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.
|