<<Back to Politiks
Liberating Iraq
Gilad Atzmon
Watching an Iraqi mob searching for "coalition" servicemen on
Baghdad's
riverbank reveals the 'surprising' truth: the Iraqi people don't really
like their 'liberators'. This must be shocking for Blair and Bush who
present themselves as the saviours of the Iraqi people. If this is not
bad
enough, the Iraqi army refuses to surrender. How dare they? This is
completely against the "coalition" military plans, and Donald
Rumsfeld's
promises. Somehow, we no longer see the victorious images of American
tanks
and armoured vehicles racing in the Iraqi wilderness, quite simply because
they don't race anymore: they crawl. The "coalition" soldiers
are terrified
and with good reason. They understand already that each Iraqi they confront
might be a ferocious enemy. They understand far too late that they were
rushed into a hostile country with an 'unfriendly' population.
Four days into the war and it is already obvious: as always in the past,
army Generals were preparing themselves to win the previous war rather
than
the one to come. Just a few days ago they spoke about the masses of Iraqi
soldiers that would surrender themselves to their 'liberators'. The
American Generals were sure that the Iraqi army would refuse to fight
for their
'tyrant'. Funnily enough it didn't happen, if anything it is quite the
reverse. The American led "coalition" is facing some fierce
fighting from
ordinary Iraqi soldiers and even armed civilians. It is not surprising
at
all that the American Generals failed to anticipate such an Iraqi
resistance. Whilst Generals are very good at 'predicting the past', when
it
comes to the future they are pretty miserable. Somehow they always fail,
just give them battalions and time.
In military organisations very much like in other rigid establishments
promotion is entirely dependent on one's successful adaptation of a strict
pattern of thought. In other words military promotion is dependent on
one's acceptance of a given doctrine while denying any other mode of thinking.
Accordingly, the higher you get in the military hierarchy the less
open-minded you are. To spare any ambiguity, if we agree that an
intelligent mind is distinguished by its capability to process a wide
range of
information, it makes sense that in the top of the military pyramid we
find
the least intelligent people around. To be more explicit: military leaders
can be found to be pretty stupid people by any standard. Israel serves
as
a great example. From its early days, Israeli political life has been
governed
by its most 'brilliant' ex-servicemen: Dayan, Rabin, Sharon, Barak etc.
As
we know, none of these military geniuses managed to secure a safe future
for Israel nor to lead its society towards peace. Apparently, the Israeli
case
isn't that special. The immaculate German army failed in Stalingrad, the
French failed in Algeria, the Americans in Vietnam etc.
The 'Strike on Iraq' provides us with a unique opportunity to watch
Generals failing in real time: Minute by minute we watch the collapse
of the
doctrine. Streams of live TV images coupled with confused news reports
are
enough to convince us that something goes terribly wrong out there in
the
desert. We understand already that the American and British Generals have
managed to fail in their prediction of how the war was going to unfold.
They failed to assess the reaction of both the Iraqi army and the Iraqi
people towards their alleged "liberators".
Was it that complicated to predict the risks involved with this
American-lead aggression? I am not so sure. Less than a month ago around
two million people marched in the centre of London calling the British
government to abandon the military option. Obviously the protestors
understood something that the "coalition" Generals failed to
realise. How
is it that two million civilians manage to realize such an obvious military
truth while our military 'experts' remain so blinded? I assume that one
of
the explanations is due to the fact that the new American-lead colonial
wars fall into the category of a culture clash. When it comes to
multiculturalism or a culture clash, even a 'stoned hippy' is far more
knowledgeable than a
senior military expert. Apparently, in modern colonial wars, the military
man has the least chance to predict his opponent's behaviour. It is very
easy to explain: if a military leader is defined by his strict acceptance
of a given isolated doctrine within a given culture, what are the chances
that
he will be able to analyse a very remote discourse in a completely
different cultural and climate sphere? As we can see, even two million
peace
protestors in London proved that they understood better the conflict to
come than the "coalition" Generals. Apparently, we find out
that military
leaders fail even to understand their people at home. For instance, we
are
entitled to assume that the 'cruise-missile philosophy' was invented by
American
Generals in order to address the western humanist concerns regarding the
safety of innocent civilians. As we can see, in the last few days, even
the
accuracy of American hits over Baghdad and the relatively low number of
civilian casualties didn't stop hundred of thousand of people in both
in
Britain and in America from protesting against the war. We can conclude
that the Army Generals misunderstood once again, failing even to realise
what
basic human concern is all about. If they fail so badly at home it
shouldn't be too surprising if a British General from Lincolnshire fails
to predict
the behaviour of an Iraqi corporal in Basra.
