The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] With Weapons of the Will

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

 I found this article...thought it might be of interest to some... Cassie

With Weapons of the Will
How to topple Saddam Hussein—nonviolently.
by Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall

Saddam Hussein has brutalized and repressed the Iraqi people for more than 20 years and more 
recently has sought to acquire weapons of mass destruction that would never be useful to him inside 
Iraq. So President Bush is right to call him an international threat. Given these realities, anyone 
who opposes U.S. military action to dethrone him has a responsibility to suggest how he might 
otherwise be ushered out the backdoor of Baghdad. Fortunately there is an answer: civilian-based, 
nonviolent resistance by the Iraqi people, developed and applied in accordance with a strategy to 
undermine Saddam's basis of power.

Unfortunately, when this suggestion is made publicly, hard-nosed policymakers and most commentators 
dismiss the idea out of hand, saying that nonviolence won't work against a tyrant as pathological 
as Saddam. That is because they don't know how to distinguish between what has popularly been 
regarded as "nonviolence" and the strategic nonviolent action that has hammered authoritarian 
regimes to the point of defenestrating dictators and liberating people from many forms of 

The reality is that history-making nonviolent resistance is not usually undertaken as an act of 
moral display; it does not typically begin by putting flowers in gun barrels and it does not end 
when protesters disperse to go home. It involves the use of a panoply of forceful 
sanctions—strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, disrupting the functions of government, even 
nonviolent sabotage—in accordance with a strategy for undermining an oppressor's pillars of 
support. It is not about making a point, it's about taking power.

Another misconception about nonviolent resistance that policymakers and the media entertain is that 
there is some sort of inverse relationship between the degree of severity of a regime's repressive 
instincts and the likelihood of a civilian-based movement's success in overturning it. Three cases 
come to mind in illustrating that repression is not typically the decisive factor in the dynamics 
of these struggles.

First, during World War II the Danes gradually developed a broad popular nonviolent resistance to 
their German occupiers and—through actions such as cultural protests in the beginning and later 
general strikes—managed both to create the space in which to operate and to impose substantial 
costs on the Nazi regime for its decision to occupy the country. Even though the Germans were 
capable of more severe repression in Denmark than they chose to apply, the point is that there was 
a transactional relationship between the Germans and the Danes, and the Danes discovered that 
fact—and from that they derived the leverage to press their resistance.

An authoritarian ruler or military occupier wants certain services or benefits from the population, 
and those benefits can be withheld, albeit at a cost to those resisting. Ratcheting up repression 
does not necessarily work as a strategy to quell resisters, since when repression increases, more 
people are antagonized and join the resistance, and business as usual for the regime or occupier 
becomes even more costly to maintain. It's essential to understand that unless a regime wants to 
murder the entire population, its ability repressively to compel a population's compliance is not 
infinitely elastic.

This was illustrated in another case during World War II: the nonviolent public resistance of the 
Rosenstrasse wives in February-March 1943. Reacting to the internment of their Jewish husbands, 
hundreds of these non-Jewish wives and other civilians who supported them started daily sit-ins in 
front of the building at Rosenstrasse 2-4 where their husbands had been taken initially (many were 
soon shipped to the camps). SS soldiers shot into the air over their heads, shut down the nearest 
streetcar station, and tried to frighten them off, but they kept coming, their ranks swelling to a 
thousand. The Nazis were faced with a dilemma: To stop the protest, they could drag these women 
away and arrest them, or brutalize them in the streets—but the regime was concerned that that would 
inflame other Berliners, who would surely hear about what had happened. In a week Goebbels decided 
it was easier just to give them their husbands back, and he did so, transporting many back from the 
camps; 1,700 were set free.

Nonviolent resistance often confounds the assumption that the next degree of repressive pressure 
will somehow neutralize further resistance, because conflicts in which strategic nonviolent action 
is applied are not necessarily contests of physical force in all of their phases. The Nazis could 
have ended the Rosenstrasse protest on its first day, but they did not—they realized it was not 
really a physical problem. There was a political context: Killing Jews was one thing, but killing 
or even injuring non-Jewish German citizens, especially women, was quite another—it would tarnish 
their image (which is to say, potentially jeopardize the legitimacy of their domestic rule) at a 
vulnerable time, right after the German defeat at Stalingrad. The lesson: Their latitude for 
decision making was not automatically enlarged by their capacity for repression.

Another case that illustrates the importance of this question of legitimacy is that of Chile. No 
one doubted the willingness of Pinochet's regime, in the 1970s and early 1980s, to use terror as an 
instrument of repression in order to assure the regime's control: Disappearances, brutal killings 
of dissidents, and arbitrary arrests had silenced most dissenters. But once that silence was broken 
in 1983 in a way that the regime could not immediately suppress—through a one-day nationwide 
slow-down, followed by a nighttime city-wide banging of pots and pans in Santiago—the regime was no 
longer able to re-establish the same degree of fear in the population, and mammoth monthly protests 
were soon under way.

After it was clear that a broad cross-section of the population opposed the regime, Pinochet felt 
compelled to reassert its legitimacy, and so he went ahead with a scheduled referendum on his 
continued rule which, thanks to internationally supported poll watching and extraordinary grass 
roots organizing, he lost. Then his impulse to crack down was blocked when his senior military 
chiefs made it clear that they would refuse his orders to do so. What had happened? A seemingly 
innocuous protest had compromised the regime's ability to rule by intimidation, allowing the 
democratic opposition to organize and eventually capture a higher legitimacy, splitting the ranks 
of the dictator's supporters.

WHILE IT MAY well be true that Saddam's rule has been as brutal as that of any dictator since 
Stalin, he is not, unlike the Russian tyrant, supported by an entrenched party system that can 
claim a higher ideological purpose. His hold on power is even more reliant on personal loyalties 
and their reinforcement by material rewards and mortal penalties. As such, the frequent reports of 
his repression should be seen not only as a sign of his brutality, but as evidence of the 
disaffection that his capricious, personal style continues to breed: He would not have to crack 
down if there were no one who might be disloyal.

If a military invading force attempts to shoot its way to Saddam, it must necessarily shoot first 
at all those military and security units deployed around him—and, if they are threatened with 
death, they will shoot back. Thus the horrendous fighting in or around Baghdad that we know the 
Joint Chiefs has advised the president would be extremely costly in the event of U.S. military 

But if instead a campaign against Saddam began with civilian-based incidents of disruption that 
were dispersed around the country and that did not offer convenient targets to shoot at, any 
attempt to crack down would have to depend on the outermost, least reliable members of Saddam's 
repressive apparatus. If the resistance made it clear to police and soldiers that they were not 
viewed as the enemy, and even if resisters were at first only a nuisance—mosquitoes that could not 
all be swatted—the realization that Saddam was being opposed openly would begin almost immediately 
to lessen the fear of engaging in further, more systematic acts of resistance. As opposition became 
more serious or visible, this would offer to dissenting elements within the regime a place to which 
to defect, once events reached a crescendo.

A few years ago, in the holy city of Karbala, when tens of thousands of Muslims gathered for an 
annual religious occasion, the regime sent in troops because it feared disorder or an uprising. But 
they were so badly outnumbered by the civilians who came that they were effectively encircled—a 
graphic display of the limitations on Saddam's repressive apparatus if it were constrained to 
respond to incidents in all directions from Baghdad.

Earlier this year, a leading nonviolent Iraqi oppositionist expressed exasperation that the Bush 
administration appeared to be considering every possible military strategy for regime change 
without realizing "that 22 million Iraqis detest Saddam Hussein" and that they represent an 
enormous potential resource in ungluing critical levers of his control. At a recent conference on 
the future of democracy, another Iraqi oppositionist stood up and reminded other, more skeptical 
Iraqis in the room that Saddam's regime cannot function without oil revenues, and there is a 
limited number of civilian oil workers who, if they were to abandon their jobs, could create a 
crisis by themselves. If Saddam starts shooting oil workers or workers at electrical utility 
installations, how would that keep the oil fields running or the power flowing to his palaces and 

AT THE MOMENT a nonviolent movement begins, most observers think that success is impossible, 
because most people can only see the costs of resisting instead of the costs that resisters can 
impose on those who maintain the existing system. The oppressive rulers who have been brought down 
by nonviolent movements—whether they were generals in Latin America, Ferdinand Marcos in the 
Philippines, or Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia—did not tolerate a degree of dissent or refrain from 
murdering all opponents because they were softer adversaries than Stalin would have been or Saddam 
is now. These were all dictatorial regimes, meaning that openness was tolerated only as necessary 
to maintain the facade of internal or external legitimacy, or because suppressing it would have 
been too costly. And the Raj in India was not the exception that proves the rule, unless you think 
that the massacre at Amritsar or the killings at Dharasana were merely unfortunate lapses in 
English manners.

The reflexive assumption that nonviolent action has structural limitations related to a regime's 
character is in part the product of three generations of stereotyping this strategy as a moral 
preference or a form of ethical behavior. Most preachers of "nonviolence"—by insisting that 
nonviolent action triumphs when the opponent witnesses the suffering or hears resisters' messages 
and is persuaded to relent—have unwittingly reinforced the belief that power cannot be taken from 
rulers who are willing to use superior military force. That isn't the way nonviolent resistance has 
usually worked.

Regimes have been overthrown that had no compunction about brutalizing their opponents and denying 
them the right to speak their minds. How? By first demonstrating that opposition is possible, 
peeling away the regime's residual public and outside support, quashing its legitimacy, driving up 
the costs of maintaining control, and overextending its repressive apparatus. Strategic nonviolent 
action is not about being nice to your oppressor, much less having to rely on his niceness. It's 
about dissolving the foundations of his power and forcing him out. It is possible in Iraq.

Peter Ackerman and Jack DuVall are co-authors of A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent 
Conflict, the companion book to the PBS documentary of the same name, of which DuVall was executive 
producer. Ackerman is chair of the board of overseers of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy 
at Tufts University and DuVall is director of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.

"Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams.Who 
looks inside, awakens"
Carl Jung

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]