5 years in Iraq: A collection of Iraqi perspective on the invasion and current situation
The papers and blogs have been filled with commentary on the 5 year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Our friend Juan Cole over at Informed Comment, however, set himself apart by collecting commentary from Iraqi sources of their perception of the anniversary. All the following transcripts are from his hard work.
Al-Rafidayn channel, a Sunni-fundamentalist channel affiliated with the Association of Muslim Scholars, had this to say (announcer read):
Harith al-Dari, secretary general of the Association of Muslim Scholars, said that Iraq has become an arena for conflicts among foreign forces. He added that Iraq's people and civilization are facing a war of elimination that seeks to wipe out their identity. Addressing the conference of the Higher Council for Islamic Affairs, Al-Dari said that the Iraqi issue is not being handled in a satisfactory manner by the Arab countries and the international community. He went on to say: After five years of the invasion, the country is facing a grievous security crisis. In fact, there is no security at the political, health, and economic levels.
Later on the same channel there was a discussion of the invasion:
There is no doubt that the occupation committed the most appalling form of humiliation against the Iraqis. Eliminating Iraqi sovereignty and bringing the country under heinous military occupation is, by all means, a humiliation of the Iraqi national pride. The launch of a political process away from the will of the Iraqi people and the suppression of the Iraqi national scheme are nothing but a stab in the heart of each Iraqi citizen. The outrageous violation by the occupation of human rights at Abu-Ghurayb is another attempt to humiliate the Iraqi people.
The difference in American and Iraqi rhetoric is fascinating. While Hillary has been insisting that Iraqis were given the best gift any human can give another, freedom, the Iraqi above insists the occupation has removed the most basic human freedoms. Of course, as stated this is a Sunni channel, which had a level of freedom under Hussein unknown to Kurds and Shiites.
The discussion then turns to an analysis of America's motivation for invasion:
The United States wants to control oil sources, rather than exports. The United States views oil as a treasure upon which it has to lay its hand. Therefore, it is not enough for them to ensure that oil will be exported to them. They want to control oil and use it as a means to control international politics and to exert pressures even on Europe. This is what the new world order is all about.
The Baghdad Channel, also Sunni affiliated, started a show with a voice-over reminding the viewers that the American basis for invasion in Iraq, mainly weapons of mass destruction, was false. Then interviews are shown with citizens in the street:
We were hoping that the new situation will be different. We thought a dramatic change would happen. But things are becoming worse. Every side is after its own interests. A certain side wants to defend itself, while another one wants to defend its party. The simple citizens are left alone to face the horrible smell of the sewage system. Sewage water overflows almost every day. Our children's health is deteriorating because of various diseases. Potable water is another story to tell.
The lack of infrastructure has been noted in both countries, with the American administration accusing the Iraqi leadership of pocketing money that should be used to rebuild their infrastructure, while the Iraqis have a "you break it, you pay for it" attitude. The other day on MTV Hillary and Barack gave interviews with veterans of the war, and Hillary discussed her attempts to create a trust for Iraq that oil profits would enter to be used to rebuild infrastructure. The veterans seemed satisfied with the concept, but frustrated that it was not done and that innocent people they stayed with while doing logistics were dying from contaminated water.
The channel offers another interview where the woman says there is no security, it is only in a very limited area - the green zone. Later in the program a political analyst comes on to discuss Bush's speech:
"The US rhetoric has been the same since the first day of the invasion. In my view, it is not to the interest of the US Administration to abandon this rhetoric at this phase, particularly given the fact that the US elections are approaching."
"Five years have passed since the start of the US occupation. We have had a mixture of hopes and pains. An assessment of the first two years of the occupation shows that hopes were greater than pains. But in the third and fourth years, pains overruled hopes. However, there has been a relative change over the past few months. We hope that this change will be for the better and will be sustained. Of course, this depends on many requirements which the Iraqi political forces have to fulfill. In addition, let us not forget that there is a negative regional influence over the stability of Iraq," he adds.
Next there are selections from Al-Furat, a Shiite channel that is headed by Abdul Aziz al-Hakin, who is close to Bush and the ayatollahs in Iran. The channel summarized the entire situation:
On the fifth anniversary of the war on Iraq, the Iraqis said that the reckless practices of the toppled regime against the Iraqi people and the neighboring countries are the main factor leading to the war in the region. The Iraqis went on to say that they are no safer now after the fall of the horrible dictatorship. They added that democracy is the best means to replace the ousted regime
Then, like the Sunni channel, they carry field interviews.
If it were not for the Multinational Force, Saddam and even his grandsons would be still ruling us. This is a positive point. But there are some disadvantages now. The Iraqis were suppressed and were done injustice, so they were waiting for any one to save them. What else could they have done?
And another citizen:
"The US troops used Saddam Husayn as a pretext to enter Iraq. It is true that there is no security now. But it is also true that you can wander around in a climate of freedom and democracy."
Lastly we turn to the independent channel Al-Fayra that is stationed in Kurdish territory. The announcer read:
Under a young democratic system, the Iraqis mark the anniversary of the fall of the idol. The decent Iraqis have agreed to sustain this system, turn their backs on the appalling past, and go ahead with the building up of the unified Iraq. On the fifth anniversary of the start of Iraq's freedom operations -- which toppled Saddam's dictatorial regime -- one cannot help recalling the unforgettable events.
Then the channel carried interviews with politicians:
an unidentified citizen says: "When the military operations to depose the regime in Iraq started, we felt optimistic. Our dreams were different from what is happening now. We expected things would be better. We thought that the freedom of the Iraqis would improve, especially after the injustice and suppression we had put up with."
Thanks Juan for taking the time to collect multiple viewpoints on the invasion, security, and hopes of the Iraqi people. In many ways the overall frustration with lack of security is a stark contrast to the overly optimistic rhetoric of American politicians. Do you feel the American presentation is congruent with the Iraqi sentiment?Iraq
