Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
As they roast in the Baghdad summer, Iraqis who had learned to survive under Saddam find the American juggernaut incomprehensible -- and increasingly oppressive.
Jul 9, 2003 | For Iraqis, July 4 was just another lethargic summer day. Most stores were closed, and at 1 p.m. the devout strolled to the mosques to listen to Friday's sermon. Attacks against Americans and their Iraqi allies continued unabated, and most Iraqis sat in the shade, avoiding the heat and longing for independence from occupation. All the while, independence celebrations were underway, but hidden from Iraqis' view.
Within the sprawling Republican Palace compound, male and female American soldiers splashed in a pool and grilled meat as country music blasted from a radio. Within the lavish accommodations Saddam built for his cohorts, they enjoyed a respite from their roles as liberators or occupiers and probably did not reflect on the possible ironies of marking their forefathers' rebellion against a British monarchy that had become a foreign occupier for colonists who resented the distant potentate and rejected taxation without representation.
But like the American colonists in the 18th century, Iraqis today are grumbling about their invisible ruler, U.S. proconsul L. Paul Bremer III, who until this week had rejected representation for them, declaring them not mature enough to decide their own fate. Iraqis have had three unelected regimes in three months -- Saddam was replaced by the bucolic retired Gen. Jay Garner, who was in turn replaced by the urbane Bremer. Meanwhile Gen. Tommy Franks and President George W. Bush issue edicts that affect Iraqis' daily lives and Arnold Schwarzenegger visits the troops but doesn't greet his local fans. Even the name of the government has changed three times before settling, for now, on Office of the Coalition Provisional Authority. In his "freedom message to the Iraqi people," Gen. Franks, then commander of the coalition forces in Iraq, announced that the U.S. and the U.K. "have come as liberators, not occupiers," adding that they have come "to enforce U.N. resolutions requiring the destruction of weapons of mass destruction" (that so far do not seem to exist). Iraqis assumed a liberator would bring liberty, not chaos, anarchy and insecurity.
The most common refrain one hears from Iraqis these days is: "They came as liberators and now they are occupiers." The significance of the liberation vs. occupation debate can get lost in translation here, but its immense political implications were evident in a June 2 meeting, hosted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, for nearly 300 tribal leaders of all religions and ethnic groups. Hume Horan, a political advisor to Bremer, also was present. Horan, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and fluent Arabic speaker, addressed the audience in Arabic about the coalition's efforts and its need for Iraqi support.
After Horan finished speaking, Sheik Munther Abood from Amarra thanked President Bush for removing the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein and stated that he had seen the mass graves full of dead Shias in the south 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. Sheik 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" them. This met with energetic applause from the audience. Several other sheiks echoed the same sentiment. Then the meeting deteriorated and a third of the audience stood up and walked out, despite efforts by Horan and other organizers to encourage them to stay. At which point the meeting ended. It was not a public relations success.
Lawyers working for the Coalition Provisional Authority 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 offers a nuanced rationalization: "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 significance. "Ihtilal" means the Roman Catholic 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 southern Lebanon and imposed their will brutally on the Palestinians.
"We removed Saddam and we brought one thing to the people, the freedom to talk," said a dejected staff sergeant with the Free Iraqi Forces, Iraqi exiles who volunteered to return to Iraq 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."
