"Imported" from the US and released only five days before its referendum date, the new Constitution caused further divisions in Iraq. In the meantime, new laws continued to be passed despite strong objection from a large segment of the population that was never properly represented in parliament because there never had been free elections in the first place. All this was taking place with direct US involvement, with a mainly favourable outcome for the war architects. Big money was being made by the invasion's supporters while ordinary Iraqis were being killed by many unexplainable attacks. Some of a sectarian nature, others just for money; some blamed on Iran or Israel, while others blamed on Al-Qaeda (which only came to Iraq post-2003 invasion) or on the US military (frequently accused of secretly targeting civilians to discredit the insurgency).
The absolute truth may never be known, but one thing is certain: the US, as an occupying power, was under obligation, according to international law, to protect Iraqis. We all know how well that went. If it can't -- or is unwilling to -- assume such responsibility the US should not have been there in the first place. The result was to trigger a "sectarian domino effect," in addition to its own acts of murder and torture. Washington and its allies in right-wing think thanks and its mainstream media experts cannot talk of "mistakes" happening when the average person in the street predicted that, at the very least, total chaos would befall Iraq in the event of an invasion. How can pro-invasion so-called "experts," "analysts," and "intelligence" fail to foresee what an average bricklayer in Tunisia predicted?
Charity begins at home
In fact, how could the invading countries "export" democracy to Iraq while they were fighting democratic values at home? Why would an Iraqi believe that the US is bringing him/her democracy when he/she sees American citizens gradually being deprived of their rights and freedoms by the Bush administration? They also ignored the loud voices of their own people across the universe protesting against the Iraq war.
Saddam Hussein was accused of torture, detaining suspects indefinitely, spying on his own people, silencing journalists critical of his policies, and inciting fear in the hearts of his opponents. And how does that differ -- relatively -- from the actions of George W. Bush, the "decider in chief"? Can anyone say -- with a straight face -- that Saddam was more of a threat to the American people than Bush himself? Yet US and European right-wingers, and their "political pawns" in the Middle East continue to speak favorably of so-called "democracy and freedom interventions" in the region.
Yes, democracy should be vigorously sought in the Middle East (by the people of the region) and yes, despite many shortfalls, Americans and Europeans have every reason to be proud of their democracies. But the pro-war establishment has no right to boast of democracy because whatever rights and freedoms western societies enjoy today, they were the direct result of people fighting or challenging a similar-natured establishment in former eras. Today's anti-war camp is the legitimate inheritor of women's-rights and civil-rights movements. They are the rightful heirs of the anti-slavery and later the anti-empire heroes.
The people of the Middle East could learn more about modern democracy from the anti-war camp, and not from former president Bush and his "coalition of the willing," the very anti-Christ of democracy. What has the Bush administration really done to support democracy in the region?
US-backed dictatorships
Despite lip service to democracy in the Middle East now and then, American foreign policy has always backed Arab dictators to remain in power and oppress their own people. These "puppet presidents" or "drag-queen kings" are kept in power -- with US weapons and intelligence -- for as long as they continue to serve American interests, not those of their own peoples.
Although mainstream media is not equally kind to them, the truth is often grossly distorted. These leaders are always much more liberal than their predominantly conservative societies on social and religious issues. They would only draw a red line when their hold on power is shaken or challenged. But as Bush does with democracy, they often pay lip service to moral values. And if you believe Bush then you might as well believe them too.
War on words
As is the case with all wars, truth was also the first causality in the Iraq war. But as more details emerge regarding the lead-up to the invasion, one could say, to a small degree, that the truth is making a slow but sustainable recovery. I wish I could say the same for the English language, which was among the early victims of the Bush administration. Many may laugh at the clumsy language mistakes Bush made during his speeches or when answering questions from the press, but few know that it is really the former US president who had the last laugh. The truth may be recovering, but the English language is not. The Bush administration may have gone, but twisted right-wing rhetoric still lingers on in most mainstream media outlets.
From that perspective, killing our soldiers is "terrorism" yet killing their civilians is not. Their actions are "barbaric" but ours are "controversial," etc. But my concern here is with terms related to governments and politicians. How come Middle Easterners don’t get to have "hawks" and "doves" like their US (and sometime Israeli) counterparts? And, why don’t Americans have "moderates," "hardliners" and "radicals" in the Oval office?
But even more important, why are some US-backed Arab dictators who are extremely repressive of their own populations referred to as "moderates"? Is it just because they serve the interests of Washington (or Tel Aviv) instead of their own countries? At the same time, those who are brought to power through the ballot box or enjoy extremely wide support among their populations are termed "hardliners" or "radicals" just because they are not on good terms with foreign invading (or occupying) powers. Who will defend the English language from radical democracies and moderate dictatorships?
Iron Iran
Far from being a perfect democracy, Iran today is much closer to realizing the wishes of its people than during the era of the ruthless US-backed dictator, the shah, toppled by the 1979 revolution. Most Iranians today, despite their young age, are also familiar with the role of the US CIA-backed coup against their democratically elected PM in the fifties, Mohammed Mosadaq.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