The current "coalition" strategy failure in Iraq should be brought
to light
and the sooner the better. As we might remember, in the first Gulf war,
the
Iraqi soldiers didn't show a real tendency to fight over Kuwaiti desert.
While this was both self-evident and quite reasonable considering the
fact
that Kuwait wasn't their homeland, it was enough to convince the "coalition" Generals that the Iraqi army will run away in any
given conditions.
Obviously they got it wrong! The Iraqi army and the Iraqi people have
proved already beyond any doubt that they are willing to fight back. I
assume
that "coalition" Generals learned about the Iraqi lack of willingness
to fight
from intelligence reports issued by Saddam Hussein's political opponents.
Whilst any reasonable person who knows something about the conflict would
be suspicious of any picture portrayed by these kind of reports, "Coalition"
Generals were easily convinced that the Iraqi people would be delighted
to
be 'liberated'; it simply fitted with their doctrine. "Coalition"
Generals
were wrongly convinced that a high-tech personal blitz against Saddam
would
save them from political battle with peace activists at home. They were
wrong! Peace campaigners and anti-war coalitions have never been more
popular. Again, it is likely that American Generals managed to miss what
humanitarian concern is all about. It is not that surprising considering
the form of intellectual isolation particular to the military. American
Generals were fully convinced that mass media coverage of their victorious
parade
towards Baghdad would gain them public and political support. They were
wrong! If anything, the media coverage exposed their own incorrect
strategic conception before they managed to realise it themselves. Finally,
at the
moment, the American army leaders are obsessed with technological
superiority. The American like their Israeli allies are fully convinced
that technological superiority can guarantee victory on the battlefield.
Consequently, American Generals are highly trained in computer-simulated
war games. They know exactly how long it will take them to bring logistic
support from Basra to Baghdad. They know exactly how to launch 500 missiles
simultaneously at, say, the third toilet window in Saddam's secondary
palace. But there is one thing that the computer can't tell them, and
that
is the will of the Iraqi man to resist. Man's will is yet to be formulated
in 'machine language'. Why are the American Generals so blind to the will
of other people? Why were they lead to such false predictions? The answer
is simple: because Generals are military men, and they are thus distinguished
by their narrow and limited intellectual capability. They are professional
in being stupid.
As we already know Saddam Hussein has yet to be abandoned by his people.
Quite the opposite, the Iraqi army is fighting back. Moreover, following
the growing number of "coalition" casualties and military failures,
Saddam has
become even more popular among the Iraqi people, the Arab world, and
beyond. Since it is clear that British and American military men failed
to realize
what Saddam symbolises for his people and the Arab people in general,
I
will try to summarise the most relevant information regarding Saddam Hussein:
who he is and what he stands for.
1. Saddam Hussein is the only state leader to publicly support the
Palestinian people. This is enough to make him into an eternal hero in
the
eyes of the Arab people and everyone who believes in justice.
2. Saddam Hussein is the only state leader to stand up against the mighty American and Zionist colonial hegemony. This is more than enough to make him the ultimate hero for those who believe in the idea of 'free man', 'anti-colonialism' and 'anti-globalisation'.
I am sure that even the most remarkable of the "coalition"
Generals is
capable of understanding by now that they are fighting a lost battle.
The "coalition" is fighting a regional superman. Saddam will win
the battle,
even if he loses. Saddam is a symbol of national liberation. True, some
people might regard Saddam Hussein as a regional danger. It is important
to
mention, however, that NO real evidence is yet to be produced to support
such an accusation. Anyway, it is more important to mention that far more
people realize by now that it is the "coalition" that presents
a more
immediate world threat. Clearly the war against Iraq is enough to support
such an accusation.