THE HANDSTAND

FEBRUARY2007






A Greek Warning to the Iraqis

By Nikos Raptis
February 12, 2007 ZNet Commentary
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2007-02/12raptis.cfm



Since quite a while I had been scribbling down notes for this "ZNet Commentary" on scraps of paper. To mark them, as I usually do, I noted at the top, as a key word, the word "Gothic" (see below). Then on December 9, 2006 Micky Z wrote an article in ZNet with the title: "Don't expect U.S. to create democracy in Iraq (lessons from Greece)". In it Micky Z  describes the "excellent example [of] post-WWII Greece" and ends his piece with the phrase: "The moral of the story: Iraqis hoping for democracy shouldn't hold their breath."

 

Having lived that "excellent example" I feel that I can add some details that can strengthen the warning by Micky Z to the Iraqis about democracy.

 

The bloodbath (over 160,000 dead) created by Britain and the US  in Greece in the late 1940s is referred to in history books as a "civil war". It was not a "civil war". The US and Britain had to prevent the adoption of a leftist way of life by the Greeks. The greatest part of this "benevolent" Christian operation of stifling the wish of the  majority of a people was carried out by the US (under Truman). How could this be accomplished? Through a centuries old method: divide and rule. The US chose a part of the Greek society (the elites and part of the middle class, about 30% of the population) and "used" it as a proxy army against the rest of the people. The US-chosen part was armed with the military technology of the US, even with napalm, and its elite was financed (that is, its morality was "bought") with the tax dollars of the US population.

 

Sixty years later the US is applying the same method in the bloodbath it is carrying out in Iraq. A part of the Iraqi population is armed and financed by the US to fight the rest of the population.That the US, whether through the stupidity of Bush, or through the incompetence of Rumsfeld et al, or through the evil nature of Cheney, used American soldiers to invade and occupy Iraq instead of "using" the native Iraqis as proxies from the beginning, is irrelevant. The ultimate aim of the US (was and) is to use a native proxy as an instrument for achieving its objective.   

 

But, what (was and) is the objective of the US? Let us dwell a bit on the content of this "objective".

 

"There is no magic formula to solve the problems of Iraq. However, there are actions that can be taken to improve the situation and protect the American interests." This is the first paragraph of the volume that contains "The Iraq Study Group Report". It is the first paragraph of the "Letter from the Co-Chairs". The Co-Chairs being: James A. Baker, III [!!!], and Lee H. Hamilton.

 

"With the crisis in Lebanon [of last summer]...there is a chance to reassert American leadership and salvage U.S. interests." This time it is Joseph R. Biden, Jr. US Senator. [International Herald Tribune, July 29-30, 2006]

 

All these gentlemen are adults who in their biographies are characterized as well-informed and common sense people. For them the paramount objective is the "American interests."

 

But, what does the expression "American interests" mean? Does it mean cheap oil for the cars of ordinary Americans? Or, markets for the labor of the American workers? Or, respect for the US by the rest of the world for the US benevolence? Or, the benefit from the creation of a better world by the promotion by the US, say, of the... music of Johann Sebastian Bach and Georg Friedrich Handel? Does it mean the Hitlerite obsession to... conquer the world? And so on. And, are these "US interests" the interests of he US miners in Appalachia or the interests of the blacks in New Orleans? Also, what if the "US interests" clash with the wish of the peoples of the world who strive to merely stay alive in front of the violence that accompanies these "American interests"?

 

Do the above gentlemen really know what the expression "US interests" means? Certainly, they must have realized, by now, that these interests are very "strange" interests. The post-9/11 pursuit of the "US interests" has resulted in greater danger not only for Rumy, who will think twice before visiting Berlin, or Belgium, etc, but also for the ordinary Americans in and out of the US.

 

Finally, what happened to the Christian dictum of "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"? [Mark12:31]. How can you love your neighbour, if you strive to "salvage [your own] interest" and not only in Lebanon or Iraq? This is another "strange" aspect of the US, given the fact, that in the US 91 - 97% of the people believe in God compared, for example, with Sweden where 46 - 85% of the population are atheists or agnostics. What is even more strange is that no one hates the Swedes.  

 

But, let us return to the "excellent example" of Greece in the 1940s. The bloodbath was not enough. For the occupation to be sustainable (i.e. permanent) it was necessary to, also, invade the country culturally. The most effective way to do that is by indoctrinating the young; the teenagers.

 

Thus, while in high school in Athens, in the 1940s, the teacher handed out to us in the class a 64 page little booklet (4" by 5.5"). On the front cover there was a colored picture of the American eagle with the American flag as a background. On the back cover there was a printed message: "Give it to a friend". The booklet was stamped: "Gift of the U.S. Information Service" (USIS) and, as indicated, was "Printed in the United States of America". After a few issues the size of the booklet was increased to 5.5" by 7" and the pages to about 80.

 

A colored front cover (of one of the booklets) that was imprinted in my mind (at the age of 15 or 16) was the painting "American Gothic" by the American painter Grant Wood. I was impressed by the desiccated appearance of the farmer and his daughter and repulsed by the austere expression in their faces. [I use the word "austere" (morally strict, harsh, stern), because as a Greek word it is in everyday use in the Greek family and in school]. I have the feeling that the USIS propagandist made a rather bad choice in presenting the Iowa farmer-preacher and his daughter to the young Greeks.

 

As for the contents of the booklets they were the ones expected for a propaganda operation. There were articles as: "Soldiers Without Uniforms" (meaning the tanks) by a Don Eddy from the magazine "American"; "Music in America" by a David Ewen from the magazine "Common Ground"; "The American Indians in the War" a paean about the Indians by a Charles B. Wilson from the magazine "Week" (do not forget that this was in the 1940s); "How America is Ruled" by Charles A. Beard from his book "Democracy"; "A Hymn to Greece" by Earl Warren, Governor of California; The entire Volume 2, No. 6 issue (of 96 pages) was dedicated to all the American regions. And so on. [One strange detail: the booklets have no date printed on them.]

 

In parallel, the adult middle class was treated to the same kind of indoctrination. This time the "instrument" was a "Reader's Digest" type of magazine. Its first  issue appeared in March of 1945. Again, note that this was only three months after the beginning of the British occupation of Greece since the bloodbath started in December of 1944. The name of the magazine was "Eklogi" ("Selection"), it had high brow pretensions, and it targeted the middle class.

The operation was carried out by the daughter of a publisher of "Kathimerini", a right wing paper.The selection of the articles was quite sophisticated. For example there was an article by Walter Lippmann in which he proposed in surprising detail the creation of what he named a "Community of Atlantic Nations" (i.e. Nato!) and that was 1945 (!). In an article (of May 1945) from the "Economist" the tenor was that the Russians, in spite of the millions killed by the Nazis, had a very high birthrate, compared to that of the Europeans, which tacitly meant that there was a future threat from the Commies.

 

Did this cultural invasion succeed? Things are not that clear.

 

"In 1962, a secondary-school [high school] student from a rural town in South Korea,..., won an English-language speech contest sponsored by the American Red Cross and was invited to the White house to meet President John F. Kennedy... That teenager, Ban Ki Moon, today is Korea's foreign minister..." and now the new secretary general of the UN, "a stalwart U.S. ally... eager to please his bosses than confront them... (International Herald Tribune, Oct. 2, 2006).

 

[Parenthesis: The Red Cross has a very "peculiar" history. In Greece, during the 1967 dictatorship, it was not "interested" in protecting the Greeks that were tortured by the US-supervised Greek torturers, as testified by none other than Amalia Fleming, wife of the discoverer of penicillin, who was tortured. Also there is that unbelievable "Spiegel" magazine photo of a Red Cross vehicle having the SS sign on its license plates during WWII.]

 

So, the US succeeded to inundate the Greek society with persons similar to the above Ban Ki Moon; the persons that constitute the Greek elite, that is, the proxies of the US. However, the mass of the Greek population is deeply anti-American. Nevertheless, the garbage of the Greek media (especially the TV programs) is an exact copy of the garbage of the US media. As expected, things concerning humans are quite complex.

 

This is 2007, therefore the Iraqis, after the guns will be silent, are going to suffer a US cultural invasion more sophisticated than the rather crude one of Greece in the 1940s. They should be prepared to resist it. And I think they have the strength to do it. They belong to a group of societies, Iraq, Iran, Greece, Egypt, Palestine, etc, one might call "root societies". Societies, that essentially "wrote" the History of the human race. "[T]he puzzling zero - which stood for no number at all - was the brilliant finishing touch...The story begins some 5,000 years ago with the Sumerians, those lively people who settled in Mesopotamia (part of what is now Iraq)". [Robert Kaplan, "The Nothing That Is: A Natural History of Zero", Allen Lane The Penguin Press, London, !999, page 6]. The great Greek mathematicians, Archimedes, Pythagoras, etc, did not have a word for zero! Imagine the suffering for humanity, if, instead of the Sumerians, it was George W. Bush of Texas the one who invented zero!

 

The murderous gang of George W. Bush will not succeed to stop the progress of humanity that the ancient peoples of Iraq originated.

 

 

P.S. A few weeks ago in the Greek TV-news there was a group of young Iraqis in the Greek port of Igoumenitsa who were trying to find food in the garbage containers in the streets of the town. The Greek journalist who was giving us the news ( morally fattened by his western ideals) all that he was interested in was the dollars that the young Iraqis paid to reach Greece after fleeing the US war in Iraq. One of them, not knowing Greek, wrote in his palm with a felt pen the figure of 7,000 (dollars).

ZNet Commentary
Aliens in an Alien Land:  Iraq Through the Lens of Soldiers' Memoirs January 22, 2007
By  Stephen Soldz

Not so many years ago, perhaps five, there was a country known as "Iraq." That Iraq no longer exists. It has been replaced by two Iraqs. No, I am not referring here to the Kurdish Autonomous Region, nor to the nascent Shia statelet likely about to be created in the south, though either of these could be considered as break-up products of that former country. 

I am, rather, referring to the two zones into which Iraq has become divided, the Green Zone and the Red Zone. The Green Zone, a.k.a. the "International Zone," the "Ultimate Gated Community," or more appropriately, the "United States of Iraq," is the place where the various would-be rulers of Iraq have congregated since the March-April 2003 invasion. The colonial administration, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), set up its headquarters here. After the June 2004 handover of "sovereignty" but little power to an Iraqi Interim Government with its Prime Minister forced upon United Nations officials nominally in charge by the United States, this government made its home in the Green Zone. The current "elected," but largely powerless, Shia-dominated government also "rules" from this zone.

For the Americans there, life in the Green Zone resembles life in the United States, with just enough of an exotic tinge to make it interesting. Nightclubs serve liquor , women jog in shorts and sports bras, and pool parties sometimes get wild. McDonalds and Burger King are available, though, just as in many modern American cities, kebabs served by real natives are available for the daring. 

For the time of the CPA, the Green Zone was a nice career stop-over point for those hoping to get some attention in the modern Republican Party. A few months there helped get that coveted PR job back in the States. Of course there was the occasional mortar shell to contend with, but the hint of danger helped relieve the boredom that was, perhaps, the greater risk of service in the colonies.

So what of the Red Zone? It is the place where those Iraqis not cleared to get near the occupation forces live. The place where people go about their lives in a situation economically much worse off than that before the invasion. In the Red Zone people die by the tens or hundreds of thousands, from bombs and bullets, yes, both Iraqi and American, but also from crime, from disease, and from lack of basic medical care. In the Red Zone clean water is scarce, electricity available but a few hours a day, if that, and doctors are increasingly rare as the few remaining flee to the safety of exile. And boredom, that plague of the Green Zone, also plagues the Red Zone as millions of women and children, and increasingly men as well, are afraid to step outside the house for months on end as fear of murder and abduction keeps them under long-term house arrest.

The Green Zone sometimes sees conflict between US political officials with their fantastic visions of an occupied Iraq willing and able to submit to every whim of the occupiers, and the Iraqi officials with their visions of an ascendant Shia state. The Red Zone, in contrast, sees daily conflict between numerous militias with varied political and governmental loyalties, some labeled police, army, special Interior Ministry death and torture squads, others known as the militias of various political parties and organizations, while yet others are labeled as "insurgents," "terrorists," "jihadists," or "freedom fighters" depending on who is doing the labeling.

As Iraq is divided into these two separate but unequal worlds, there are those who go between them, who cross the barriers separating the two worlds. Among these are the US soldiers, the "grunts," upon whom the day-to-day tasks of occupation fall.  Unlike the politicians, bureaucrats and corporate scam artists of occupation, who can often do their jobs without stepping foot in the Red Zone, these soldiers cross the border between the two Iraqs on a regular basis. Can these ambassadors of freedom, and of occupation, bridge the two Iraqs? How do they construe the situation thrust upon them? Perhaps the experiences of these soldiers can shed light upon the evolving relations of the two Iraqs, relations so complex as to challenge the pundits who attempt to make sense of the Iraqi mess for the folks back home.

Insights into the experiences of the US soldiers in Iraq can be found occasionally in the accounts of reporters and in the torrent of memoirs pouring out from those veterans desperate to tell their story as they seek, somehow, to fit back into a land they believed they were defending, but into which they no longer seem to fit.

