Despite our attempts to cloak our imperialism in the benevolent garb of democratization, the basis for our presence in Iraq is nothing more than power and greed, and the Iraqis know this.
Many of those who admit that the U.S. is in fact an imperial power argue that it is a "different" kind of empire, being one that
reflects the ideals of a people who remember that their country secured its independence by revolt against an empire, and who like to think of themselves as the friend of freedom everywhere. It is an empire without consciousness of itself as such, constantly shocked that its good intentions arouse resentment abroad. But that does not make it any less of an empire (Ignatieff, 2003).
In the late nineteenth century, frustrations with the inequities of capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism led to the emergence of Marxism. Many of today's extremist groups, including radical Islamists, claim that these same types of frustrations have led to their use of terrorist tactics to invoke change.
Throughout history, particularly Western history, determinist justifications have been used to support imperial policies. Determinist nations justify their policies and the imposition of these policies on others as being consistent with those ideals and societal structures that are "necessary for all people" (Arat, 1999).
While President Bush may claim that he and America have a "mission" to bring freedom to all parts of the world, others may view this as hegemonic conquest. Just as one man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter, one man's liberator may be another man's tyrant.
The British occupied Iraq from 1920-1958. Following WWII, a global post-imperialist backlash occurred that gave rise to nationalist authoritarian regimes in many former colonies. In the Middle East, Pan-Arabism and oil wealth strengthened the resolve of those who wanted to be independent of former colonial masters.
In the past decade, radical Islam has risen to challenge both the West and the status quo of several established monarchies in the region. Now that Iraq's totalitarian leader has been deposed, the question becomes what path should Iraq take, and who gets to decide that path? There have been several studies on this question in the past two years - but the results do not appear to have mattered to policy makers involved in the current occupation...nor to others, such as General Clark, whose OP ED in today's NYT had been the subject of several diaries.
Now, ask yourselves this...What IS democracy? Is it not the right to self-determination and rule by the will of the people governed? Rather than pontificating in the classic style of "the White Man's burden" and dictating to the Iraqis what they must or should do, should we not let them govern themselves?
While most Americans are unfamiliar with Iraq's substantial contributions to civilization, Iraqis are not. Iraq was the first nation state to codify secular law - The Code of Hammurabbi, in the 17th Century BC.
So, what DO the Iraqis think?
Oxford Research International, a research group founded by professors at Oxford University, have conducted five comprehensive suveys of Iraqis in the past two years. Four of the surveys have been published, the fifth is due to be reported "any day now." You can view details on data, sampling, and methodology at ORI's website.
Here are some interesting data and trends from the surveys:
What form should the new Iraqi government take?
A single, strong leader
71.5% (Nov. 2003)
84.4% (Feb. 2004)
86.6% (March 2004)
89.4% (June 2004)
Notice that the support for a "strongman" has increased as the occupation has continued. One could surmise that the Iraqis see their nation as being "out of control."
Which of the following are responsibilities of the government?
Healthcare 95.6%
Providing employment for all who seek it 96.4%
Providing housing 92.6%
(ORI first National survey of Iraq, Nov 2003)
So much for the Iraqis embracing the neo-con ideals of capitalism and social darwinism.
When asked in the initial November 2003 survey, "Who do you trust the most?"
the Clergy won (42.2%), followed by local community leaders (22.7%); the least trust was placed in political parties (6.1%) and US/UK occupation forces (7.6%)
Subsequent surveys simply asked, "Who do you trust?"
Levels of trust in the Iraqi Clerics continued to rise (87% said they were trustworthy) while trust in the US Coalition forces plummeted to only 5.3% of the respondent finding them worthy of trust.
p>
One interesting question asked was, Who do you not trust at all?" and listed a number of Iraqis. The top response was...Ahmed Chalabi, followed at a distant second by Saddam Hussein. Notice that Chalabi's ratings improved somewhat in the Summer of 2004, when he was "under investigation" by the Bush Administration:
While it shouldn't surprise anyone that SECURITY was been consistently deemed by Iraqis to be the issue that should be the number one priority of the government,
it may surprise you to know that 80-90% of Iraqis have consistently stated that "dealing with members of the prior regime" should have NO PRIORITY at all:
What nation should be the model for Iraq's new goverment?
The top three reponses were:
Top three responses:
Iraq needs no model 28.1%
The United Arab Emirates 28.1%
The United States 7.7%
(ORI first National survey of Iraq, Nov 2003)
Who is it acceptable to attack? was asked in the Feb 2004 and June 2004 surveys.
In February 2004, here are the percentages who deemed attacks on the following "acceptable" :
attacks on coalition forces - 18.1%
attacks on the CPA - 14.3%
attacks on foreigners working with the CPA - 10.7%
attacks on Iraqis working with the CPA - 4.7%
attacks on foreigners working for the UN and other humanitarian organizations - 2.8 %
attacks on the new Iraqi police - 1.5%
In June 2004, here are the percentages who deemed attacks on the following "acceptable" :
attacks on coalition forces - 32.9%
attacks on the CPA - 26.3%
attacks on foreigners working with the CPA - 14.9%
attacks on Iraqis working with the CPA - 9.7%
attacks on foreigners working for the UN and other humanitarian organizations - 5.6%
attacks on the new Iraqi police - 3.1%
NOTICE THAT THE "ACCEPTABILITY" OF ATTACKS DOUBLED OR NEARLY DOUBLED FOR EACH GROUP!