The Muslim News - Liberation or occupation?

Issue 168, Friday 25 April 2003 - 23 Safar 1424

Liberation or occupation?

The fall of Baghdad was not a surprise. It was inevitable that the massive firepower of the US would far outweigh the old Kalashnikovs of Iraqi army in the most one-sided war ever witnessed. Unfortunately, what was also not surprising was the high civilian casualties with trigger-happy US marines firing at anything that moved, especially in Baghdad. Despite assurances to the contrary, Anglo-American invading forces proceeded to destroy the civilian infrastructure, electricity and water supplies, resulting in large number of deaths and the predicted humanitarian crisis. Even though the figures of civilian casualties were put at maximum of 1,817 killed and over 5,000 injured, real figures will only be known later as during the 1991 war against Iraq.
The next unsurprising move was the US immediately threatening Syria as its next target with WMD again being used as an excuse to hit at yet another Muslim country, with the resultant of more Muslim deaths. Our Prime Minister is denying that this would happen, but then he said that Iraq would not be the next target when Afghanistan was being bombed killing 4,000 civilians. The continual worry is that once US commands, UK obeys.
The immediate excuse for the war was that Iraq presented a threat to the world and had to be disarmed and Saddam Hussein’s regime overturned. The plan was apparently conceived back in 1999, and September 11 provided the excuse. There could be no waiting for a few weeks for UN arms inspectors to complete their work nor for any agreement from the rest of the world.
But was the use of military firepower proportionate? During the 1991 Gulf War, we were told that smart bombs would be used that were ‘surgically’ accurate and would minimise casualties. However, the result led to the slaughter of over 30,000 Iraqi civilians and 120,000 Iraqi soldiers, mostly conscripts. The military blitz also left the country in ruins by the sheer destruction of civilian infrastructure. Worst still, the subsequent imposition of the most blanket sanctions ever inflicted on any country for more than 12 years caused the further death of a million civilians, half of them of them children through malnourishment and a lack of medical supplies.
In the current campaign, the British Government has expressed no regrets after admitting that it used 60 cluster bombs. The number used by the US is not yet known, but Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon claimed that mothers of Iraqi children killed by cluster bombs would “one day” thank Britain for their use. The military blitz also included the continued use of depleted uranium ammunition despite the devastating long-term effects caused to British soldiers and especially the Iraqi population in southern Iraq in 1991. Only this time, troops took the precaution of being equipped with exclusive protection suits and warned to stay away from the vicinity in which they were fired. Needless to say, the Iraqi people were left as fodder, not having the benefits of receiving the same advice.
Poignantly, the invasion has been described as a ‘war of liberation.’ But on whose terms? Any assistance from Iraqi opposition groups was not only shunned but threatened not to interfere (except in the case of Kirkuk and Mosul, when Kurdish forces were used due to the refusal of Turkey to allow the US to invade Iraq from the north). It would become a ‘battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people’ with British and American planning to go in with water and food in a skilful manipulation of the war and in compensation for the killing and destruction. The ploy backfired amid anarchy and chaos in Iraqi towns and cities, leaving the Anglo-American coalition exposed by their refusal and inability to protect civilian life and property under the terms of the Geneva Conventions as the occupying powers. Questions were asked why there were such detailed preparations to protect oil installations and Oil Ministry, not Museums, hospitals or other important institutions – appearing to vindicate those who said the war was about oil.
Could it have been a coincidence that the ‘liberation’ included the pulling down of a statute of Saddam Hussein, headed by Lt Tim McLaughlin, who, as keeper of the Stars and Stripes flag which flew on the Pentagon on September 11, placed the same flag over the face of the statue.
As we are already witnessing, the occupation can only destabilise Iraq with US and British troops becoming embroiled in provoking a civil war. There are no doubts that the US mentality is to impose another Saddam on the Iraqi people and create an even bleaker outlook for the Middle East and Muslim world. If anything, the war is about the ignorance of history and learning from past mistakes that the installation of dictators have only proved to be an embarrassment after they reach their sell-by date. The simplistic policy of divide-and-rule has never worked but only created more problems for the future. In the latest episode, new attempts are being made to control the Islamic seminaries (Hawzah) in Najaf and Karbala and to convert Iraqis into American zombies. But as the example of Abdul Majid al-Khoei showed, this will not work. Instead, they should remember that it was the ‘ulama (Islamic scholars) that led the liberation movement against the occupation of the British early last century and should understand they will once again take that leadership in this century.

Back to the front page

Editorial

Messages for
The Muslim News