IRAQ: HISTORY IN THE MAKING

 

 

by

 

 Narender K. Sehgal

 

            

             Do you realize that we are witnessing history in the making in Iraq? Slowly,  but surely, attempts are on to redraw the geo-political map of the world. The West Asian region, which happens to possess a very significant proportion of the world’s hydrocarbon/fossil-fuel resources, is presently in focus.

 

                 History in the making in deed! But after much of the dust settles, if it ever does fully, in one, two or five, years, one wonders what the history of the “Iraq War” would read like! You can be sure that there would be many a version of this “history” in circulation, in different parts of the world, a decade or two hence. What about Iraq? Which version would the Iraqi school children get to read in their text books in the year 2004, 2005, or 2008? It depends on several factors relating to events and the course of developments that would follow during the long period required for some kind of normalcy and stability to return to that country.

                

                 Let’s return to different versions of the history of “Iraq War”, currently in the making. Even as of now, there are at least four distinct perceptions of what is and has been going on in Iraq:

 

 

 

·         The Arab-Islamic Version

 

Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on USA (in New York and Washington etc.), America has mounted an all-out aggressive attack on Islam in the name of ‘war on terror’. It first invaded Afghanistan to arrest and punish Bin Laden and Taliban leader Omar. Having failed to do that, and using the occasion to establish a permanent military presence in  that area, it next set its eyes on Iraq – with oil-wealth only next to Saudi Arabia’s. The USA tried very hard, with its blind-follower UK in tow, to get UN Security Council to put its stamp of approval on an attack on Iraq. Even though it did not succeed, it went ahead and attacked Iraq with massive bombing raids on Baghdad in mid-March, 2003. There were massive protests all over the world, including USA and UK, against this unauthorized, criminal and illegal aggression on Iraq. Even though it was a grossly one-sided war – what with all Iraqi defense and war machinery destroyed through prolonged and continuing sanctions and air raids at will by USA and UK – it took almost 30 days instead of the 4 –5 the Americans had originally anticipated, to secure control of Baghdad. In doing so, thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in schools, markets, hospitals, and residential areas were killed, many times more injured and maimed, and public and private property worth millions destroyed by US air power through use of massive 2000 tonne bombs, never previously used on civilians by any country. The fall of Baghdad was followed by spells of wanton looting of virtually everything; some of it appeared to have been planned and organized – like the one which left the National Museum bare and bereft of all its priceless, ancient treasures. This has been followed by massive protests by Iraqis demanding end to looting, return of law and order, restoration of communication, power and water utilities/services /supplies – and at many places demands that the aggressors leave Iraq to Iraqis. While the Americans guarded the oil installations well, they did not do anything to prevent all the other looting that went on till there was nothing left to take away. And all premises on which the launch of the USA-UK invasion was based have turned out to be without basis. No  so-called  weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have been found and they have not been able to get hold of Saddam Hussein, or any of his close family members. Thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed, maimed, injured, orphaned,  rendered homeless and left without their basic and essential support systems. The basic idea behind the American invasion of Iraq smacks of her desire to recast the geo-political map of  West-Asia, secure control over the region’s oil-wealth (and routes for its transport to the west), and establish strategic military bases in the area to support its future aggressive designs. Statements coming out of Washington immediately after the fall of Baghdad gave clear signals of their immediate  future goals – Syria and Iran. The sole super power of the world would appears to have gone berserk!

 

 

 

·         The America-Britain version

 

For well over a decade,  Iraq had defied UN Security Council Resolutions and continued to make/possess/amass/hide WMDs. Continuation of Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq posed an immediate threat to the world, because of his links with and active support to Al Qaida’s terror network; there was every likelihood of WMDs being passed on to Al Qaida, for the latter to carry out its terrorist attacks against America, American interests, and the rest of the free world. There was thus an immediate need to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and rid it of its WMDs. Removal of Saddam Hussein was also necessary to free Iraqi people from the tyranny of the planet’s worst dictator, who had terrorized, jailed and killed thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, innocent Iraqis and  even used WMDs on a section of its own citizens. Because of all these reasons, America and Britain could wait no longer and  were forced to take action and move into Iraq. In less than a month, with a minimum of collateral damage, they had liberated Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein and were on course to let Iraqis have a chance to have a free and democratic regime something they have only longed for, but never had.

 

 

·         The European version

 

The European Union countries led by France and Germany (and joined by Russia) insisted that the UN arms inspectors be given more time to look for WMDs to verify USA-UK claims that Iraq was hiding/making them, and/or had in-tact technical infra-structural capabilities to produce them in numbers. They also insisted that only after the Security Council had considered and discussed the UN arms inspectors’ final report on their inspections in Iraq, would it decide the future course of action – and that the USA-UK had not been authorized to take any action on their own. Even though they agreed that Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical ruler and deserved  to be removed from power, the European countries were not sure if USA-UK had any right to bring about that change by use of external force; Iraqis could be helped and encouraged to do that on their own. In any case, now that Iraq had been rid of Saddam Hussein, the reconstruction, rehabilitation and humanitarian work ought to be overseen and directed by the UN and that the oil wealth of Iraq should be left alone for Iraqis to use to rebuild their country.

 

 

·         The non-Arab, non-Muslim version

 

Following  the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, under direct US pressure, there have been all kinds of sanctions imposed on Iraq. Though some sanctions were justified as punishment of Iraq for its invasion of a small neighbour, over the years, they have resulted in economic and other systematic devastation of Iraq, causing untold hardships to innocent Iraqi citizens – widespread malnutrition, deaths and rising mortality rates; coupled with unilateral air-raids by USA and UK in the name of maintaining the so-called no-fly zones imposed by the USA-UK combine, all this had ruined Iraq’s economy as well as physical health. Many countries of the world, including some of the permanent members of the Security Council, had been arguing for the removal, or lowering of some (if not all) of the sanctions. But USA-UK had always opposed this tooth and nail [accusing Iraq of continuing its programme of making/acquiring WMDs, and of atrocities on its own citizens (Shias, Kurds etc.)]. But if one looks at the pre-1991 scenario of the West-Asia region, one would discover that Saddam Hussein, the dictator, had been a favourite of the USA and other western powers and all his WMD ambitions and capabilities had been fanned and helped along by the USA, UK and other western sources. And before that, who else but USA and friends were responsible for encouraging and building up of the likes of Bin Laden and the Taliban, against the USSR/Russians, via Pakistan. It had been quite obvious that the USA-UK had been planning and working to invade Iraq for a long while. They had tried hard to get it legitimized via a UN Security Council approval but failed. All their justifications, like everyone knew before hand, were all rubbish and have been proven so on the ground as well. Their undeclared objectives, apart from control of Iraq’s oil resources, military bases in that country have been: in-situ test of their newest weapons, weapon systems and technologies; redrawing of the geo-political map of the West-Asia region; and giving a naked demonstration of their brute military might in the face of world-wide and UN opposition to send a clear “fall-in-line, or else…” signal to the opposers of the US viewpoint. The USA appears to have appointed itself as the world’s one and only cop, prosecutor, jury and judge, all rolled into one. On the other hand, strong evidence has been mounting which indicates that arguments and “proofs” that the USA and UK have been waving in support of their accusations against Iraq have been found to be false, fake and forgeries, and that they were bent upon invading Iraq no matter what. In this connection, statements/revelations made recently by Dr Hans Blix, the Chief Weapons Inspector of the UN, in regard to the USA/UK intentions against Iraq, have been most damaging. They have dealt severe blows to the diplomatic credibility of the USA-UK combine.

 

 

Except for the school history text-books in Iraq, and perhaps in a few neighbouring Arab countries (like Kuwait), if at all, this slice of history would hardly merit any space in school text books. There is little doubt that history/social science text books would soon undergo major and drastic changes in Iraq after the disappearance of Saddam Hussein from Power. What perception(s) of the War in Iraq would find place in their new text books remains to be seen. It is not difficult to foresee a clash of views on this between the occupation forces’ (USA-UK) perception and local perceptions of the Iraqi War!

 

               Elsewhere in the world, between the covers of erudite history and social science journals and non-fiction (and fiction) literature, different perceptions, versions, or a mixture of these, would appear and five or ten years down the time line, reading “mainstream”  history of the Iraq War would perhaps amuse most of us who are presently witnessing the war and its history in the making. In several different regions of the world, reading the authorized or “real” versions of the Iraq War history, in circulation there, would make one wonder whether one is reading about the same war that one had witnessed as it was happening! Who would be able to say which version(s) is/are the ‘real’ one (s) and which one(s) is/are “rewritten”/reworked/doctored”. And this is going to be so, in this day and age of the ‘internet’, ‘globalisation’, and availability somewhere of the original recordings of all that is being presently written/seen/reported about the Iraq War.

 

               Compare this with the extremely contentious situation we have witnessed in recent times in India in connection with versions, changes and ‘doctoring’ of our past history in our school text-books, when there is a dearth of good, authentic,  primary sources, but a plethora of interpreters of history (all of them with degrees from recognised institutions) being known as belonging to the sangh/saffron parivar, the secularists, the majority baiters, the minority baiters/appeasers, and saffron sniffing jholawallas, communists and leftists of different hues – you take your pick!– with some of them fancying themselves a s more ‘famous’ and awarded, more ‘authentic’ and better regarded and ‘respected’ than others!

 

               Who is to say which version of history is truer than another version? At the end of the day, “history” of an event/happening is, or turns out to be (whether one likes it or not), what ‘victors’ in war, or those in power at the time of recording/writing for the text books or journals, would will it to be – nothing more and nothing less! 

 

 

 

          Dr Narender K. Sehgal

                 501/Block-II, Kirti Apartments

Mayur Vihar-I (Extn.)

Delhi-110091

 

Phone:     011-22716543

Mobile:   9868072389