Skip Nav | Home | Mobile | Editorial Guidelines | Mission Statement | About Us | Contact | Help | Security | Support Us

World

Wrong Turn for US Iraq Policy

F Ajami | 13.05.2004 16:08 | Analysis | Indymedia | World

US is making a mistake and treading backwards



The Curse of Pan-Arabia

By FOUAD AJAMI
May 12, 2004; Page A14

Consider a tale of three cities: In Fallujah, there are the beginnings of wisdom, a recognition, after the bravado, that the insurgents cannot win in the face of a great military power. In Najaf, the clerical establishment and the shopkeepers have called on the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr to quit their city, and to "pursue another way." It is in Washington where the lines are breaking, and where the faith in the gains that coalition soldiers have secured in Iraq at such a terrible price appears to have cracked. We have been doing Iraq by improvisation, we are now "dumping stock," just as our fortunes in that hard land may be taking a turn for the better. We pledged to give Iraqis a chance at a new political life. We now appear to be consigning them yet again to the same Arab malignancies that drove us to Iraq in the first place.

We have stumbled in Abu Ghraib. But the logic of Abu Ghraib isn't the logic of the Iraq war. We should be able to know the Arab world as it is. We should see through the motives of those in Cairo and Amman and Ramallah and Jeddah, now outraged by Abu Ghraib, who looked away from the terrors of Iraq under the Baathists. Our account is with the Iraqi people: It is their country we liberated, and it is their trust that a few depraved men and women, on the margins of a noble military expedition, have violated. We ought to give the Iraqis the best thing we can do now, reeling as we are under the impact of Abu Ghraib -- give them the example of our courts and the transparency of our public life. What we should not be doing is to seek absolution in other Arab lands.

Take this scene from last week, which smacks of the confusion -- and panic -- of our policies in the aftermath of a cruel April: President Bush apologizing to King Abdullah II of Jordan for the scandal at Abu Ghraib. Peculiar, that apology -- owed to Iraq's people, yet forwarded to Jordan. We are still held captive by Pan-Arab politics. We struck into Iraq to free that country from the curse of the Arabism that played havoc with its politics from its very inception as a nation-state. We had thought, or implied, or let Iraqis think, that a new political order would emerge, that the Pan-Arab vocation that had been Iraq's poison would be no more.

The Arabs had let down Iraq, averted their gaze from the mass graves and the terrors inflicted on Kurdistan and the south, and on the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala and their seminarians and scholars. Jordan in particular had shown no great sensitivity toward Iraq's suffering. This was a dark spot in the record of a Hashemite dynasty otherwise known for its prudence and mercy. It was a concession that the Hashemite court gave to Jordan's "street," to the Palestinians in refugee camps and to the swanky districts of Amman alike. Jordan in the 1980s was the one country where Saddam Hussein was a mythic hero: the crowd identified itself with his Pan-Arab dreams, and thrilled to his cruelty and historical revisionism. This is why the late king, Hussein, broke with his American ties -- as well as with his fellow Arab monarchs -- after the invasion of Kuwait. His son did better in this war; he noted the price that Jordan paid in the intervening decade. He took America's side, and let the crowd know that a price would be paid for riding with Saddam. But no apology was owed to him for Abu Ghraib. He was no more due an apology for what took place than were the rulers in Kathmandu.

But this was of a piece with our broader retreat of late. We have dispatched the way of Iraqis an envoy of the U.N., Lakhdar Brahimi, an Algerian of Pan-Arab orientation, with past service in the League of Arab States. It stood to reason (American reason, uninformed as to the terrible complications of Arab life) that Mr. Brahimi, "an Arab," would better understand Iraq's ways than Paul Bremer. But nothing in Mr. Brahimi's curriculum vitae gives him the tools, or the sympathy, to understand the life of Iraq's Shiite seminaries; nothing he did in his years of service in the Arab league exhibited concern for the cruelties visited on the Kurds in the 1980s. Mr. Brahimi hails from the very same political class that has wrecked the Arab world. He has partaken of the ways of that class: populism, anti-Americanism, anti-Zionism, and a preference for the centralized state. He came from the apex of the Algerian system of power that turned that country into a charnel house, inflicted on it a long-running war between the secular powers-that-be and the Islamists, and a tradition of hostility by the Arab power-holders toward the country's Berbers. No messenger more inappropriate could have been found if the aim was to introduce Iraqis to the ways of pluralism.

Mr. Brahimi owes us no loyalty. His prescription of a "technocratic government" for Iraq -- which the Bush administration embraced only to retreat from, by latest accounts -- is a cunning assault on the independent political life of Iraq. The Algerian seeks to return Iraq to the Pan-Arab councils of power. His entire policy seeks nothing less than a rout of the gains which the Kurds and the Shiites have secured after the fall of the Tikriti-Baathist edifice. The Shiites have seen through his scheme. A history of disinheritance has given them the knowledge they need to recognize those who bear them ill will. American power may not be obligated -- and should not be -- to deliver the Shiites a new dominion in Iraq. But we can't once more consign them to the mercy of their enemies in the Arab world. At any rate, it is too late in the hour for such a policy, for the genie is out of the bottle and the Shiites will fight back. Gone is their old timidity and quietism. Their rejection of Mr. Brahimi's diplomacy is now laid out for everyone to see.

For his part, Mr. Brahimi knew that the Americans were eager to dump, and he rightly bet on the innocence (other, less charitable terms could be used) of those in the Bush administration now calling the shots on Iraq. They were unburdened by any deep knowledge of the country, and Mr. Brahimi offered the false promise of pacifying Iraq in the run-up to our presidential elections. His technocracy is, in truth, but a cover for the restoration of the old edifice of power. Fallujah gave him running room; its fight for a lost, unjust dominion, was his diplomatic tool. His prescription, he let it be known, would calm the tempest in that sullen place. The Marines were fighting to bring that town to order. The Marines were not Mr. Brahimi's people: Their fight, and their sacrifices, he dismissed as a "collective punishment" of a civilian population. Mr. Brahimi should know a thing or two about collective punishment. His native Algeria has provided enough lessons in what really constitutes the indiscriminate punishment of populations that come in the way of military power.

In the scales of military power, the Arabs have not been brilliant in modern times. But there is cunning aplenty in their world, and an unerring eye for the follies of great foreign powers. The Arabs can read through President Bush's stepping back from his support for Ariel Sharon's plan for withdrawal from Gaza. There are amends to be made for Abu Ghraib, and those are owed the people of Iraq. Yet here we are paying the Palestinians with Iraqi coin. The Palestinians will not be grateful for our concessions; and they are to be forgiven the only conclusion they will draw. Those concessions have already been taken as the compromises of an America now in the throes of self-flagellation.

We can't have this peculiar mix of imperial reach, coupled with such obtuseness. It is odd, and defective in the extreme, that President Bush chose the official daily of the Egyptian regime, Al-Ahram, for yet another interview, another expression of contrition over Abu Ghraib. In the anti-Americanism of Egypt (of Al-Ahram itself), the protestations of our virtue are of no value. In our uncertainty, we now walk into the selective rage of the Egyptians, a popular hostility tethered to the policies of a regime eager to see us fail in Iraq -- a regime afraid that the Iraqis may yet steal a march on Egypt into modernity. Cairo has no standing in Iraq. Why not take representatives of a budding Iraqi publication into the sanctuary of the Oval Office and offer a statement of contrition by our leader?

Our goals in Iraq are being diluted by the day. There has been naivete on our part, to be sure, and no small measure of hubris. We haven't always read Iraq right, but if we abdicate the burden and the responsibility -- and the possibilities -- that came with this war, our entire effort will come to grief. In Najaf on May 7, in a Friday sermon made from the shrine of Imam Ali -- Shiism's most revered pulpit -- Sheikh Sadr-al-din Qabanji, a respected cleric with ties to Ayatollah Ali Sistani, called on the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr to quit the city. "Listen to the advice of the ulema," he said, using the term for the recognized men of religion. "Come, let us together find another way, go back to your homes and provinces." The defense of Najaf, he said, belonged to its people, and the bands of young "Sadrists" were told to return to the slums of Baghdad. We haven't stilled Iraq's furies, and our gains there have been made with heartbreaking losses. But in the midst of our anguish over Abu Ghraib, and in our eagerness to placate an Arab world that has managed to convince us of its rage over the scandal, we should stay true to what took us into Iraq, and to the gains that may yet be salvaged.

Mr. Ajami, of Johns Hopkins, is the author of "The Dream Palace of the Arabs" (Vintage, 1999).
   

F Ajami

Comments

Hide the following 2 comments

Oh what a lovely place Iraq is now the US are in

14.05.2004 09:57

Yet another example of typical US apologist propaganda crap. Don’t bother to read it. Nothing new – the same old bullshit about the US trying to bring freedom to the Middle East – We know the truth about US intentions in Iraq

Haidar


and more from the US Arab Republican brown nose

14.05.2004 10:19

An interview to show what this ‘Arab Uncle Tom’ is about. He is a US stooge who spends his time enjoying the benefits of the suppression of the Arab people while they die under US bombs – what a Scum Bag



Interview: Professor Fouad Ajami
May 9, 2004
Reporter :Jana Wendt

They were among the most poignant images of the week - two of the most powerful men in the world groping for apologies as they addressed the Arab world, the American people and the US Congress. President Bush and Defence Secretary Rumsfeld were forced into apologetic mode by photographs of U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, shown on CBS America last week, and later on Sunday. The reaction has been enormous ... outrage in the Arab world, disappointment among America's allies, and feelings of shame in the U.S. Fouad Ajami, one of the leading Arab scholars in the United States, talked to Jana Wendt from New York ...

Transcript
JANA WENDT: Fouad Ajami, thank you very much for joining us. Do you agree with President Bush's adviser, Karl Rove, that it will take a generation for the US to live down the scandal of this in Arab countries?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST STUDIES, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, AUTHOR AND CBS NEWS CONSULTANT: I don't think I would go that far, I mean we clearly, this is not the finest hour of the US in Iraq and in the Arab world, but we shouldn't exaggerate Abu Ghraib. Abu Ghraib is not the war, the war in Iraq still remains the noble effort it has been.

JANA WENDT: But would you agree that what we see in those photographs is a barbarism that undercuts many of the noble words spoken by US leaders?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: I agree with you, it is not - like I said, this is not our finest hour and many, many Arabs, many secular liberal Arabs who are pro-American, genuinely really decent people, not the kind of people just waiting for us to stumble. We've given them a moment of embarrassment because they hold us to higher standards. However, there should be limits to self-flagellation, for example President Bush recently apologised to the Jordanian king, Abdullah, for these mistakes. Well, we owe the Jordanian king no apology. The apology should be made to the Iraqi people. So we can go overboard with this self-flagellation even.

JANA WENDT: So do you think that the President has in fact gone overboard by making this apology?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I think we clearly owed the Iraqi people an apology, we owed the victims themselves and their family and their country an apology, but the idea that we have to go out to Egypt and apologise to the Egyptians, or apologise to the Jordanians - I mean the Jordanians live right next door to Iraq for years and years and averted their gaze from the great crimes of the Saddam regime. I think it's really naive and extreme to think that these apologies will work, or to think that the campaign of public diplomacy for Arab hearts and minds will work. There's wilfulness in the Arab world and selective outrage.

JANA WENDT: Well, who do you think really is responsible? Do you think it is limited to the soldiers who perpetrated these acts, or do you think that it may be more widespread than that, that it could be, for instance, an accepted policy?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I think that's exactly what we need to find out in detail, we need to find out this matter authoritatively. And Harry Truman, of course, had the famous expression the buck stops here, the buck stops, must stop at someone's desk, whether it's Secretary Rumsfeld or whether it's the President himself, or whether it's the chain of command, we need to investigate this, at least we are investigating this. And this is an example to the Arabs and to the Iraqis, that when even a great government makes mistakes, we try to track it down. We are in the midst of this crisis and we have to find out the full magnitude of it and those responsible must be punished.

JANA WENDT: Why do you believe it is that Secretary Rumsfeld did not tell the President of the US about this when he knew, must have known, that this had the potential to severely embarrass him?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Well, you know there are the deeds that smart people do which are not very smart. I mean I happen to know Secretary Rumsfeld and have a great esteem and great respect for him - he is one of our most distinguished and most able public figures with tremendous amount of experience in public and private life. Why he didn't I can't say, I don't really know. At some point the President should have been informed of these things that were going on in these prisons.

JANA WENDT: This is extremely damaging, obviously to President Bush. You say you respect Secretary Rumsfeld. Do you think this might be, though, a sackable offence?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I mean is this a firing offence - that's exactly as we have this great expression in the US, which I'm sure you know, this is above our pay grade as civilians, this is clearly a crisis for the Bush Administration. Abu Ghraib is not the war, but alas it's a referendum on the war and in many ways a referendum on the way our President deals with crises. Our President is proud of the fact that he went to Harvard Business School, that he is a decisive leader, that he knows how to make decisions. This is his moment of truth, he has to decide for himself.

JANA WENDT: Well, the leaders of some countries like Australia for instance, have risked a lot politically to support the US in Iraq. Do you think that the embarrassment over this may damage relations between the US and its coalition partners to some extent?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I hope not. Bless the Aussies I have to say, and bless Tony Blair for being with us in this war, and I think your Prime Minister has been a stalwart of this war effort. I think your Prime Minister, I think that PM Blair, I think that all heads of responsible governments in the world, people who are not fishing in troubled waters, they will know that these mistakes happen in war time.

JANA WENDT: Well part of the rationale for the entry into Iraq was an idealistic notion of spreading democracy and liberal democratic values and ridding Iraq of the kind of human rights violations of Saddam Hussein - this sounds like hypocrisy in view of this event, doesn't it?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I think you have a point but I also would like to put some parameters on your point - we don't want to be Saddam Hussein, we are not Saddam Hussein, we don't want to commit torture in the jails we run, but he committed great crimes, ours are small and ours are mistakes that need to be corrected. And in fact, it will become quite difficult. I think next time that President Bush says that there were torture rooms and rape rooms in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, people will wince.

JANA WENDT: Fouad Ajami, when you first saw those photographs, what was your gut reaction?

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Well, I think I was ashamed, I was embarrassed. I am a proud American citizen of Arab and Lebanese birth. I supported this war, I still support this war. And as I've said I've spent an enormous amount of time in these military camps and these military headquarters in Baghdad, in Mosul, in Kirkuk, I know many, many of the commanders of the American forces in Iraq. I know them by name, I know their decency, I know the kind of work they have done, I know of their commitment to military honour and to the Iraqi people. These perpetrators, these dark, terrible deeds in Abu Ghraib are, they have, they have placed a stain on the honour of the US and on the honour of the American military, but they do not represent the American military, that's for sure.

JANA WENDT: Fouad Ajami, we have to leave it there but I thank you very much for your time.

PROFESSOR FOUAD AJAMI: Thank you

Haidar


Publish

Publish your news

Do you need help with publishing?

/regional publish include --> /regional search include -->

World Topics

Afghanistan
Analysis
Animal Liberation
Anti-Nuclear
Anti-militarism
Anti-racism
Bio-technology
Climate Chaos
Culture
Ecology
Education
Energy Crisis
Fracking
Free Spaces
Gender
Globalisation
Health
History
Indymedia
Iraq
Migration
Ocean Defence
Other Press
Palestine
Policing
Public sector cuts
Repression
Social Struggles
Technology
Terror War
Workers' Movements
Zapatista

Kollektives

Birmingham
Cambridge
Liverpool
London
Oxford
Sheffield
South Coast
Wales
World

Other UK IMCs
Bristol/South West
London
Northern Indymedia
Scotland

Server Appeal Radio Page Video Page Indymedia Cinema Offline Newsheet

secure Encrypted Page

You are viewing this page using an encrypted connection. If you bookmark this page or send its address in an email you might want to use the un-encrypted address of this page.

If you recieved a warning about an untrusted root certificate please install the CAcert root certificate, for more information see the security page.

IMCs


www.indymedia.org

Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Africa

Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela

Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South Asia
india


United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester

West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine

Topics
biotech

Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech