By Halil Cihan Ergul
Since the beginning of last week, the news of the world has been focused on the Iraqi city of Falluja. Starting last Monday, the city has witnessed one of the most destructive series of attacks by the U.S. Army. Apparently, the result of the presidential election provided a motivation for the Pentagon to strengthen its force in the land and to erase any sign of resistance coming from Iraqi people.
Two weeks ago, as democrat voters fell short of their goal to change the direction the country is headed, they remained as democrat insurgents of a (barely) Republican United States for another term. As John Kerry tried to get votes from the conservative red states that will never vote for him, and designed his presidential campaign in accordance with this strategy, he sacrificed support from the people who might vote for him in an indecisive mood. He didn’t provide a distinct alternative to the public and as a result, the schedule of the U.S. agenda for Iraq will remain in effect for another term of Republican administration.
Recently, Falluja has been called the principal base of Iraqi insurgency and now stages one of the most destructive parts of war. Invasion of the city hazards civil life and due to the strict conditions imposed by US forces, medical help cannot be delivered to the city. The papers generally call the ones who die in front of their apartments terrorists or insurgents of an unknown origin and once again facts such as they are Iraqis from Falluja and they simply deny the invasion, are being neglected again. Sooner or later, due to the large inequality of power, insurgency will fail in the city and these locals will pay for it with their lives; but how we expect them to be described in the high school history books of 2050’s democratic Iraq is an interesting question. If we expect them to be described as terrorists, we will find that there can be no social dynamic that could make the future Iraqi generations see them that way and this is why the liberation war as you know it can never be won. More importantly, by abolishing the legitimate characteristics of this struggle and pushing it to the margin, the authorities should be aware of the fact that it is even harder to fight against something in the margin than something legitimate. After all, 9/11 was the attack of a far away margin to the very center of the world.
Of course this shouldn’t be perceived as a plea to negotiate with the ones who try to get political power by using tension. The ways for ones who would use terrorism as a means to gain political influence should always be closed. That would be one of the worst things that could happen and we have already seen one bitter example before the Spanish elections. On the other hand, the U.S. military city-by-city visits may result in clans of insurgency as a reaction, where each region unites under its own leader. The first one is out there: Mukteda El Sadr, the leader of the Mehdi Army. He was named as one of the critical sources of insurgency in Najaf. But today, he turns out to be more of a political figure whose way of governance and motivating others doesn’t promise a democratic future at all.
Soon, we may witness another one in Falluja too. And one day, a divided and still undemocratic Iraq may pose more danger than an undivided and undemocratic one. And if this division occurs at a time when new Iraqi government is too young and the U.S. military is too tired to handle it, the scope of the problem can spread quickly to the whole Middle East.
On Oct. 23, Charlie Brooker, from the British Newspaper The Guardian said “John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. – where are you now that we need you?” in his column and in the following days he apologized for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush and assassinations of former U.S. presidents. We definitely don’t need any of them but we can only hope we will see a peaceful future in Iraq without the need of another Paul W. Tibbets, the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, as well. n