Africa Speaks Reasoning Forum

Hold Tight: Iraq's War Has Just Begun
 By Steve Weissman
 t r u t h o u t | Perspective

 Friday 09 April 2004

 Forget the War on Terror. Forget the fine words about bringing democracy to the Middle East. Forget, as well, whatever anger you might feel at the geniuses who marched us into Iraq when they should have been bagging bin Laden and his would-be martyrs from Mindanao to Madrid. Whatever lies our leaders told us, or why they told them, our country is now fighting a new and different war in Iraq.

 The game on the ground has changed, and those of us who opposed ever going in have to think hard about how best to get out.

 From Sunni mobs burning and mutilating American mercenaries, or "contractors," to black-clad Mahdi militiamen supporting the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi insurgents have begun what looks increasingly like a popular uprising. In place of dramatic, but limited terrorist attacks, the new "Intifada" is bringing together Muslim religious fervor - both Shia and Sunni - with the historic zeal of Arab nationalists to drive out foreign occupiers, whether Ottoman Turks, Imperial Brits, or well-meaning Americans.

 American officials repeatedly dismiss the insurgents as terrorists, outlaws, thugs, and assassins, while liberal newspaper columnists tell us who are - and who are not - "the authentic expressions of Iraqi nationalism."

 Where have we heard that song before?

 Those of us who lived through Vietnam had our fill of it. So did our French friends when their government tried to put down Algeria's War for Independence. So did our British cousins, when Her Majesty's Government lost a long string of colonial wars, most dramatically in Malaya, Kenya, and Yemen.

 But don't take the analogy too far. Iraq is not Vietnam or even Kenya. As yet, no Viet Cong or Mau-Mau have established themselves as the widely accepted leaders of national resistance. Different individuals and groups in Iraq are fighting that out now, and you can't tell the players without a very complicated scorecard.

 Will young al-Sadr replace the older, less militant Ayatollah Sistani, or will they end up playing good cop, bad cop in the same anti-American movie?

 Will Shiites and Sunnis work out their age-old differences and join in struggle, as some of them did this past week? Or will they continue to cut each other's throats, as they did the week before?

 Will competing Kurdish factions join in or work for their own national homeland, which could plunge the whole region into chaos?

 What role will Iraq's traditional, often corrupt tribal chiefs come to play?

 And will U.S.-trained Iraqi police and soldiers fight the insurgents, run from them, or join them against the Americans? As one militia leader told Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times, "We may work for the government now. But if anything happens, we all work for Sadr."

 No one, least of all the geniuses who drove us into this ditch, can possibly know. The Iraqis are making their own history. They are making it in their own, often-chaotic way. And, they are making it in a guerrilla war against Anglo-American soldiers, a declining number of showcase troops from smaller allies, and a growing number of American-paid mercenaries. As usual, the foreign occupiers are the unifying force.

 At times, the foreigners will have their way, using their overwhelming firepower, Iraqi collaborators, and paid informants to rule the day. But, if we can learn anything from centuries of anti-colonial wars, the intruders will rarely rule the night. And, in a short time, they will leave Iraq to Iraqis of their own choosing, however nice or nasty they turn out to be.

 Two other outcomes seem likely.

 First, the Iraqi exiles and figureheads whom the Americans anointed to the interim government will almost certainly go down in Iraqi history as despised collaborators. They might - or might not - become the nominal rulers with the expected handover of sovereignty on June 30, when they will begin reporting to a new American Ambassador. But, within months rather than years, they stand a good chance of ending up like Washington's other mercenaries, their burnt, mutilated bodies hanging from bridges and telephone poles. As Defense Secretary Rumsfeld put it on Wednesday, "You're going to have good days and bad days."

 Second, the terrorists of al-Qaeda might not fare much better should the Shiite insurgents take power. The reason is obvious. Just look at the shadowy figure of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born Palestinian who is widely suspecting of having masterminded last month's terror-bombing of the 4 commuter trains in Madrid.

 Just over a year ago, in a speech to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell introduced Zarqawi as the link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin-Laden. The link - like Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction turned out to be smoke and mirrors. Zarqawi and his Ansar al-Islam had training camps in Iraq, all right, but in the Northern, Kurdish no-fly zone enforced by the U.S. and U.K., where Saddam had no control.

 In a scandal reported last month by MSNBC and still looking for traction, the Bush Administration repeatedly turned down Pentagon plans to destroy Zarqawi's camps, which according to Powell were producing Ricin for use in terrorist attacks, possibly in France, Britain, and Spain. Rushing to war against Saddam, Team Bush had no time to fight the real terrorist threat.

 This February, the Pentagon released a letter purportedly from al-Zarqawi to bin-Laden, asking for help in staging terrorist attacks in post-Saddam Iraq. And just this week, an audiotape with a voice identified as Zarqawi threatened to kill U.S. military commander John Abizaid and Chief Administrator Paul Bremer. Zarqawi also took credit for a score of terrorist bombings in Iraq, including the one last August that killed U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

 Washington seemed intent on using the letter and tape to make Iraq look like the frontline in its War on Terror, and a reason for those who initially opposed the war to join forces there against the terrorist threat. In fact, if the letter and tape are as real as Western intelligence says, they suggest that the new Iraqi insurgents might do more to stop the terrorists than Washington ever will.

 Both the letter and tape contain vitriolic attacks against the Shiites, who are now leading the Intifada. Zarqawi, if that's who it is, calls them "idolaters," "traitors" and "enemies of Islam," as well as "the most cowardly people God has created." They are, he says, a "perverse sect," who were more harmful and dangerous to Iraq than were the Americans.

 He also attacked the Kurds, who he charged had turned Northern Iraq into a "Trojan horse for Israelis."

 To show he meant what he said, Zarqawi claimed credit for bombing "coalition forces in Karbala," where - on Ashura, their holiest day - over a hundred Shiites lost their lives.

 He is also thought responsible for bombings against Kurdish targets.

 Given this bloody history, I would not bet on Zarqawi or al-Qaeda's chances should we decide now to leave Iraq. We might lose an ill-chosen colonial war, but win the War on Terror, which is what we need to fight.

 

I think it's safe to say Bin Laden has won his aims. After 9/11, he managed to get a the American troops in getting rid of his old foe Saddam Hussein. He managed to get Western powers on Arab soil which triggers a response from Muslims/Arabs (Arab nationalism), who come from all over to join a Mujahadeen. Now, if you wish to fight the US, and for Islam or Arabs, then go to Iraq and fight. Just like in the 80s, if you wanted to fight for Islam, you could go to Afghanistan to fight. This is something Blacks should be doing. Blacks should start an unending guerilla resistance against western powers instead of bowing their heads like shameful dogs. Let's watch the news channels and learn from Arabs. These people are the most Nationalists I've ever seen. It is no wonder they give their cultures importance and they respect themselves in front of Whites!

Bantu Kelani.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

Then again . . . it is better to concentrate the fighting and resistance in one area then to have it spread like wild fire. There is much restructuring going on in the world right now, while our eyes are focussed on Iraq, the EU and NATO are expanding eastward. Seems to me that Bin Laden's aims and the objectives of the globalists complement each other rather well. Many revolutions in the past were hijacked, created and/or infiltrated to bring about a greater goal.

"Trust none of what you hear and half of what you see." - Dead Prez

We must never forget that Saddam and Bin Laden were both C.I.A. employees...I don't think you ever stop being "employed" by that organization. Once you sign up, I personally think it's for life...

I agree with these statements completely...We must learn from our enemies enemy(the Arab nationalists)...Like Dead Prez said...Our enemies enemy is our man! Lesson 1...WE MUST BE ORGANIZED!...we can't pull off African nationalism without Organization! Join progressive organizations that want to move African people forward globally. If you don't like any of the orgnaizations already in existance, then CREATE ONE!!! We have mobilizers...we need organizers!!! We need YOU, fellow militants, to join and add to the African United Front!!!

Indeed Emmanuel, It's about time our people start opposing our masters. American and Britain are total hypocrites they are controlling nuclear proliferation. These bullies colonial power are utilizing their weaponry of mass destruction to invade all the world's weak countries and takes away their right of soil resources and life. Africa will not be free until our resistance movements/forces are becoming bolder, more organized and more familiar with Western movements and protocols by the day like the Arabs. This tactic will destroy the Eurocentric psychological oppression.

Bantu Kelani.

True, the west courted Saddam & Bin Laden, then later, as their nationalism and megalomania became a threat to both western influence and the west itself, they became enemies. But I really think an Arab world moving in an increasingly fundamentalist direction Bin Laden has talked about is in the interests of anyone in the west. It's not in the interests of capitalists, not in the interests of human rights activists, not in the interests of feminists, not in the interests of our multi-cultural societies. Not in the interests of the right and not in the interests of the left.

IMHO, Bin Laden tactics are far more powerful force which can be earthed so easily, compare to others motivational tools for successful Islamism uprisings nationalism and the West creation of corrupt autocracies that were incapable of doing anything but enriching the head dogs of the state.

Bantu Kelani.

I think fundamentalist Islam comes in handy many ways. Otherwise rest assured Osama would be dead. Afrghani students say that everybody knows where he is.

In effect,the US is fighting to establish a Shi'ite state in Iraq. They might say it's something else but it's easy to see that this will be the outcome of a protracted US war in Iraq. I would like to think they're total idiots, but I think they know this.

Islamic fundamentalists give the West a Devil to hate, keep military budgets fat, justify the denial of people's civil liberties, and basically provide a ripe environment of paranoia that is a great tool of social control.

The United States is best friends with Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist Islamic state, and home to most of the 9-11 terrorists. Old Man Bib Laden gave G.W. his start in the oil business.

Fundamentalist Islam will ultimately provide what the U.S. will call the justification for a nuclear attack on the Middle East.