Thoughts on Iraq FROM Iraqis now....

by Xander 3 Replies latest social current

  • Xander
    Xander

    From various sources.

    John Donovan of ABCNews.com reports:

    Traveling unescorted into Safwan today, I got a far different picture. Rather than affection and appreciation, I saw a lot of hostility toward the coalition forces, the United States and President Bush.

    Some were even directed towards the media. (It was the first time I heard somebody refer to me as a "Satan.")

    To be sure, conversations with people on the street here begin relatively calmly. But the more they talked, the angrier they got.

    In part, much of their discontent stems from the unknown. In speaking with them, the newly-liberated Iraqis ask the same questions that seem to nag many outside Iraq.

    Why are you here in this country? Are you trying to take over? Are you going to take our country forever? Are the Israelis coming next? Are you here to steal our oil? When are you going to get out?

    Slate has a correspondent there. It sounds like emotions are running high and feelings are mixed, but we clearly haven't reached the promised "welcoming the liberators with open arms" stage quite yet.

    The mood on the streets remains somber and sullen. Stores are mostly closed, and those that are open have run out of duct tape, gasoline, and aluminum foil (which is wrapped around computers to shield them from e-bombs). People seem sad, resigned, sometimes resistant, mostly fearful. There is universal opposition to the war: George W. Bush's name is spit with venom. Yesterday, a soldier saw me on the street and shouted, "George Bush, I fucked your mother. We will win this war because you are here. You are a human shield. We are all human shields and the world is with us." Still, Iraq's celebrated hospitality remains, even in wartime. I have been greeted with kisses and hugs as often as I have with people pointing fingers at me and yelling pow-pow.

    And then there's this:

    By deciding to pursue their enemy into the city center, the Americans appeared to have enraged many of the Iraqi civilians who live there, including those who said they were predisposed to support the American effort.

    One of those, Mustafa Mohammed Ali, a medical assistant at the Saddam Hospital, said he had spent much of the day hauling dead and wounded civilians out of buildings that had been bombed by the Americans. Mr. Ali that said he had no love for the Iraqi president but that the American's failure to discriminate between enemy fighters and Iraqi civilians had turned him decisively against the American invasion.

    "I saw how the Americans bombed our civilians with my own eyes," Mr. Mustafa said, and he held up a bloodied sleeve to show how he had dragged them into the ambulances.

    "You want to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime?" Mr. Mustafa asked. "Go to Baghdad. What are you doing here? What are you doing in our cities?"

  • William Penwell
    William Penwell

    Leave After War, Iraqi Opposition Group Tells U.S.
    Tue March 25, 2003 08:13 AM ET


    TEHRAN (Reuters) - The leader of Iraq's main Shi'ite opposition group warned Washington on Tuesday that U.S. troops would face armed resistance if they stayed in Iraq once President Saddam Hussein was toppled.

    "Iraqis are against foreign dominance, and if they (the Americans) don't want to leave Iraq, the nation will resist," said Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir Hakim, head of the Tehran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).

    "One of the legitimate ways of resistance against occupiers is force and weapons," he told a news conference.

    The gray-bearded, black-turbaned Hakim said SCIRI, which draws its support from Iraq's Muslim Shi'ite majority, said he had tens of thousands of troops stationed inside and outside Iraq, ready to resist any foreign occupation.

    The group's armed wing, known as the Badr Brigade, has paraded hundreds of lightly armed fighters in Kurdish-ruled northern Iraq. But it has tended to keep the size and whereabouts of its other forces a closely guarded secret.

    Iran, which fought an eight-year war against Iraq in the 1980s, has given aid and shelter to the group for more than two decades due to their shared Shi'ite Muslim beliefs and enmity for Saddam. But Tehran has said it will not allow its soil to be used as a launch pad for an attack on Iraq.

    Hakim said Badr had no military or operational contacts with Washington, and no decision had been taken yet for his forces to confront the Iraqi government.

    His men would respect "international rules and regulations" on crossing the Iranian border, he added.

    The United States is thought to be wary of Hakim's group because of its strong ties to Iran.

    Hakim, a 62-year-old cleric who fled to Iran in 1979, said Washington had told some Iraqi opposition groups to stay out of the current conflict.

    But he said it was for Iraqis to shape the future -- a hint to Washington to stay out of post-Saddam politics.

    "We believe the best way is to establish a national government instead of an appointed or imposed one from outside Iraq," he said.

    Iraq's divided opposition has been trying to patch up feuds to form a transitional government should Saddam be defeated, but Washington doubts their ability to fill a post-war power vacuum.

    The Shi'ite leader also warned U.S.-led forces to avoid any attack on Iraq's holy Shi'ite cities of Najaf and Karbala.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    Report: Shiites Rising Up Against Saddam

    Tuesday, March 25, 2003

    CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar — The Shiite Muslims of Basra, with the help of British troops, have begun a popular uprising against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime, a British pool journalist embedded with coalition troops reported Tuesday.

