Freedom to Repress the Press

Another Times article this morning covers the closing of Al Hawza a paper "considered a mouthpiece for Moktada al-Sadr, a fiery young Shiite cleric and one of the most outspoken critics of the Americans."

The article is well worth reading, as it provides insight into a fundamental issue with the occupation: the failure of the United States to grasp the intricacies of Iraqi society. Neo-conservatives seem to think that Middle East societies will simply adopt--lock, stock, and barrel--the "western" model, and often accuse skeptics like myself of being racist, or at least condescending, when we suggest that this isn't necessarily the case.

The region we now call Iraq, which is a 20th century name coined by the British, has extensive experience with civic institutions, whether or not they are 'democratic' as we in the US define the term. History did not cease with Hussein, nor was it non-existent prior to his usurption of power. In the end, the people of the region will decide for themselve how they wish to be governed--an imposed 'democracy,' regardless of how noble the intent, will last about as long as South Vietnam, i.e., when the US troops are gone, it will fall apart.

I think what amazes me most about the situation in Iraq is the unbelievable level of naiivete among the right: they somehow think that the US government--which, by the way, is so representative of the people and responsive to their needs that HALF the public no longer even votes--but they think our government will of course 'fit like a gove' anywhere in the world. It's as if a social order has never existed in the conquered lands...

Which is a major reason why the occupation is failing so miserably. There are other reasons as well: initially, our force level was WAY too small, our 'operational intelligence' is either non-existant or WRONG (thanks for NOTHING, Chalabi), and many of the decisions made by the CPA have been plain stupid. But don't forget that we also have a fundamental lack of understanding of "how things get done" in the region. And this lack of understanding is pissing them off. Whether or not Saddam Hussein was the despot in chief, day-to-day existence for the people there involved customs and procedures of which we have no understanding at all. I doubt seriously that ANY person pushing for an invasion of Iraq in 2003 could tell you anything regarding Iraqi methods of handing civil disputes, probate and succession, marriage and divorce, specific rights of property holders, etc., not to mention anything about less formal methods of dispute resolution, i.e., whether this might have been handled in the mosque, or through established families, or any other method, be it fair or not. Without an understanding of these basic tenets of civil society, how can any occupier hope to gain the consent of the governed?

Long hard slog doesn't begin to describe what's happing in Iraq.