Bombs will deepen Iraq's nightmare

I am an Iraqi British woman (half-Kurdish, half-Arab). I have lived in Britain since 1976. I can't go back to Iraq because, like many Iraqis, I was imprisoned and tortured. When I was released I was haunted by human howls of pain and memories of the dead.

Once in London, I could hardly believe I was safe in a democratic country. The day that I first exercised my right to vote was one of the happiest of my life. On election day 1979, I was up at 5am. I was the first to vote that day. I voted Labour. The Conservatives won.

The massacre of Halabja in 1988 went unnoticed here. Iraq was then the darling of the west. Iraq fought the west's war with Iran, to protect their interests and ensure a free market for oil. But this was Mrs Thatcher's government, which supported friendly dictators and normalised relations with military regimes.

In 1990, the Iraqi regime occupied Kuwait, and the US and UK decided Saddam had breached his contract of employment. In January 1991, hell was unleashed against the Iraqi people. The bombing lasted 43 days, destroyed many civilian targets and massacred tens of thousands of defenceless conscripts. Iraqis were shocked and confused: it seemed bizarre to punish them for the crimes of their persecutors.

Confusion turned to numbness when people discovered they were to be subject to one of the most comprehensive campaigns of economic sanctions in modern history. On December 6 1995, I sent an A4 padded envelope to my nieces and nephews in Mosul. It contained one pencil case, three erasers, three sharpeners, six fountain pens, two markers, one glue-stick and two Biros. It was marked "gift for children". The envelope was returned, stamped: "Due to international sanctions against Iraq, we are not able to forward your packet." But that was under John Major.

In 1997, the Labour party was at last elected, and Robin Cook declared the government's foreign policy to be "ethical". I applauded. But what has the restoration of hope brought? Continuing sanctions, for a start, which has meant starvation, death and intellectual stagnation. The bombing of Iraq has never stopped either. The USAF and RAF have been bombing civilians almost daily since December 1998; 144 civilians were killed in raids in 1999 alone. For the rest, life in Iraq goes on, as hard as ever.

Here are some paragraphs from two personal letters. The first, from a relative: "We women spend most of our time doing what our grandmothers used to do: we are staying home, sieving flour, baking bread, preparing and storing tomato puree and raising chickens."

The next, from a friend: "Let me share a laugh with you. As Selma, my wife, was being wheeled out of the operating theatre, the doctor handed me two things: a long prescription and, what else, do you think? Selma's uterus! I had to go find the medicine as soon as possible, and also to take the uterus to a private lab for a biopsy. It was the start of a 20-hour madman's journey around Baghdad."

So how do I now find myself standing by Iraq's dictatorial regime, while Tony Blair presents himself as the defender of both democracy and the Iraqi people? For decades, it was the other way around. Iraqis were not only resisting the oppressive regime, they were sacrificing their lives for change long before the occupation of Kuwait. They appealed for help from western governments. Their request was: stop supplying the Ba'ath regime with weapons. Nobody listened.

It's 2001: election time again. I hesitated, but still voted Labour. What choice did I have? Now the US is pushing for a massive assault on Iraq, and Blair is one of the few leaders willing to offer troops. Can it be true that the man I voted for is now preparing to "liberate" Iraq, in the same way he liberated Afghanistan, by ensuring the death of thousands of civilians? Is it true that he is relying on the Iraqi National Congress, a group set up in the early 90s with CIA help, and now funded by the State Department? Does he know that they are loathed by most Iraqis?

You are "either with us or against us", they say. As an Iraqi that means choosing between war and the dictator. To be on the side of the oppressed does not mean we are unaware of the complexity of the situation. To campaign for the lifting of sanctions, for an end to the paralysing bombardment and daily threat of war is to stand by the Iraqi people; it is that policy which will help them to change the oppressive regime. Any change should be initiated from within Iraq, not imposed by Bush or Blair.

When I hear Tony Blair speak on Iraq, I am reminded of my old landlady, who asked me, politely, in the late 1970s, about home. I explained a little about the government there and how it doesn't give a damn about people. She listened attentively then, in a nice, gentle way, said: "Next time, don't vote for him dear."

She has valid points. She doesn't go far beyond personal experience. I'd say.. Try to put yourself in her shoes. The sad part is... nobody really cares. And she knows it. I would be irritated if this happened to me. What went wrong?

Well WJC I suppose! GHWB lost his 2nd term when he lost the propaganda war: 'what about domestic politics?'. In the four years of WJC's first term, not much media attention was given to the Iraqi situation. No progress was really being made. The same tactic used against GHWB could have been used against WJC: 'What about foreign affairs? What is going on in Iraq?. Iraqis may not have died off in droves as many believe (propaganda.. Whatever) but in either case we ought to be more responsible. You can't just kill the bully and become the next bully and expect them to run to you with open arms. What happened to us? We just decided to sit on the bench while Iraqis suffered needlessly for 8 or more years?

When GHWB lost to WJC, so did the war. If COTUS had made a declaration of war it could have put the screws into any administration to press it into completion. Declaration of war is effective. If your going to war, make war the right way. Huge words on the times reading "Congress Declares War" mobilizes the nation with common objectives, a clear target, and a sense of its end would be like (i.e.. Victory). It is WJC's fault that he didn't care about the Iraqi's, it was GHWBr's *mistake* of settling with half-assed legal mumbo jumbo and faux authority of the UN. Iraq isn't even in the UN. Its neighbors aren't in the UN. Iraq didn't attack a UN affiliated nation! W! Don't make this mistake again! COTUS is damn'ed if they don't declare war, not you!.... If they have the brains to write "The Congress of the United States Declares War on Iraq today on the nineteenth of July this year of two thousand and two." W can do the rest. IF COTUS does not declare war and we get hit by a WMD, they are to blame not POTUS.

More importantly, the Iraqi's situation wasn't expounded much in the media. The public didn't care because the public wasn't informed. Imagine being under 10 years of sanctions, while the government is the enemy of thought, and the international community imposes rules that punish civilians more than Saddam personally. Who builds 29 palaces (or whatever)... Saddam has survived many coup attempts and I don't think an unarmed populace such as the Iraqis should be to blame for its totalitarian government. Especially when you can't buy guns legally in the market!

If Iraqis have modern medicine and manufacturing, its in spite of the dictator not because of him. They are pretty resourceful, perhaps an up and coming nation. At least compared to their neighbors! They don't have to be sworn enemies. Or at least they didn't have to be. 20/20 hind sight looks so clear. Especially when I was only 13 when Desert Storm started.

Do on to others as you would have done on to you. And as the latines would say "don't do on the others as you would not wish it done to you" (I'm poorly quoting from Hobbe's Leviathan).

massacred tens of thousands of defenceless conscripts

I found this funny. thanks to our superior technology, we were able to attack Saddam's army without endangering our own men. We only lost 160 or so men and women in Gulf War

... we are now supposed to feel sympathy for the members of Saddam's army for that fact, even though they invaded Kuwait???. Liberal Guardian logic. ... our cause would be so much more noble if we let them kill some more of our soldiers, eh???

All the more reason to get rid of Saddam. to him, his own people's lives are expendible.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Question: How can a Conscript be defenseless? According to Webster's Dictionary, a Conscript is a person that has been compulsorly enrolled in the military as a Soldier. So, how can an armed soldier be defenseless?

Question:

How can a Conscript be defenseless?

According to Webster's Dictionary, a Conscript is a person that has been compulsorly enrolled in the military as a Soldier. So, how can an armed soldier be defenseless?