Iraq: The Same Tactics but Different Players
15, October, 2006
Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi, Arab News
The United States occupied Iraq in a well-designed plan to have a strong hold on the most strategic geopolitical area in the world. Having been weakened militarily in the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq presented a fertile soil for US troops to be stationed in the Gulf region for many years to come. It was a well-perceived vision that started in the 1970s and became an actual dream come true in the beginning of the 21st century.
Iraq was picked up by the US as the best choice among the countries of the region because it had all the necessary components for a US war president to launch a war on and occupy. Not only was it a brutal dictatorship that was hostile to its neighbors but it also had presumably weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to its neighbors all peace loving nations of the world.
Iraq was seen as an international outlaw in violation of UN resolutions that needed to be deterred. Its leader, Saddam Hussein, presented himself to the global community as a tyrant who needed to be checked as he had the image of an irrational narcissist leader tainted with genocide and whose hands had the blood of his political opponents on them.
The invasion was successful as planned but the occupation stumbled on various accounts. One reason was an utter lack of understanding on the part of Americans of the Iraqi culture and the Iraqi people. The US decision makers failed to comprehend the Iraqi dignity and strong sense of national identity as they mismanaged the occupation. Iraqis felt offended when the US troops refrained from protecting their archeological treasures from the looters of the Iraqi National Museum. They felt their dignity questioned as the American soldiers wrapped the Firdous Square in an American flag after the Iraqi citizens toppled the Saddam Statue in the square. To Iraqis and regional observers this was an imperialist gesture rather than a liberating one. The Iraqis were infuriated with the deliberate US attempt to infringe on Iraqi social coherence. The US also tried to undermine the coexistence between various Iraqi sects. Iraqis were suddenly without a job, threatened with their own security, overtaken by a foreign power that controlled their natural resources. They were left lost without the prospects of a promising future. All these misdemeanors were sensitive issues that accumulated so quickly to turn into a strong resistance effort against the American occupation.
The Americans came to Iraq to serve their national interests, economic or strategic. They did not spend all this money and lives to leave Iraq after a short period of time. US policies are always made way in advance and meant to stay for a long time.
Regional states are familiar with US policies such as Nixon’s twin pillar doctrine, Reagan’s policy of strategic consensus and Clinton’s dual containment that were all initiated to safeguard the free flow of Gulf oil at the cheapest possible price, protect the Gulf oil reserves as well as maintain peace and security in the region. Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption is only an extension of a policy calculated to serve vital US national interests. Whether it is defensive or offensive, the end result is the same. Since the seventies, these US policies have not been subjected to any questioning or to any resistance. With the 9/11 attacks, the outcome of the US policies in the Gulf region began to be intensely questioned.
The Iraqi insurgency has been regarded as the first attempt to contain the direct US occupation of the region.
Even against the background of incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the destruction of mosques or mass killings of innocent civilians, the staying power and resoluteness of the insurgency has proved to be surprising to all.
Former US policies in the area have been successful based as they were on the usual tactics of playing one country against the other. Today, the tactics are the same but the players are different. The United States has played the Sunnis against the Shiites inside Iraq; America’s determination to annihilate the insurgency has failed.
The United States seems to be mired in this Iraqi swamp. This resistance has placed America in an awkward situation and US decision-makers are forced to review their policies to resolve the situation. The rhetoric that is coming from Washington DC has been confusing and contradicting. Whether the United States decides to increase or decrease its troops, stay or change the course, Iraq will remain occupied by the United States until a new administration comes to power and a new policy is initiated.
Freedom, liberty and democracy remain slogans that will continue to be used to lift up the morale of the ordinary US citizens as they watch their children getting killed in a far-away land. Americans need to believe that they are out there for a just cause. American Evangelicals who have supported this president are passionately devoted to justice and improving the world. These Evangelicals who have supported various humanitarian and human rights policies on a global basis need to believe that their president has made the right foreign policy decisions to spread ethical values, not merely to guarantee economic gains for US corporations and special interest groups.
Religion, culture and energy will continue to be the basis for any conflict in the area. Americans fail to understand that the people of this region will not accept insult to their religion and Westernization of their culture. Neither will they relinquish the control of their natural resources and allow it to pass into the hands of occupied forces. War on terrorism will fail to justify any US intention or intervention in the region as people’s resilience will continue to outstay the capability of any superpower.
— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She holds a doctorate from Canberra University in Australia.
Link:
US will stay at full strength in Iraq until 2010, says army chief
Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi, Arab News
The United States occupied Iraq in a well-designed plan to have a strong hold on the most strategic geopolitical area in the world. Having been weakened militarily in the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq presented a fertile soil for US troops to be stationed in the Gulf region for many years to come. It was a well-perceived vision that started in the 1970s and became an actual dream come true in the beginning of the 21st century.
Iraq was picked up by the US as the best choice among the countries of the region because it had all the necessary components for a US war president to launch a war on and occupy. Not only was it a brutal dictatorship that was hostile to its neighbors but it also had presumably weapons of mass destruction that posed a threat to its neighbors all peace loving nations of the world.
Iraq was seen as an international outlaw in violation of UN resolutions that needed to be deterred. Its leader, Saddam Hussein, presented himself to the global community as a tyrant who needed to be checked as he had the image of an irrational narcissist leader tainted with genocide and whose hands had the blood of his political opponents on them.
The invasion was successful as planned but the occupation stumbled on various accounts. One reason was an utter lack of understanding on the part of Americans of the Iraqi culture and the Iraqi people. The US decision makers failed to comprehend the Iraqi dignity and strong sense of national identity as they mismanaged the occupation. Iraqis felt offended when the US troops refrained from protecting their archeological treasures from the looters of the Iraqi National Museum. They felt their dignity questioned as the American soldiers wrapped the Firdous Square in an American flag after the Iraqi citizens toppled the Saddam Statue in the square. To Iraqis and regional observers this was an imperialist gesture rather than a liberating one. The Iraqis were infuriated with the deliberate US attempt to infringe on Iraqi social coherence. The US also tried to undermine the coexistence between various Iraqi sects. Iraqis were suddenly without a job, threatened with their own security, overtaken by a foreign power that controlled their natural resources. They were left lost without the prospects of a promising future. All these misdemeanors were sensitive issues that accumulated so quickly to turn into a strong resistance effort against the American occupation.
The Americans came to Iraq to serve their national interests, economic or strategic. They did not spend all this money and lives to leave Iraq after a short period of time. US policies are always made way in advance and meant to stay for a long time.
Regional states are familiar with US policies such as Nixon’s twin pillar doctrine, Reagan’s policy of strategic consensus and Clinton’s dual containment that were all initiated to safeguard the free flow of Gulf oil at the cheapest possible price, protect the Gulf oil reserves as well as maintain peace and security in the region. Bush’s doctrine of pre-emption is only an extension of a policy calculated to serve vital US national interests. Whether it is defensive or offensive, the end result is the same. Since the seventies, these US policies have not been subjected to any questioning or to any resistance. With the 9/11 attacks, the outcome of the US policies in the Gulf region began to be intensely questioned.
The Iraqi insurgency has been regarded as the first attempt to contain the direct US occupation of the region.
Even against the background of incidents such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, the destruction of mosques or mass killings of innocent civilians, the staying power and resoluteness of the insurgency has proved to be surprising to all.
Former US policies in the area have been successful based as they were on the usual tactics of playing one country against the other. Today, the tactics are the same but the players are different. The United States has played the Sunnis against the Shiites inside Iraq; America’s determination to annihilate the insurgency has failed.
The United States seems to be mired in this Iraqi swamp. This resistance has placed America in an awkward situation and US decision-makers are forced to review their policies to resolve the situation. The rhetoric that is coming from Washington DC has been confusing and contradicting. Whether the United States decides to increase or decrease its troops, stay or change the course, Iraq will remain occupied by the United States until a new administration comes to power and a new policy is initiated.
Freedom, liberty and democracy remain slogans that will continue to be used to lift up the morale of the ordinary US citizens as they watch their children getting killed in a far-away land. Americans need to believe that they are out there for a just cause. American Evangelicals who have supported this president are passionately devoted to justice and improving the world. These Evangelicals who have supported various humanitarian and human rights policies on a global basis need to believe that their president has made the right foreign policy decisions to spread ethical values, not merely to guarantee economic gains for US corporations and special interest groups.
Religion, culture and energy will continue to be the basis for any conflict in the area. Americans fail to understand that the people of this region will not accept insult to their religion and Westernization of their culture. Neither will they relinquish the control of their natural resources and allow it to pass into the hands of occupied forces. War on terrorism will fail to justify any US intention or intervention in the region as people’s resilience will continue to outstay the capability of any superpower.
— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She holds a doctorate from Canberra University in Australia.
Link:
US will stay at full strength in Iraq until 2010, says army chief
posted by HRM Deborah of Israel and the Messenger of Peace at 6:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home