REGIME CHANGE IN REVERSE
Malcom Lagauche
Today, I am posting my 464th column of Lagauche Is Right. But, I want to highlight a piece I wrote 463 columns ago, my first online essay.
When I wrote this, Bush had declared victory over Iraq a couple of months previously. Paul Bremer was running the show in Iraq. The most important thing, however, was the beginning of the Iraqi resistance, that, at the time, was in its infancy I used a baseball analogy at that time when I said it was the top of the first inning.
Saturday, September 20, 2003
THE UNSPOKEN TRUTH
With the rising resistance in Iraq creating havoc with U.S. forces, many reasons for such actions have come forward from the U.S. administration: the naysayers are just a few disgruntled ex-Baathists; the insurgents don’t want progress in Iraq, etc. The truth of the inability for the peaceful reconstruction of Iraq is only whispered. No one has yet to publicly state the facts — there are many people in Iraq who supported the Saddam Hussein regime.
The mindless comments by U.S. leaders a few months ago stating that the Iraqi people would welcome the U.S. troops with flowers are not being repeated today. Tariq Aziz, former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister, currently in prison under the guard of U.S. forces, aptly stated in March 2003, "We will welcome the Americans in Baghdad. Unfortunately, we ran out of candy so we will have to use bullets."
Iraq differs from all previous uprisings or government changes in that it was a country not ready for a regime change. Many Iraqis were opposed to the rule of Saddam Hussein, but just as many, if not more, were content with their government. Unlike the former Shah of Iran, Saddam’s time had not come to relinquish his authority.
Today, U.S. troops are greeted with massive amounts of Iraqis holding Saddam Hussein posters and chanting pro-Saddam statements. Even some of Saddam’s former critics begrudgingly state that Iraq was better under the Baathist regime than currently under U.S. occupation, euphemistically called "liberation."
This is a no-brainer. If the U.S. and the world continue to keep the Baathists from a new Iraq, the attacks will go on for years. The Baath Socialist Party ran the country for 30 years. It is ludicrous to think a decree from a combat-boot-wearing U.S. administrator (Bremer), would immediately erase 30 years of culture and history. By the way, Bremer’s first name, Paul, when spoken, means "piss" in Arabic. This is another cultural aspect that has evaded the U.S. occupiers. Iraqis on the street take glee in stating "Paul" when talking about Bremer.
Only now do we hear pundits say, "Iraq was telling the truth about the weapons of mass destruction." We have been brainwashed so much that it seems difficult for people to admit that Iraq was telling the truth about anything and that the U.S. message was laden with lies of the most despicable sort. Lies that led to the deaths of over two million Iraqis in a 12-year span. Maybe someone will have the courage to state that a future Iraq must include Baathists in its government and culture. When that day comes, the violence will subside.
Many things have changed in Iraq since I wrote that article. Bloodshed is the rule of the day and there is no functioning government. Chaos reigns and there is no end in sight.
Over the three years of producing my column, many lefties have taken aim at my writing. They all profess to have been anti-war and, for the most part, anti-occupation, but they always qualified their articles with, "At least Saddam Hussein is gone." Unlike them, my reasoning that Iraq had become a basket case was different. I have always said the chaos evolved BECAUSE Saddam was gone.
I was called a "Saddam dupe," a "Saddam apologist," a "Saddam diehard," and other such designations. One writer told me that Saddam and the Ba’athists had absolutely nothing to do with the resistance: it was a popular movement that magically sprung up after April 9, 2003. Looking back, they were wrong and Lagauche was right
More than 30,000 Iraqi-Americans reside within a five-mile radius of my house. Every political faction is represented. Prior to March 2003, many met at the Iraqi-American Club in El Cajon, California. The anti-Saddam people sat on one side and the pro-Saddamers on the other. Each side published a monthly magazine.
After April 2003, most of the pro-Saddam people went to other venues at night time. However, a fellow named Kareem kept coming. Most of the time, he sat alone. The others berated him and pointed their fingers in his direction and laughed. Kareem never was intimidated or changed his views.
At about this time, I went into a print shop owned by Monsour, an Iraqi-American. He told me he was thrilled that Saddam was gone. When I asked why, he said, "Saddam used to steal gold from old women." To me, that was a curious statement, so I asked if he ever saw Saddam do this. "No," he replied. Then I asked him if anyone he knew ever saw this act. Again, he stated, "No." I smiled and left the shop.
For the past few months, we have been seeing headlines from the U.S. national media such as, "Gays Better Off Under Saddam," "Doctors Better Off Under Saddam," "Teachers Better Off Under Saddam," and "Women Better Off Under Saddam." The writers seem to treat this phenomenon with shock. They are myopic and did not understand either Iraqi mentality or the mentality of a population under occupation.
A few weeks ago, we heard much about an upcoming meeting of Iraq’s tribal chiefs. Both Bush and Malaki talked much about the get-together. Malaki met with their representatives and asked them to support his "reconciliation" program.
The chiefs did meet, but little has been put in print about the outcome. Malaki and Bush are silent. On September 2, 2006, the Washington Post ran a story called, "A Demand for Hussein’s Release; Sunni Chieftans Also Urge Resistance Against U.S.-Led Forces." Here is the first paragraph:
A coalition of 300 Iraqi tribal leaders on Saturday demanded the release of Saddam Hussein so he could reclaim the presidency and also called for armed resistance against U.S.-led forces.
The chiefs represent almost two million Iraqis. If they are true to their words, it appears that the Iraqi resistance will become considerably more widespread.
Several other organizations, including a Youth Tribal group from the south, as well as Chaldean (Iraqi Christians) factions, have repeated the same call in the past few days.
After Saddam Hussein was kidnapped in December 2003, many large pro-Saddam rallies occurred. Then, Bremer made a law forbidding any public display supporting Saddam or any possessing pictures of him in public. The penalty was a minimum two years in prison. Most of the supporters then silently spoke of their president.
In the past couple of weeks, in addition to the proclamations given by groups, public displays are sprouting up. The U.S. has its hands full with defending the lives of its soldiers, so the public demonstrations are not being stopped and are growing.
I have another Iraqi friend who owns a print shop, Tony. He knows virtually everyone in the Iraqi-American community of El Cajon. He told me that he recently spoke to an Arabic translator who just returned from Mosul. He told Tony he was done with the work, even though he was offered double his salary to return. He added that Mosul is in the hands of the resistance and that no police or U.S. soldiers are on the streets. Because he worked for the U.S. government, he was considered a traitor by the resistance, so he did not renew his contract. He spoke of open support for Saddam on the streets. Just two years ago, this would have been impossible.
I then asked Tony about Monsour, whom I have not seen since my earlier-mentioned discussion. "He says that Saddam should be back," Tony told me. He added, "The whole community is saying that now."
If you go to the Iraqi-American club in El Cajon these evenings, Kareem is still there on his side of the building. But, he no longer sits alone.