IJCentral: International Justice Central

As 2011 nears its end, the U.S. plan to withdraw troops from Iraq is being instated. The 2003 invasion and occupation, implemented under false claims that Iraq held “weapons of mass destruction” and termed “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is finally coming to an end. Ostensibly, Iraqis should by now be enjoying their freedom, their decentralized neoliberal economy, and the reconstruction policies that have been put in place by the transitional government. The U.S mission is over, but the entire country has been deinstitutionalized, sectarian violence has been exacerbated, and cities like Fallujah still face the possible consequences of radioactive weapons used in 2004 and the grave aftermath of human rights violations by the U.S. military.

The Iraqi nation has been subjected to years of sanctions that started even before the invasion in 2003. The sanctions where initially justified upon claims that Saddam was building nuclear weapons and were supposed to target Iraqi infrastructure to encourage the Iraqi population to push for regime change. When this failed, the U.S. took action into its own hands, in 2003 invading the country and capturing Saddam. The former dictator’s downfall, while ending years of brutality, was not an organic movement and only foreshadowed the problems to ensue with the introduction of “freedom” from abroad. It is important to note that the iconic destruction of Saddam’s statue was actually carried out by American soldiers, an image in stark contrast with the effacing of Mubarak’s portraits from all public spheres in Egypt and the Libyan physical rejection of Qaddafi’s green flag.

The issue of U.S. and NATO intervention is hard to tackle. On the one hand, the intervention was legal, based on the unanimous UN Security Council resolution 1973 to implement a no-fly zone and inhibit the aerial attacks by Qaddafi’s regime. It is claimed that such action helped speed up the Libyan democratic movement. On the other hand, the intervention did not leave Libya unscarred: thousands have been killed by NATO airstrikes, and now the country is dealing with battles between the revolutionary and pro-regime forces. Hilary Clinton’s take on the U.S.’s involvement (upon receiving news of Qaddafi’s death by an aide between formal interviews) was “We came, we saw, he died”. This unofficial statement reveals the dangers of the imperial approach taken by a democratic nation like the U.S.

For almost a decade now, language and connotations of freedom used by the American media have tried to portray the Iraq war as positively as possible, in order to justify and necessitate the U.S.’s presence on the ground. But the U.S. occupation was perhaps most memorably rejected when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoe at George W. Bush in 2008. “This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq,” the journalist, Muntadhar Al Zeidi, announced.  While this effort portrays an utter rejection of the U.S. invasion and then reform policy (across the Arab world, the sole of a shoe, when not being used for its primary purpose, symbolizes a downright insult), Bush nonchalantly claimed that such behavior was an indication of one’s freedom of expression under a “free society”. This was an effort, once again, to achieve a positive portrayal of U.S. involvement.

Where the toppling of Saddam differs from the most recent uprisings in Egypt or Tunisia is that it was imposed from outside. Along with the Iraqi coup came the installment of neoliberal economic policies and a U.N. food-for-oil programme meant to fund humanitarian aid but which essentially inhibited local economic growth by imposing the sale of foreign products and which also saw an inadequate response to civilian deaths, famine, and medical needs. In The Forever War by former NYTimes reporter and current writer for the New Yorker, Dexter Filkins, a scene of the wreckage of a U.S. army-built park in Iraq is yet another symbol of the rejection of U.S. imposed forms of freedom, for what significance does a plot of grass and a few benches have in the midst of the reality of an entire country that has faced hundreds of thousands of deaths, a certain passivity on the part of the international world, infrastructural depletion, and humiliation? While the “forever war” in Iraq is now seemingly coming to close, an entire chapter dealing with the war’s aftermath will be the sole burden of the Iraqi people for years to come.

As the Arab democratic movements continue, it is important not to neglect Iraq in the regional movement toward social equality and human rights. In some Arab countries, we have seen protestors chant for Palestine, and in Egypt, citizens stormed the Israeli embassy to show their disapproval of Israel’s policies. Because the U.S’s eight-year occupation of Iraq has not been able to achieve justice in Iraq, it is important to bring Iraq back into the larger picture of the regional struggle to oust dictatorial regimes. It is our duty not to put this episode behind us and instead to become aware of the extent of the devastation of war in Iraq in order to move beyond the current state of despair.

Suggested Reading:
Dexter Filkins, The Forever War
Sponeck et al, Reforming UN sanctions in the shade of Iraq: Targeting regimes, sparing civilians, International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies

Suggested Films:
Fallujah: A Lost Generation
Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre