Sunday, February 26, 2006
Who's Got the Force?
The rapidly brewing civil war in Iraq has the foul odor of a manufactured crisis, and the question is, who is doing the manufacturing? Which faction in Iraq would most benefit from civil war?
One commentator speculates that it's the Americans who have the most to gain from a disunified Iraq. It's an extreme view, but he might just be on to something.
Who would lose the most? Clearly, the poorest sectors of society would be the most torn up by the violence. And women, as usual, would be caught in the maelstrom.
It's disheartening to hear that the fundamentalist Shiite al-Sadr militias that "own" the streets of Baghdad this weekend are, among other things, harassing women for not appearing sufficiently modest in public--presumably this means, not covering themselves up from head to toe in fabric.
It's disheartening to hear the tone of resigned, benumbed fear in Riverbend's voice as she discusses last week's bombing of the mosque in Samarra.
"The situation isn’t good at all," she said. "I don’t think I remember things being this tense- everyone is just watching and waiting quietly. There’s so much talk of civil war and yet, with the people I know- Sunnis and Shia alike- I can hardly believe it is a possibility. Educated, sophisticated Iraqis are horrified with the idea of turning against each other, and even not-so-educated Iraqis seem very aware that this is a small part of a bigger, more ominous plan….People are scared and watchful. We can only pray."
Riverbend is describing a scenario of absolute civic disempowerment. I recognize it because I live it too. Of course things in Iraq are almost unimaginably extreme, and yet here in the heart of empire, in the cushioned, comfortable world I inhabit, I also feel so, so politically disempowered.
So many of us watched with horror as the World Trade Center towers fell on that fateful morning in September, 2001. We watched with equal horror as our political leaders wrapped themselves in the American flag and marched our young soldiers off to a vengeful war, first in Afghanistan (which seemed marginally justified) and then in Iraq (which seemed cynically opportunistic and totally misguided).
We knew that Saddaam was a bad guy, but after all, our diplomacy had created him, and presumably our diplomacy could take him down too. We'd done it before in Latin America, hadn't we (think Allende, Duvalier, Trujillo, Noriega, Aristide, and they tried with Chavez just recently). But no, it wasn't just about getting rid of Sadaam in Iraq, it was about seizing control of the country's oil wealth.
That short-sighted greed has cost the lives of thousands of Americans, and tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It has thrown Iraq into turmoil that it looks like it will take generations to resolve.
And we who predicted that a civil war would come of an American invasion of Iraq now sit on the sidelines and watch bitterly, in horror, as events unfold. Riverbend typing at her computer in Baghdad, I typing at mine in Massachusetts, both of us distraught, disbelieving, disheartened.
Those who created this mess do not want me to join hands with Riverbend and feel the power crackle between us as we connect. They want to keep us separate, and they don't want us to perceive the connections between, say, the recent coup in Haiti, the violence erupting at the oilfields in the Niger delta, and the continued outrage that is Guantanamo Bay.
We must make these connections, and state them loud and clear so others will begin to awaken from their media-induced stupor and see what is happening in our global society. The way it is is not the way it has to be.
We need to think outside the box, outside of what Frances Moore Lappe would call our "thought traps," and not only imagine, but begin to live alternatives. In the war of visions, the Darth Vaders of the world are ascendant. But not forever. Not for long.
One commentator speculates that it's the Americans who have the most to gain from a disunified Iraq. It's an extreme view, but he might just be on to something.
Who would lose the most? Clearly, the poorest sectors of society would be the most torn up by the violence. And women, as usual, would be caught in the maelstrom.
It's disheartening to hear that the fundamentalist Shiite al-Sadr militias that "own" the streets of Baghdad this weekend are, among other things, harassing women for not appearing sufficiently modest in public--presumably this means, not covering themselves up from head to toe in fabric.
It's disheartening to hear the tone of resigned, benumbed fear in Riverbend's voice as she discusses last week's bombing of the mosque in Samarra.
"The situation isn’t good at all," she said. "I don’t think I remember things being this tense- everyone is just watching and waiting quietly. There’s so much talk of civil war and yet, with the people I know- Sunnis and Shia alike- I can hardly believe it is a possibility. Educated, sophisticated Iraqis are horrified with the idea of turning against each other, and even not-so-educated Iraqis seem very aware that this is a small part of a bigger, more ominous plan….People are scared and watchful. We can only pray."
Riverbend is describing a scenario of absolute civic disempowerment. I recognize it because I live it too. Of course things in Iraq are almost unimaginably extreme, and yet here in the heart of empire, in the cushioned, comfortable world I inhabit, I also feel so, so politically disempowered.
So many of us watched with horror as the World Trade Center towers fell on that fateful morning in September, 2001. We watched with equal horror as our political leaders wrapped themselves in the American flag and marched our young soldiers off to a vengeful war, first in Afghanistan (which seemed marginally justified) and then in Iraq (which seemed cynically opportunistic and totally misguided).
We knew that Saddaam was a bad guy, but after all, our diplomacy had created him, and presumably our diplomacy could take him down too. We'd done it before in Latin America, hadn't we (think Allende, Duvalier, Trujillo, Noriega, Aristide, and they tried with Chavez just recently). But no, it wasn't just about getting rid of Sadaam in Iraq, it was about seizing control of the country's oil wealth.
That short-sighted greed has cost the lives of thousands of Americans, and tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It has thrown Iraq into turmoil that it looks like it will take generations to resolve.
And we who predicted that a civil war would come of an American invasion of Iraq now sit on the sidelines and watch bitterly, in horror, as events unfold. Riverbend typing at her computer in Baghdad, I typing at mine in Massachusetts, both of us distraught, disbelieving, disheartened.
Those who created this mess do not want me to join hands with Riverbend and feel the power crackle between us as we connect. They want to keep us separate, and they don't want us to perceive the connections between, say, the recent coup in Haiti, the violence erupting at the oilfields in the Niger delta, and the continued outrage that is Guantanamo Bay.
We must make these connections, and state them loud and clear so others will begin to awaken from their media-induced stupor and see what is happening in our global society. The way it is is not the way it has to be.
We need to think outside the box, outside of what Frances Moore Lappe would call our "thought traps," and not only imagine, but begin to live alternatives. In the war of visions, the Darth Vaders of the world are ascendant. But not forever. Not for long.