I examined three early specimens of these memoirs -- Colby Buzzell's My War: Killing Time in Iraq; John Crawford's The Last True Story I'll Ever Tell: An Accidental Soldier's Account of the War in Iraq; and Kayla Williams' Love My Rifle More Than You: Young and Female in the U.S. Army -- for insights into the experiences and inner lives of GIs in Iraq. These works, and their authors, each have distinctive perspectives to express. Two of them -- Buzzell and Williams  -- enlisted in the army, whereas Crawford was one of those shocked National Guard troops victimized by the unprecedented massive use of the Guard to recruit for a war many at home did not consider worth fighting. Two of these authors -- Crawford and Williams  --  were present during the initial invasion and had the experience of being welcomed as liberators by at least some of the population, whereas Buzzell arrived in Iraq in October, 2003, when the war after the victory was getting underway. And, of course, two of the authors are male, whereas Williams conveys some of the unique perspective of today's female soldiers.

To begin with, how do these authors portray their motivation to fight in Iraq? Three reasons are mentioned: loyalty to comrades; keeping one's contract (one's word); and the excitement of combat. For all three, loyalty to comrades is a prime factor, though this loyalty is tinged with the need to prove that one is as tough as the rest, even to the extent, as in the case of Williams, of putting off needed medical care and suffering pain for months in fear of being deployed late and not serving with her buddies. It is also Williams who says: "It might not mean too much to give your word anymore, but that did not mean we would not keep ours" (p. 61).

But there is a thrill to combat that attracts on its own. Crawford discusses an outcast among his unit, a man about which "we all had our doubts over whether or not he was a 'trigger-puller' -- whether or not he could take a serious shot at someone -- whereas the rest of us had come to live for the moment" (p. 65). This thrill, when combined with the bonds that hold the group together can be an overpowering force. Thus, Buzzell, after describing his return home to a world in which he may never again fit, a world in which he contemplated becoming a homeless veteran, gives a sense of the libidinous excitement that bonds as he concludes his story with:

"But then again, if I ever got a call from the battalion commander saying he was getting everyone from Second Platoon Company 1/23 INF back together to go 'Punish the Deserving' for one last tomahawk chop out there in Iraq, and that he was going to lead the way, and everyone was going, and they needed me as an M240 Bravo machine gunner again, I'd probably tell him, 'That's a good copy sir. Let's roll.'

"Hell yeah."

Noticeably absent from these motivations was any interest in helping the Iraqi people, or even in removing those dreaded WMD. In fact, one of the characteristics of these books is that Iraqis are at best bit players in the story, referred to as they are by the varied terms: hajji, raghead, towelheads, camel jockeys, or "the fucking locals" (Williams, p. 200). None of these authors devoted much energy to trying to comprehend why thousands of Iraqis were risking their lives to fight the US troops in their country. None of these three books even mentions the divisions that divide Iraqi society and have become the basis for the developing civil war. In reading them I did not notice even the words Sunni or Shia. Kurds are hardly mentioned, and Arab-Kurd tension does not appear.

Williams, as an army linguist who received a year of Arabic training, had a distinct advantage over the other two authors; she could actually talk to Iraqis. Even so, her greatest opportunity to talk with Iraqis occurred when she spent time in the mountains near the Syrian border, meeting Yezidis, a mysterious Kurdish-speaking religious sect who, despite strong Islamic influences, insisted on telling Williams over and over: "We are like Jews. And we are like Christians. But we are not like Muslims.... We love Americans because you hate Muslims" (pp. 184-185). These conversations forced Williams to assert, unsuccessfully, that Americans do not hate Muslims.

Perhaps because he arrived in Iraq several months into the occupation, after bases were built to house the soldiers and after the insurgency had started and it was becoming more dangerous for Americans to interact informally with Iraqis, Buzzell reports essentially no interactions with Iraqis other than those on base selling trinkets at the Hajji shops (p. 150), or when reading "Fuck You Americans" graffiti on a highway overpass (p. 170). For him "every single neighborhood in Iraq looks the same" (p. 336). The one Iraqi he was able to converse with was one of his unit's Iraqi interpreters, "the first English-speaking Iraqi person I could find" (p. 330) who strongly supported the US invasion, saw considerable progress during the occupation, and opposed the resistance. This interpreter disappeared, either having resigned under threat of being killed or actually having been killed.

Crawford conveys the overall sense of alienation from Iraqis when he describes meeting a dog who licked his face: "At least someone in Iraq was glad to see me" (p. 43). When an Iraqi came to inform the Americans about an insurgent house, he describes the troops' reaction:  "I didn't care about the informant... -- none of us did. I figured that killing him would only serve to decrease the hajji population by one, so fuck him" (p. 68).

At another point Crawford relays a conversation with one of his comrades about the Iraqis who drink on the banks of the Tigris:

 "'You know there used to be bull sharks this far north in the Tigris?' Sellars told me once. He had just read a book about man-eaters. 'It got too polluted for them to live here. Too bad there aren't any now. Wouldn't that be some shit? Fucking Hajji getting eaten up.'

"'Yeah, I'd pay a dollar to see that'" (pp. 116-117).

Not surprisingly Crawford and his buddies raided these Iraqis to steal their beer, appearing to resent, especially, that these Iraqis could party and feel at home while the soldiers were aliens in this land.

Yet, for Crawford, and for Williams, there was a longing, a hunger, for contact with Iraqis, as there was for certain Iraqis to reach out to him. After inadvertently saving a homeless kid from bullies, Crawford developed a mascot nicknamed "Cum", who wanted nothing more than to protect his American protectors (pp. 101-106).  Through Cum, Crawford met Leena, an English-speaking former university student forced to give up her studies because of the danger in postwar Iraq. Leena's grandmother apparently tried to arrange a marriage. While Crawford, married already, wasn't receptive to the proposal, there was a powerful pull as he found Leena's company enjoyable, helping to distract him from life in an alien environment: "It was like being home, even if only for brief moments. Her smile was infectious, and her laughter sounded to me like flowers growing" (p. 111).

While the language of sexual attraction may be universal, the cultural context is ignored only at one's peril. Leena's cousin, who didn't approve of her flirting with Crawford, intervened. Later, Crawford found out that Leena's house had been burned down; he never saw Leena or Cum again. He turned his back on the house and went back to work. The problematic nature of this relationship for Crawford was indicated through the terms he used to express to his Sergeant his concerns about what happened to Leena and Cum, perhaps defensively, "I know they're just hajjis, but still, you know, its kinda my fault for talking to them" (p. 113).

While these occasional attempts to make contact were thwarted, the soldiers mostly were absorbed with their job and deeply conflicted about the institution of which they were part. Despite having lots of unoccupied time, they had little time to actually reflect on the world into which they had entered. Part of the genius of the military, as it comes through in these memoirs, is its sadomasochistic structure that keeps the soldiers perpetually distracted and unable to critically reflect. Like any authoritarian bureaucracy, there are the absurd rules, the petty dictators, and the everyday rebellions. These rules and the accompanying rebellions deflect attention from the larger structures and contexts in which the soldiers are acting.  The perpetual struggles around the ridiculous and the absurd distract from the overarching horror of war and occupation.

As Williams describes getting ready to deploy to Iraq, a deployment which she could have avoided by accepting an offered foot operation, she writes "FTA. We said it all the time. Some soldiers even took a Sharpie and wrote it on their duffels or their helmets or boots -- any damn place they could find. Fuck the Army" (p. 63). "Fuck the Army" but loyally serve it regardless.

Buzzell's book is based on a blog he maintained while in Iraq, a blog which signally irritated the army brass, while sometimes receiving surreptitious praise. He signed his pieces CBFTW, leaving the clear impression that the "FTW" stood for "Fuck the War." Buzzell's blog entries expressed the excitement of combat, but also tweaked the army and the brass. His entries became more provocative as he received opposition from military authorities. But, in the end, it's the blog of someone who accepted the role of the complaining grunt and found he had no role when he returned stateside.

The sado-masochistic relationship of soldier to military permeates these soldiers' relationships to the Iraqis they came in contact with, those who they occasionally liked to think they were helping and who were sometimes worth flirting with, but who were, after all, only hajjis. As Crawford relates, after U.S. troops shot two carjackers, killing one and unintentionally castrating the second, two medics found out that the castrated man had just gotten married that very night. "They went back to bed for the few remaining hours of darkness, slightly content in the knowledge that for at least one night, someone else was more unhappy than they were" (p. 121).

As the Green Zone became a microcosm of modern American life, with its Burger Kings and its nightclubs, the American soldiers were those representatives of the occupation forces who were not allowed to remain in relative safety, oblivious to the dangers of the Red Zone outside. The various military bases sometimes came to resemble mini-Green Zones, but the soldiers who lived in them had to cross the barrier into the Red Zone. If the authors of these memoirs are at all representative, real engagement with the lives of the Iraqis they met was essentially impossible. They remained as alien to the country as the political appointees flitting through the Green Zone on their way to Republican Party advancement.  Regardless of the justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the occupation was doomed by its inability to make real contact, and hence to develop any understanding of the lives of most Iraqis. Absent any understanding of their way of life, the only way to make contact, real or imagined, was through death.

Seen in the light of the experiences described in these memoirs, the horrors of Haditha and the other massacres coming to light were likely, perhaps even inevitable, consequences of the occupation of a once-proud land by aliens for whom Iraq could only represent otherness, "not home," and for whom the people of this alien land would forever remain "hajjis."

 
Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He maintains the Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice web site and the Psyche, Science, and Society blog.