Why are we at war? (honestly)
Published by michael December 5th, 2004 in warToday Dahr Jamil
spoke with witnesses of another car-bombing
Aisha Dulaimy, a resident of al-Adhamiya said, The reason for this car bomb is the Americans want to cause a split between the Shia and Sunni. But there has never been fighting between the Shia and Sunni in the history of Iraq. They want to make a struggle between us, but it will never work. They tried this before and people responded by making demonstrations together against the occupiers. So they will never make it. We are living as brothers-Shia and Sunni. There is no difference because we all live in the same home, which is Iraq.
It makes one wonder whether car-bombs could be being employed by the U.S. military as a disruptive strategy; surely no one would exclude this possibility now, after all we’ve seen. Jamail goes on to talk about the war (yet unofficially validated) pictures recently discovered by the AP that document more torture of Iraqis at the hands of U.S. soldiers. He adds reports of Iraqi dead tied to U.S. tanks as trophies. The more I avoid the mainstream media, the more I realize how incomplete a picture most people are getting.
Update: edited out a section of post regarding boingboings reference to the “liberation” of Iraq after learning by email that it was sarcastic. (oops).
4 Responses to “Why are we at war? (honestly)”
Leave a Reply
Search
I agree that the motives of the US war on Iraquis (as it could accurately be labeled) have far more to do with capital than freedom. And I support the strategy of a united front between Shia and Sunni. However, I contest Dulaimy’s statement that “there has never been fighting between the Shia and the Sunni in the history of Iraq.” In point of fact, there is a long-standing struggle between the two groups, and a great deal of hostility still exists based on these historical tensions. If Shia and Sunni resistance efforts are joining to oust the US invaders, then I support them and recognize that the uniting of forces can be a powerful measure indeed, especially among disparate groups who are willing to put aside their differences in favor of a common cause.
I honestly don’t know very much at all of Iraq’s history, but in a brief search, was unable to uncover references to Sunni/Shia fighting.
By Dulaimy stating that there hadn’t been fighting, I took that to mean fighting, as in prolonged attacks and counterattacks, battles, or war. If you’re aware of evidence of this, I’d be interested in reading it. Much of what I’ve found so far has indicated that Shia and Sunni paths within Islam are more alike than different, as in this statement from Islamonline:
The meaning I took away from her statements was more along the lines of the U.S. trying to paint tension as war in order to divide and conquer, and to gain merit at home with the public perception of rampant civil war in Iraq.
“But most Sunni and Shia believers recognize each other as genuine Muslims (except for a few deviant sects)” doesn’t really preclude strident, violent conflict. . .technically speaking, Roman Catholic Croatians and Greek Orthodox Serbians should see each others as Brothers in Christ by the codes of their own churches, but that often isn’t the case. The whole root of the difference between the two sects is violent conflict–the murder of Muhamed’s nephew Ali being the reason Karbala is a holy city. Just as Tito kept the ethnically-motivated religious strife in check with a strong rule, so too did the Baathists, Qasim, the Hashemites, and the Ottomans before them–but at every transition period Sunni-Shia conflict did bubble up.
An excellent portrait of a fairly peaceful Hashemite-era Iraq is The Guests of The Sheik, though I haven’t read it in 12 years, and might read it more carefully now.
I would exclude the possibility that the United States is employing car bombs because, if nothing else, every violent incident is one that makes the United States look (correctly) ineffective, no matter how incrementally. Our previous history of really despicable covert operations was a function of a much different CIA than the one we have now–a CIA that was much more in sync with the White House.
Saheli- On religious respect versus strife and bloodshed: I recognize your point, thanks for the book reference. Regardless of the factual accuracy of voices, I hear so few Iraqi voices in the media; had I known I’d have chosen a different quote to represent. Nonetheless, she made good points about initiating Shia-Sunni unity. I’m baffled by the apparent management of public opinions during this war. We know that perception and media is a highly managed affair, yet the news of incompetence and brutality that comes through anyway almost makes it look like they’re not shielding us at all.
In theory I agree that unrest makes the U.S. look bad, yet I don’t think that that logic precludes the U.S. military mocking-up so-called “insurgents” tactics such as car-bombing. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and wouldn’t suggest that it definately were happening, but I’m far from convinced that simple management of propaganda would really affect strategy choices. It appears more and more that the administration seems to care less and less about public opinion, especially now that the (cough) president has been given a “mandate.”