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]
Dear Peter and list, I am afraid Peter's analysis of the "rejoicing" does not encompass the whole picture, and needs some explanation. There is no doubt that there is an enormous number of people in Iraq and outside it who have reason to rejoice at the fall of Saddam. And I agree that the fact that most of the opposition groups are US funded, this has nothing to do with scenes of rejoicing. But let us be clear about things. I lived over thirty years in Iraq. During that time I saw people applauding the Monarchy, then Qassim's regime, then the first Ba'thist regime, then the Arif regimes, and after that the Ba'thists again. Only last week, there were crowds and demonstrations in Baghdad in support of Saddam. I am talking about the same people of Iraq who kept switching sides and hoping that the new regime would be better than the one before. But they never learn. And I am sure that the same people who singing Saddam's praise last week, were rejoicing yesterday in Baghdad and elsewhere, and would very soon have reason to rejoice at the demise of Saddam's successor (whoever he is..) and wish the Saddam would have stayed.. This may sound strange, but there is an Iraqi saying which goes like "you will only know my worth after trying someone else..." And that has been tested and proven by Iraqis throughout their history... They welcome the victor, then curse him and turn against him.. The "jubilant" crowds at Saddam City were not expressing a specific political thought, in as much as they were jubilant at the chance to loot... Sorry to say that, but one has to understand the structure of Saddam City and how Bagdadis view them to understand that.. It is not true that many of the inhabitants of Saddam City "have been rooted out of their homes and ancestral ways of life by Iraqi government policy". In the 1950s, during the time of the Pro-British Monarchy, Iraq began suffering from a budget deficit and a recession. The oil was controlled by foreign companies and Iraq received only a small income from it. Thus agriculture, under the feudal system, began suffering. Many of those in farming societies began migrating to Baghdad to look for work. Baghdad had an earth dam built by the Ottoman Wali on the Eastern side of Baghdad to stop the flooding of the Euphrates. Those migrant workers built mud shacks behind the dam and settled there, working in menial jobs in the city of Baghdad... They came from Amara with their buffalos and from Nasiriya. After the overthrow of the Monarchy, general Qassim wanted to win the hearts of those people. But instead of providing them with the opportunity to return to their lands as farmers, he built them houses in the same area, thus creating the ghetto we now see. This created social problems as well as security problems for the consecutive governments of Iraq. So in reality, those people came almost all by their own will, and were not "uprooted" by any government.. The inhabitants of that city (first called Thawra "revolution") are almost fully Shi'a Muslims. Illiteracy rate is high, and the city has been a dangerous area for outsiders to venture into, especially at night. Since the sanctions, it has become a harbor for army deserters, wanted criminals and illegal trade in stolen medicines and stuff. This is not an exaggeration, and I am an eye-witness to this.. Cars that pass though the city are stoned, and the scenes remind one of those we see of dangerous areas in the US in Hollywood films!! The most important fact is that a large number of the police, security and army in Baghdad come from this city. They are the ones on whom Saddam's regime depended for keeping law and order... They also make the largest constituent of the Ba'th party in Baghdad.. That they turned against the regime now is not new. They had done it before. The same elements served before that Arif's regimes, and would certainly serve the new regime... Since the late 1950s, when the people of Al-Thawra sided with the Communists inside Qassim's regime, Baghdadis have been afraid of the scenario, where Al-Thawra inhabitants would march westwards and start looting. Most scared have been the Sunni Muslims of Baghdad. So I think Peter is putting too much emphasis on a political analysis of a situation that to me is no more than someone who saw a chance of grabbing something for himself and did it... The act was NOT political; rather related to greed and opportunism. This is explained by the fact that the UN offices and the German Embassy were also looted: places that had nothing to do with the regime or its instruments.. Peter asks "why should I automatically assume that just because George and Tony chose to ally with the Northern Alliance for their own reasons the Northern Alliance are therefore Bad?" It is not an assumption that is based on Black and White division. The conclusions or assumptions are based on the fact that the NA in Afghanistan is made up of War lords who were instrumental in destroying Afghanistan until the Taleban came and took over. The people of Afghanistan viewed Taleban as "liberators", especially after they succeeded in cutting down crime rate and the drug industry. The US/UK allied themselves with "war criminals" to achieve what they wanted. The same thing applies to the Iraqi opposition outside Iraq. It is made of ex-Ba'th party members who were part of Saddam's machine and who helped him get where he is (was!). Then there are army officers who only turned against him in the mid-to-late 1990s. And the Kurds who keep changing their alliances east and west, with Saddam now against him tomorrow, killing among themselves more than Saddam killed of them.. And then there is the communists who changed allegiance from the Soviet Union to the US... And there is the Communist-turned-Islamist, which is a new feature in Iraq. And of course the Iran-sponsored Shi'i Muslim parties.. So with a cocktail like that, it seems doubtful that Iraq will be better off in the coming future. I would give the new regime one year maximum, before we start reading about accusations of human rights violations and opposition from within the same groups who rejoiced at the "liberation" by the US... One has to be an Iraqi to understand Iraq. It is a very complicated society and I realize why many find it difficult to understand.. I hope I have helped. Best Hassan __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk