Samer Kurdi

I believe my attitude towards this war before it started was representative of the attitudes of most people in Jordan and the region; that of suspicion of the Americans and the reasons behind this war. The Americans have little credibility in this part of the world, largely because of their bias towards Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. Most Arabs consider this to be an unreasonable, unjust bias that has little to do with the issues themselves and a lot to do with internal US politics, and with placating a domestic lobby with deep pockets and disproportionate representation. Moreover, most Arabs see the duplicity inherent in the US lecturing Arab and "Islamic" countries about democracy on the one hand, and its history of bolstering most of these repressive regimes in the first place, Saddam himself being the foremost example. Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people and the US and the west turned a blind eye and in fact propped up his regime, therefore whether they like it or not they bear some of the responsibility. Now they want Saddam to be accountable but they do not own up to their own responsibility in what he (and others like him) did. They just want to be the Hollywood-style "liberators". 

I’ve never been to Baghdad, but the sight of it being bombed and being engulfed in balls of flame was very disturbing to me and to everybody I know. Despite the circumstances and my own support for the deposition of the Iraqi regime, I felt that the bombing of Baghdad was a violation, a transgression; more "destroy and kill" than "shock and awe". In Iraq most everyone had a brother, an uncle, or a cousin in the Army, therefore every family in Iraq faced the prospect of losing a loved one, even if civilians were being spared. No matter how much confidence the Americans had in their weapons, every bomb flying through the air is a gamble which endangered people's lives, and it turned out that in fact civilians were being killed every day. The Americans might claim that this was the only way; maybe so, but I am certain that these causalities and images would have been at least more acceptable to the public if this war had been sanctioned by the UN and seen to be legitimate, not just in Arab countries but throughout the world. 

Ever since the first Gulf war, Jordan became home to a fairly large community of Iraqis, either fleeing Saddam or just trying to make a living. A couple of nights before Baghdad fell I went to an Iraqi restaurant in downtown Amman, a popular, cheap place always crowded with Iraqi expatriates and workers. The place, usually brimming with activity, was empty. The Iraqi young man who served me said that most of his clientele had gone back to Iraq, some to be with their families "to protect their families", some, according to him, went back to fight. This man was quite forthcoming with his views; "anybody", he said, "is better than Saddam". He was Shi'a, and Saddam, he said, prevented them from doing their Friday prayers (which I took to mean that Saddam suppressed some forms of Shi'a religious expression). That, for him, seemed to be the clincher; the irrevocable proof that Saddam was the incarnation of evil. "But we don’t like the Americans”, he added, "the Americans better watch out. If they are 'bad' then the Iraqis will boot them out."   

The next day the airport fell, and soon after statues were toppling on all the satellite TV stations. It was a very significant, sobering moment for Jordanians. Shock and shame, but shame, I suppose, mainly that Baghdad (and Iraq) could fall so quickly to an invading force. Conspiracy theories were abound to make sense of what was happening; Saddam was betrayed by somebody high up, or Republican guard generals had sold out and reached secret agreements with the Americans to lay down their arms, or Saddam himself had cut a deal and fled.   

To be absolutely honest, and as far as I could tell, there were not very many Jordanians who, deep down, wanted Saddam to survive.  Many, perhaps the majority, merely wanted the US to pay a high price, to be bogged down in a Vietnam-style quagmire, to have a perceived American arrogance deflated. 

I have to be honest and say that the sight of jubilant Iraqis affected me and made me think that perhaps something good will come out of this in the long run. Iraqis and Jordanians alike were generally glad to see the regime gone, but there’s also a lot of apprehension, even a sense of foreboding as to what’s going to happen next. I know of an Iraqi woman whose husband, a professor, had a falling out with the regime a number of years ago and left his country and his position in an Iraqi University as a consequence. These people were no fans of Saddam, and yet I heard she actually had a breakdown the night it became clear that Baghdad had fallen to the Americans and was taken to hospital. Yes, the majority of people were happy that things have changed, but many felt that somehow their own pride had been stepped on in the process, most vividly symbolized by the bombing then the fall (and subsequent looting) of Baghdad. The general mood in Jordan was mostly ambivalent; relief that the war is over (and Saddam gone), and mistrust of the Americans and what is to come next. 

Things were changing in the Arab world even before the Americans began the war. When I was growing up there was no such thing as real Arab media, just government sponsored rhetoric. These “broadcast services” still exist today, but this war has illustrated that today there is mainstream Arab media that is on par with that in the west, and is even better when it comes to coverage of this part of the world.  

I was in the United States when this war first began, up until 12 or so days into it, and I must say that, unfortunately, the war coverage on the mainstream US networks reminded me of Arab government-owned media. “Today 3,000 troops left fort so-and-so Virginia on their way to the Gulf to [defend] our country” said the MSNBC newscaster, insidiously parroting government rhetoric and policy when reporting a simple factual event.  The other mainstream networks also all behaved as if they were mouthpieces of the administration, dedicating scarce little time to coverage of the mounting toll of civilian casualties, and much time preaching the neo-American propaganda which prescribes conformity and muffles dissent in the name of "supporting the troops". I couldn't believe it; here was the US "spreading democracy" in the Middle East through the barrel of a tank, while at home in the mainland America was turning into an Arab state. 

I am proud of the way that many of the satellite Arab networks covered this war, proud that these services have demonstrated that there is even such a thing as an Arab "voice". It might be true that many of these Arab stations had a certain slant and subscribe to a certain distinctly Arab rhetoric, but they also managed in many cases to provide a more objective coverage than their counterparts in the west. I am especially proud that some, notably Aljazeera, refused to be subservient to any particular government, an accomplishment the US networks in my opinion were not able to match. I am also proud that Aljazeera has established itself as a force to be reckoned with on the global stage, which would have been inconceivable to think for an Arab news source when I was growing up. 

The Americans, of course, indicate that their actions are to be judged according to the ultimate outcome of the war, and therefore they did not need the international community to legitimate these actions. But is it true that the end justifies the means? Is this the kind of morality which the US wants to teach people around the world? Either way, the world in general and the Iraqis in particular will indeed judge this adventure through the outcome not of the war but of the peace, and whether the Americans like it or not their credibility and their intentions are no less suspect today that they were at the beginning of the war.  

A decade of sanctions has hurt the Iraqi people much more than it hurt Saddam's regime, made the Iraqis a generally introverted society, and created a huge distance between them and the west. With the possible exception of the Kurds, the majority of Iraqis does not like the Americans and are wary of the reasons that brought them to Iraq in the first place. Many people see the looting, the destruction of public property and the destruction of many aspects of the cultural heritage of Iraq (while the marines made sure the Oil ministry was protected) as a narrative which symbolizes this occupation and a harbinger of what's to come.  

In Jordan and in the larger Arab world people simply do not believe that the US will introduce true democracy in Iraq, because such a state would most certainly conflict with the pro-US puppet state the Americans are going to require. Many Iraqis, on the other hand, now desperately want to believe that there's going to be democracy in their country, especially those who are living outside of Iraq. I believe the Iraqis are going to give the US multiple chances and the benefit of the doubt, but I am certain that their worst fear deep inside is that the US simply will not allow a true sovereign democracy to take hold.  

Do I think there's going to be a peaceful and stable future for Iraq? I do, because Iraq has money, and everybody wants it to be a stable, safe place to do business (especially the Americans). I work for a Jordanian pharmaceutical company and Iraq has traditionally been our biggest market. This is true for the Jordanian generics pharmaceutical industry in general, but is also true for the Jordanian economy as a whole. I can report firsthand that this war has had a significant adverse effect on us and all Jordanian businesses, and the whole business community in Jordan is waiting impatiently for order and stability to return so that they can get down to business again. 

I am certain that the Americans will make sure that all the disparate groups within Iraq have a piece of the pie and therefore have something to lose if it is not peaceful and stable, and that it will work out. I am less hopeful about democracy; the way I imagine things will unfold is that this US administration will defer the matter way into the future through a succession of interim governments, and probably leave the issue of democracy for some future administration to deal with. Eventually, I believe the Americans will employ the Turkish model in Iraq; they will impose a secular constitution on Iraq which the new Iraqi army will "guarantee"; and a civilian government with the trappings of democracy and representation will uneasily "coexist" with America's new Iraqi army. 

The best thing to come out of this war, in my view, is that the US now is directly engaged with the Arab masses. As someone who knows the Americans and has spent lots of time in America, I am certain that this can only be a good thing. I believe that if all parties involved at least became more culturally aware of the other, the causes of peace and stability in this region will receive a boost. Many Arabs are watching closely to see how America will deal with the aspirations of the Arab street, when Arab regimes have traditionally responded to these with varying degrees of oppression and repression, and where the US has traditionally dealt with these issues by backing these repressive regimes.

No matter how much the Americans seem like they did not have good post war planning, seem to have miscalculated on their choice to back Ahmed Chalabi, or did not anticipate the power (and the organization) of the mosques, I believe the post-war diplomatic stroke of genius for the Americans is the pursuit of the Israeli-Palestinian road map for peace. If George Bush has the political will and wherewithal to push these two sides towards a settlement, and if this settlement is seen by the Palestinian to be reasonably fair and viable, then America's position in Iraq and its chances for creating a stable and pro-American government in Iraq will be much increased. Indeed, by doing this they would rob the most virulent anti-Americans in and outside the region of the ground from which they get much of their support. The Neo-conservatives in the US have theorized that the instability in the Middle East comes more from oppressive regimes like Saddam's and the lack of democracy. They are wrong. I live in an Arab country and I know what people say in downtown Amman; the Arabs want democracy, yes – they see it as an improvement, an evolution, but Palestine to the Arab masses symbolizes a bleeding wound which captures the imagination much more than the idea of democracy. In fact, to the Arabs the Palestinian question has come to represent everything that is wrong with the democracy the Americans say they want to export, a symbol, to them, of how democracy is not a guarantee against bias and injustice and the corrupting influence of money. 

Samer Kurdi

Amman,

Jordan