    "Open-source reporting has it that there was some form of uprising this afternoon against the [ruling] Baath party," British military spokesman Al Lockwood told Sky television. "I do understand that the Shiite population attempted to attack the ruling party."

    "The ruling party responded by firing mortars at the crowd that was advancing toward them. Our artillery responded to that with shells and mortars," Lockwood continued. "In addition, I believe from open source that some sort of weapon was used against the Baath party headquarters."

    Britain's Independent Television News reported that thousands of people were rampaging through the streets of Iraq's second-largest city, where Shiites predominate. Dozens of buildings were said to be on fire.

    Although Shiites are the majority in southern Iraq, the Baath-led government is dominated by Sunni Muslim Arabs from further north.

    British troops backed by tanks and armored vehicles were massing on the outskirts of Basra Tuesday and planned to enter the city.

    "We'll help [the rebels] every which way we can," British spokesman Chris Vernon told a news conference in Kuwait. "We are helping them when we took out probably the most senior Baath party guy in Basra this morning. That will have sent a shock wave through them."

    Vernon clarified that the Baath official had been captured, not killed.

    In Washington, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Iraqi irregulars and Baath loyalists were terrorizing the population of Basra, but he skirted a question about the reported uprising.

    "They now have people in there that are shooting [Iraqi soldiers] if they try to desert, try to surrender, try to escape," he said at a news briefing. "These are Saddam Hussein's people in there, shooting them if they leave the city."

    Anyone staging an uprising would have "a lot of courage," Rumsfeld added.

    ITN correspondent Richard Gaisford, functioning as a British media pool reporter, earlier said military intelligence officers told him British troops were shelling Iraqi government forces to help the uprising.

    Iraq's main Shiite opposition group confirmed the rebellion, Reuters reported.

    "We confirm an uprising is taking place in Basra, but we cannot give more details for the time being," said Mohamed Hadi Asadi, a spokesman for the Iran-based Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

    Baghdad denied the Basra uprising was taking place at all.

    "I want to affirm to you that Basra is continuing to hold steadfast," cabinet member Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf told Qatar's Arabic-language Al-Jazeera satellite news channel.

    Earlier Tuesday, U.S. Air Force Major Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr. said the situation in Basra was fragile and that an uprising was possible.

    At a press briefing at U.S. Central Command in Qatar, Renuart said the Shiites had been oppressed by the Baghdad regime for years.

    "I think that they feel a threat to their security by these Baath-party, special Republican Guard troops, that they're terrorizing their neighborhood," he said.

    British forces said Tuesday they had changed their strategy and decided to move against militia fighters who had prevented them from securing Basra. Previously, coalition forces had planned to avoid urban combat by bypassing Iraq's major cities as they advanced on Baghdad.

    The decision to declare parts of Basra "military targets" came after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned of a humanitarian crisis in the city and said "urgent measures" had to be taken to restore electricity and water, which have been cut off in the city for days.

    British forces had surrounded the city by Tuesday morning and secured its airport, but continued to face pockets of resistance, including members of Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen paramilitary. On Monday there were artillery exchanges throughout the day.

    "We're obviously assessing the situation before we commence operations to take out the non-regular militia which seems to be set to opposing our taking of the objective," said Lockwood.

    With 1.3 million people in Basra, "we need to secure the city for the inhabitants and to ensure that their basic necessities in life are taken care of, and obviously that the necessary humanitarian aid, medical facilities are restored as quickly as possible," he added.

    A bloody 1991 uprising by Shiites in Basra at the end of the first Gulf War was crushed by the Iraqi army when the expected American military assistance failed to materialize.

    Fox News' Mike Tobin and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Adve

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    The Iraqi People Want to Know
    When Mr Bush Will Get Tough

    By Michael Rubin, visiting fellow
    The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

    The Daily Telegraph,August 13, 2001



    ON May 18, the day after Great Britain proposed lifting United Nations sanctions on all civilian goods in Iraq, a taciturn Iraqi farmer asked me: "Why does the West talk about Saddam's war crimes on one day, but reward him the next?"

    Such is the perception of ordinary Iraqis, who understand Saddam, and are incredulous at how the Western press and public so readily accepts Saddam's propaganda. Saddam Hussein wants the West to believe that sanctions are to blame for suffering in Iraq. He spares no effort to control the spin from Iraq: his party controls all the television stations and newspapers. Journalists visiting Iraq accept Iraqi government escorts; even when reporters escape from their minders, most Iraqis hesitate to speak critically, since they know others are watching.

    The Iraqi government bans those who report critically. Even the United Nations is not immune. The Baghdad government controls visas for UN officials to enter Iraq. For many UN workers from poor countries, a UN Iraq position is the best job they will ever have. But they must regularly renew their visas. If they do anything to displease Baghdad, they simply lose their UN jobs. At present, the Iraqi government is refusing more than 280 UN workers visas to do their jobs. High level UN officials live in isolated compounds or neighbourhoods, seeing other UN employees and political officials, but seldom ordinary people.

    I was not subject to Saddam's restrictions. I entered Iraq illegally, without a visa. I spent nine months in the northern portion of the country, an area still under sanctions but free from Saddam's control for a decade. I taught more than 500 students at the region's three universities. I walked and drove without guards or drivers, doing my own shopping, and talking both with Iraqis from the safe haven and the portion of the country under Saddam's control. Free to speak while in the north, the ordinary Iraqis had startling things to say.

    I shared a house in Sulaymaniyah with a visiting professor from Baghdad. He talked about how the Iraqi government organised anti-sanctions demonstrations. The dean of his college would order him to lead his students to the site of a protest; the names of any who failed to attend had to be given to security agents. If any demonstrator got airtime with foreign television, he would receive a monetary bonus. Following the protest, the Iraqi government would bus the poor to a reception hall for a fancy dinner. The professor was incredulous that people would assume that such protests had anything to do with popular sentiment.

    Iraqis, likewise, could not believe that London and Washington did not understand the message of Saddam's 13-hour military parade on December 31.

    "Don't you see that he's just thumbing his nose at the West?" one university friend asked. Saddam Hussein started two previous wars, and murdered 182,000 civilians (many with chemical weapons) in a 1988 orgy of violence and ethnic cleansing. Most Iraqis think Saddam will do it again if given the chance - especially once he develops a nuclear deterrent.

    So what do Iraqis want? I was at a gym in Dahuk, Iraq, on February 16 when word came of the US bombing of Iraqi radar installations near Baghdad. People were excited. "Finally, the US shows it is serious," a businessman remarked as we sweated in the sauna. The euphoria did not last though. When I left Iraq, the mood was dark. Not only were American and British officials publicly discussing weakening the no-fly zones in response to Saddam's pressure, but they were also talking of easing sanctions.

    Proponents of smart sanctions mean well, but then again so did Neville Chamberlain. They argue that by loosening controls on civilian goods, the West can ease the suffering of the Iraqi people still living under Saddam. While good in theory, sanctions revisions do nothing to force Saddam to actually feed his people. Many Iraqis in the north told of Iraqi government officials confiscating their UN ration cards. Unless the West addresses the root cause of the problem - Saddam - suffering in Iraq will continue.

    The decline in infant mortality, the increase in fertility, and the general improvement in health in northern Iraq despite sanctions, show that sanctions are not the problem. It is hard for people to starve when, every month, the oil-for-food programme gives each individual nine kilograms of flour, three kilograms of rice, as well as sugar, tea, oil, milk, cheese, salt and meat and vegetable protein. Fruit, meat and vegetables are plentiful in the markets. While there are humanitarian tragedies in parts of the south, sanctions have little to do with it.

    When Slobodan Milosevic went about the ethnic cleansing of Muslims, the West did not respond by giving him money or business contracts. It is curious that they do in Iraq.

    Many Iraqis travel frequently to Baghdad to visit friends and family and hear the latest news. When they return, they speak with unanimity: Iraqis want Saddam ousted. People remember the pre-Saddam years when Iraq was a wealthy, cosmopolitan country, before Saddam's two disastrous wars and massive spending on palaces. They know that the morale of Saddam's army is very low. When Saddam's troops last entered the safe haven last December, 138 elite Iraqi troops threw down their weapons and surrendered the instant an American or British war plane flew low over Iraqi lines. No Iraqi wants to die for Saddam; they just want an opportunity to escape his regime.

    Iraqis who have lived under Saddam's rule and have fought in his forces say that a change of regime can only happen from inside Iraq. While some in Washington may hope for a coup, it will not happen. In order for Iraqi divisions to move, the military and political commissars and intelligence apparatus must all sign them off. Even then, ammunition has to travel separately. The only promising option that will avert an humanitarian crisis is insurgency. Soldiers and people on the street say the only thing Saddam understands is force - he interprets negotiation as both weakness and an encouragement to threaten his neighbours.

    Iraqis will support any group that has Washington and London's unequivocal backing, but they do not want a paper tiger. Washington and London could start by creating an atmosphere where internal opposition could develop. No-fly zones should expand to become no-drive zones, so that Saddam cannot use tanks against his own people. A muddle-through approach may be popular in the Foreign Office and the State Department, but it does not amount to leadership, nor does it solve the problem, nor does it make Saddam less of a threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Iran or the Iraqi people.

    The Bush and Blair administrations must end the debate and take action. If America and Britain are serious, Saddam Hussein could be sharing a prison cell with Slobodan Milosevic tomorrow.

    ©2001 The Daily Telegraph

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit