FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Returning Iraq

No one genuinely likes liberators.  After the initial enthusiasm wears off, the term ‘occupation’ rapidly succeeds it.  The English writer Malcolm Muggeridge noted how British soldiers were purposely precluded from a prominent role in the liberation of Paris in 1944 because it was felt the French might take better to the American GI.  Such assumptions were naïve.  The Parisians whitewashed the problems of Vichy and collaboration with the Third Reich with the idea of spontaneous revolt: they had, in a carefully constructed mythology, self-liberated.

Liberation in Iraq, if one can even call it that, has been a problematic issue from the start.  Invasions are often hard sells.  As the US soldiers begin leaving on their scheduled (and at times re-scheduled date) of June 30, we will be contemplating whether the loss was worth it, a Middle East gamble at huge cost to life and material.  Emotions will, of course, be mixed.  Will Iraq crumble?  Will autocracy, or perhaps theocracy, reassert their respective roles?

Empires are within themselves deeply contradictory entities.  The American imperium more or less purchased entire nations to fight on their side in the conflict in a fatuous ‘coalition of the willing’.  But it did so on a premise of intervention that was shown to be patently false.  Protesters against the intervention, branded by Rupert Murdoch’s minions as lovers of appeasement, were shown in their millions to have been justified.  Worst of all, the public relations firms of the West had to build up the intervention as a mission of emancipation, something that figured somewhat lowly in the calculations of Western leaders involved in the mission.

Americans continue to have nervous reactions against the term ‘occupation’ or ‘empire.’  The stock response is, ‘we helped’; ‘we aided’; ‘we retrained’.  The mothers of the slain will be pleased about the efforts of rebuilding in Iraq, and those unconvinced by that will be told to change their minds.  The commanders will be relieved that they have attained concrete goals of stabilization, though this is another illusion in an exercise of illusions.

The short of it is that liberations, and their occasional occupations, are often best avoided.  Had the US and its bought allies stated the mission in a humanitarian way from the start, matters might be different, if only slightly.  Instead, they were saddled with inadequate plans for state-building they were ill equipped to muster, on a mission that was undercut from the start.   Back in 2004, the US proconsul (perhaps viceroy?) Paul Bremer, decided to pre-occupy himself with motoring laws, forbidding Iraqi motorists to drive with only one hand on the wheel.  Meanwhile, the insurgency was ratcheting up the bombing campaign.  Such is the absurd nature of state building on the cheap.

The writing of the mission was on the wall fairly early on.  The State Department was woefully short of Arabic specialists.  That same institution remains strikingly short on historical knowledge, a fact admitted on occasion by those who have served under its umbrella.  The historian Niall Ferguson, who has a long-lasting infatuation with the idea of empire, has argued that America should admit its imperial station yet seems limited in how it goes about fulfilling it.  The best and brightest, he has admitted with resignation, prefer managing MTV to Mesopotamia.

It is hard to ignore, though a good fist of that is being made in the US, that the forces are leaving a country torn and destabilized.  Bombings continue, the most recent being a Kirkuk car bomb which killed 20.  The embers of insurgency still burn.  Sectarian hatreds continue to govern human emotions.  Gains made are small and incremental, a case of flawed tactics rather than sound strategy.  The ghost of Saddam lingers.

We can hope, often the last resort of the pious and the bereaved, that the seeds of democracy have been planted in Mesopotamia. But history will still be marshaled against the invasion, stripping it of its virtue, and placing it in other categories of imperial rule (and misrule).  The US may be a hyper-power, adept at deploying force, but it falls down badly in the occupation stakes.  Lethal drones are easier to command than subject populations.  That is the enduring legacy of an anti-imperialist empire.

BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com.

 

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

April 26, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
As Trump Berates Iran, His Options are Limited
Daniel Warner
From May 1968 to May 2018: Politics and Student Strikes
Simone Chun – Kevin Martin
Diplomacy in Korea and the Hope It Inspires
George Wuerthner
The Attack on Wilderness From Environmentalists
CJ Hopkins
The League of Assad-Loving Conspiracy Theorists
Richard Schuberth
“MeToo” and the Liberation of Sex
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Sacred Assemblies in Baghdad
Dean Baker
Exonerating Bad Economic Policy for Trump’s Win
Vern Loomis
The 17 Gun Salute
Gary Leupp
What It Means When the U.S. President Conspicuously and Publicly Removes a Speck of Dandruff from the French President’s Lapel
Robby Sherwin
The Hat
April 25, 2018
Stanley L. Cohen
Selective Outrage
Dan Kovalik
The Empire Turns Its Sights on Nicaragua – Again!
Joseph Essertier
The Abductees of Japan and Korea
Ramzy Baroud
The Ghost of Herut: Einstein on Israel, 70 Years Ago
W. T. Whitney
Imprisoned FARC Leader Faces Extradition: Still No Peace in Colombia
Manuel E. Yepe
Washington’s Attack on Syria Was a Mockery of the World
John White
My Silent Pain for Toronto and the World
Dean Baker
Bad Projections: the Federal Reserve, the IMF and Unemployment
David Schultz
Why Donald Trump Should Not be Allowed to Pardon Michael Cohen, His Friends, or Family Members
Mel Gurtov
Will Abe Shinzo “Make Japan Great Again”?
Binoy Kampmark
Enoch Powell: Blood Speeches and Anniversaries
Frank Scott
Weapons and Walls
April 24, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russia and the War Party
William A. Cohn
Carnage Unleashed: the Pentagon and the AUMF
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
The Racist Culture of Canadian Hockey
María Julia Bertomeu
On Angers, Disgusts and Nauseas
Nick Pemberton
How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101
Ron Jacobs
Resisting the Military-Now More Than Ever
Paul Bentley
A Velvet Revolution Turns Bloody? Ten Dead in Toronto
Sonali Kolhatkar
The Left, Syria and Fake News
Manuel E. Yepe
The Confirmation of Democracy in Cuba
Peter Montgomery
Christian Nationalism: Good for Politicians, Bad for America and the World
Ted Rall
Bad Drones
Jill Richardson
The Latest Attack on Food Stamps
Andrew Stewart
What Kind of Unionism is This?
Ellen Brown
Fox in the Hen House: Why Interest Rates Are Rising
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail