|
The
US-led invasion of Iraq continues, although not entirely
unabated. The will and military power required to
prosecute the war is undoubtedly there - George Bush
referring to the relentless determination of the Coalition
to win. And as Noam Chomsky reminds us, 'they evidently
believe that the means of violence in their hands
are so extraordinary that they can dismiss with contempt
anyone who stands in their way.'
But
as Michel Foucault wrote many years ago, where there
is power there is resistance. And such resistance,
as aptly described by Conor O'Clery in the Irish Times,
is 'in contrast with the widespread perception in
the US that the war would be an invincible high-tech
military operation against a collapsing regime.' A
combination of inclement weather and fierce Iraqi
resistance has ensured that it is not all plain sailing.
Nevertheless, up until now the Coalition forces seem
to be killing more of themselves than the Iraqis are.
Whether 'blue on blue' as they term friendly fire,
individuals throwing grenades in amongst their comrades,
or simply helicopters colliding in mid-air, the fatalities
so far sustained seem to be largely self-inflicted.
However
it is presented - war of liberation or domination
- a report on Sky News as I write has just pointed
out that civilians in Baghdad are asking how they
can be the subject of both liberation and bombs at
the same time. Elsewhere, the reporter John Donvan
provided a sample of questions he was being asked
by ordinary Iraqi civilians:
Why
are you here in this country? Are you trying to
take over? Are you going to take our country forever?
Are the Israelis coming next? Are you here to steal
our oil? When are you going to get out? Show Us
the Aid.
No
amount of political doublespeak effectively parries
such concerns.
As
if to deny the pervasiveness of such sentiment the
Coalition was yesterday talking about an anti-Saddam
rebellion in Basra, but is now reduced to references
about a limited sort of uprising. Also yesterday we
had the word of the British that the Iraqi Army were
horizontally firing artillery on their own people
- just like the British used to assure us that the
IRA were hated within its own community and survived
by intimidation alone. And then an English magazine
asked the troublesome obvious - why was there so many
IRA intimidators in the first place? Then when the
British told us that the IRA were all interned somebody
asked why then are they still fighting. The discourse
of invaders is invariably the same. It is constructed
on a failure or refusal to comprehend popular opposition
to the invasion which then gives rise to other forms
of rationalisation. The language of Invasion Iraq
resembles what passed for information here at one
time: 'terrorists' - 'bandit country' - thugs - 'gangsters'-
'dead enders' - 'isolated pockets of resistance.'
Anyone familiar with the Lisburn Lie Machine which
used to dissemble and deceive from Theipval Barracks
will pay scant attention to what British Military
PR people tell them.
Some
things about the conflict are axiomatic. Iraqis have
a right to overthrow by force of arms the Saddam regime.
It violates their rights in huge measure. But this
does not mean that Coalition Forces have any right
to invade Iraq. Iraqis therefore have the right to
militarily resist armed aggression. As Tom Clonan
argues in todays Irish Times 'despite the tyranny
of Saddam Hussein, Iraq seems poised to resist the
current invasion at all costs.' Such a course would
seem a fundamental human right, even an obligation.
This is a war waged against the democratic wishes
of the UN - the 'U' now being contemptuously dismissed
by Rumsfeld and company as standing for 'useless'.
It can hardly be said that those of us who think this
way are Bolsheviks eager to level any spurious charge
against the 'defenders of democratic freedoms.' The
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission - hardly
a bastion of diehard Marxism - has condemned the attack
on Iraq as a violation of international law and a
breach of human rights. The most right wing pope in
living memory has termed it a threat to humanity.
But
being resolutely opposed to the war is no reason to
rejoice at the sight of those waging it losing their
lives at the hands of Iraqis. The images of a dead
American soldier on some highway so far from home
is distressing. Combat soldiers don't lie dead - human
beings do. And ultimately, we and they are all products
of the same Western culture. Maybe only weeks ago
they were doing the things that we are doing today
- watching the same television shows, eating the same
food, dressing in the same fashion and listening to
the same music.
But
human and cultural empathy can never extend to ethical
or political endorsement. For at the heel of the hunt
those sustaining the most casualties are the Iraqis
themselves - those who have the right to resist those
who have no right to invade. Today the cameras brought
into our living rooms the casualties sustained by
the civilian population of Baghdad after a market
place was attacked. While Coalition command and Control
is virtually accepting responsibility for the killings
in Baghdad, Victoria Clarke, Rumsfeld's assistant,
is on television denying it. It seems that the so
far amiable relationship between military and media
is beginning to grow strained. Journalists have been
complaining about the lack of information. A spokesman
for US Central Command said: 'this is not an appropriate
time to get that level of information out there.'
He spoke of 'our commitment to telling the truth and
getting the information out, and facilitating you
getting that information when it is an appropriate
time.' Appropriate to what and whom? One journalistic
reaction - perhaps not typical - was expressed by
Birgitte Vestermark, a reporter with the Danish newspaper
Berlingske Tidende: "I thought the whole point
of having a media centre was that you get information."
Yet
the media are themselves guilty of filtering our information
in such a way as to shape our perception of war. Listening
to Raymond Snoddy of The Times arguing that this is
the first war in which we may see soldiers blown to
pieces and that therefore presenters have to be careful
in their choice of what to show, I was struck by the
manipulative purpose of this. These images should
be shown so that we can see what war is really about.
We might then be prompted to think all the more critically
before we either send people off to fight them or
do too little to prevent them being waged. Ultimately
as Eddie Holt argues 'without censorship, war becomes
unbearable'. Powerful forces want to make it bearable
through a strategy of deception - concealing its essence
from us. If we can deny to ourselves the atrocities
and barbarism that accompany wars we may let them
continue. And by the time they reach into our homes
it will be too late to object that they are unbearable.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
