The
Iraq Charade
By
Ramzy Baroud
06 January,
2008
Countercurrents.org
In
recent months, we have been inundated by media reports bringing good
news from Iraq, with countless testimonials to the great improvement
in security enjoyed by the country in general and the Baghdad area in
particular.
This progress
is attributed solely to the judicious ‘surge’ of US military
presence, and the astute tactics enacted by occupation forces in a place
that once personified despair and violence. Indeed, reports repeatedly
point to the figure indicating that violence in Iraq has dwindled by
60 per cent in the past three months.
BBC reporter
in Iraq, Jim Muir, is one of the leading enthusiasts of the apparent
miracle. In his report, ‘Is Iraq Getting Better?’, he indulges
in over-generalised estimations which just happen to be shared by the
US military.
“Over
the past three months, there has been a sharp and sustained drop in
all forms of violence. The figures for dead and wounded, military and
civilian, have also greatly improved...People walk in crowded streets
in the evening, when just a few months, ago they would have been huddled
behind locked doors in their homes. Everybody agrees that things are
much better.”
Elsewhere,
Muir goes further in discussing the role played by Sunni militias in
bringing peace to Baghdad. He quotes a militiaman as saying, “At
the beginning, people saw it as an occupation which had to be resisted.
But then they saw that the Americans were working in the interests of
the people.”
The BBC represents
only a mild example in this charade, which is instilled mostly by the
Bush administration and its allies in the military and in the mainstream
media. It is mind-boggling how the latter could accept the so-called
transformation from chaos to semi-order without any real questioning.
Meanwhile,
there are a few sources of information regarding the violence resulting
from the US invasion of Iraq. One of these is the US military itself,
which keeps track of and publishes information pertinent to the violence
only when it’s relevant to attacks on US installations and personnel.
Confirming
or denying these reports in their entirety is unattainable by any independent
source. Considering the politicised nature of the US military public
relation strategies, such reports should hardly attest to what is indeed
unfolding in Iraq.
Another source
of information is the Iraq government and army. It’s no secret
that those at the helm of both of these institutions are working under
the command of the US military. Spokesmen for the Iraqi government coordinate
their statements — with a few exceptions — to confirm those
made by the latter.
It seems
odd that the bulk - if not the entirety - of reports on the improvement
in security are predicated principally on information released by the
US military, Iraqi official sources or willing collaborates of both
(conformist Shia sources, tribal Sunni leaders). The latter group reportedly
receive a monthly-imbursement for helping guard their areas against
Al Qaeda. Moreover, an estimated 80,000 Sunni fighters — many
of whom were apparently insurgents fighting the US military —
get paid US $300 each to perform various guarding duties. What else
do media ‘investigative’ reporters expect to hear from those
who get paid to improve security in Iraq? Can they possibly discredit
their own efforts, thus losing badly needed incomes? It’s interesting
how the US military can now lend its trust to arming and funding the
same people who were supposedly blowing up their vehicles a few months
ago.
A third source
of news is the implausibly huge number of statements made by various
organisations in Iraq — some fighting the US and British forces,
others fighting amongst themselves due to differences of ethnicity or
agenda. Moreover, many of Iraq’s death squads were found to be
no other than Al Badr Brigades, the militant arm of some leading members
of the Iraqi government. Much of the killing was also attributed to
Al Mahdi Army, based mostly in Baghdad’s Al Sadr City. Internal
politics and secretive dealings have contributed to the cessation of
violence attributed to Al Mahdi militias. The Iraqi army and police
are said to be assembled from these two large Shia militants groupings,
and much of the violence seems to be of their own making.
Isn’t
possible that the US allies decided to cease their violence and ethnic
cleansing in Baghdad to give the impression that President Bush’s
genius ‘surge’ strategy has paid off, thus discrediting
all of his detractors, both at home and abroad?
Is it not
ingenious that the Iraq ‘success story’ is now, retrospectively,
associating such upbeat and positive terminologies - security, peace,
safety, hope - with a most sinister act, that of military invasion of
a sovereign country and the subjugation of its people? Why isn’t
the media asking these questions instead of indulging in ‘good
news’ which is likely to propagate and justify the unwarranted
and humiliating occupation?
There are
more sources that are closer to credibility than any of the ones above.
Independent reports such as the survey of Iraqi households in the Lancet,
estimating that by July 2006, 655,000 Iraqis died as a consequence of
the war. UK-based polling agency Opinion Research Business reached even
a higher number, in September 2007, suggested that 1.2 million people
might have died as a result of the war. But no number can do justice
to the hurt felt by Iraqi people, so many of whom perished by the firepower
of their ‘liberators’.
On December
28, 14 Iraqis were reportedly killed, and 64 others were wounded in
a Baghdad square crowded with shoppers following the Friday prayer.
I wonder if the many families that collectively share the latest tragedy
in Baghdad will find some peace and comfort in the figures and statistics
issued by the US military and disseminated cheerfully be the media.
I wonder how the people of the bloody Tayaran Square would respond to
the question: “Is Iraq getting better?” Would any reporter
even bother to ask them their thoughts?
-Ramzy Baroud
(www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a
People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London)
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.