" after
having been reduced to rubble by the Russian attack, CJ Chivers
reports in the New York Times last September.
Perhaps some day Baghdad and Fallujah too will enjoy
"electricity restored in many neighbourhoods, new businesses
opening and the city's main streets repaved", as in booming
Grozny. Possible, but dubious, considering the likely
consequence of creating warlord armies that may be the seeds of
even greater sectarian violence, adding to the "accumulated
evil" of the aggression. Iraqis are not alone in believing that
national reconciliation is possible. A Canadian-run poll found
that Afghans are hopeful about the future and favour the
presence of Canadian and other foreign troops -- the "good news"
that made the headlines.
The small print suggests some qualifications. Only 20 per cent
"think the Taleban will prevail once foreign troops leave".
Three-quarters support negotiations between the US-backed Karzai
government and the Taleban, and over half favour a coalition
government. The great majority therefore strongly disagree with
the US-Canadian stance, and believe that peace is possible with
a turn towards peaceful means. Though the question was not asked
in the poll, it seems a reasonable surmise that the foreign
presence is favoured for aid and reconstruction.
There are, of course, numerous questions about polls in
countries under foreign military occupation, particularly in
places like southern Afghanistan. But the results of the Iraq
and Afghan studies conform to earlier ones, and should not be
dismissed.
Recent polls in Pakistan also provide "good news" for
Washington. Fully 5 per cent favour allowing US or other foreign
troops to enter Pakistan "to pursue or capture Al Qaeda
fighters". Nine per cent favour allowing US forces "to pursue
and capture Taleban insurgents who have crossed over from
Afghanistan".
Almost half favour allowing Pakistani troops to do so. And only
a little more than 80 per cent regard the US military presence
in Asia and Afghanistan as a threat to Pakistan, while an
overwhelming majority believe that the United States is trying
to harm the Islamic world. The good news is that these results
are a considerable improvement over October 2001, when a
Newsweek poll found that "eighty-three per cent of Pakistanis
surveyed say they side with the Taleban, with a mere three per
cent expressing support for the United States," and over 80 per
cent described Osama bin Laden as a guerrilla and six per cent a
terrorist.
Amid the outpouring of good news from across the region, there
is now much earnest debate among political candidates,
government officials and commentators concerning the options
available to the US in Iraq. One voice is consistently missing:
that of Iraqis. Their "shared beliefs" are well known, as in the
past. But they cannot be permitted to choose their own path any
more than young children can. Only the conquerors have that
right.
Perhaps here too there are some lessons about the "clash of
civilisations".
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author, most
recently, of Hegemony or Survival Americas Quest for Global
Dominance.
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
