ZNet Commentary
Is It Wrong To Defend Najaf? August 20, 2004
By Andre Vltchek
Najaf - Shia holy city in Iraq is turning once again into a battle field. Thousands of supporters of a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr now control the shrine, one of the holiest places of Shia Muslims, as well as the streets around it. US forces are attacking from the ground and from the air, inflicting heavy casualties. Hundreds of defenders of Najaf had been already killed and Al-Sadr himself was wounded. The war in Iraq continues.
Western press labels Mr. Sadr as "radical" and "anti-American". He is quoted as saying that the United States is intent on "occupying the whole world", adding that "The presence of occupation in Iraq has made our country an unbearable hell".
He also pledged to fight the occupation forces until his last drop of blood; his own blood, not just the blood of his supporters.
All this is understandable. History knows almost no case of occupation that would not encounter strong resistance. French and Polish resistance fought against Germans during the WWII, Hungarians fought Soviet Red Army in 1950's and Vietnamese people were defending themselves against the overwhelming American invasion force. Palestinians continue fighting Israeli army. On the other hand, every occupation force, past and present, tries to destroy resistance, demonizing it in the process, labeling its members as "radicals", "extremists", even "terrorists".
So why are we suddenly so surprised now when the similar situation occurs in Iraq; previously independent country that we ruthlessly overrun, after some false presumptions and outright lies? Why are we shocked by the vigor of the resistance to our armed forces and the puppet government?
To clean the record, it's not that Al-Sadr is particularly "anti-American", as the official press lately enjoys calling him (again, no surprise, since we call "Anti-American" and "radical" everyone who stands against our global designs). To mark Ramadan on November 6, 2003, he sent the letter to the occupation forces that states: "...I hope you will send my greetings and my thanks to the American people who love peace. I thank them because they supported us by demonstrations. I love them because I wanted to guide them to God and I wish to unify them with our people..."
Almost one year later, there seems to be no chance for peaceful settlement. Occupation continues, despite half-hearted "transfer of power"; atrocities by the occupation forces at prisons and detention centers had been unveiled, security is collapsing and majority of Iraqis are now living in unimaginable misery and hopelessness.
In this political, military and social climate, Al-Sadr called on his supporters to fight against the occupation and to defend their city promising to lead personally the revolt and spill his own blood.
As an agnostic, I would probably have some great difficulties to understand Al-Sadr's religious motives for this revolt. However, no matter from what angle I try to look at the situation, I understand why he had chosen to defend his own city against the foreign invasion.
Before the fighting began, al-Sadr made unusually civil statement, saying that those who are ready to stay and fight on his side are welcomed and those who want to leave are welcomed as well.
In the modern world, his statements and approach are almost unprecedented. In the time of conflicts, our leaders are always ready to sacrifice thousands and millions of people for their own goals, never risking their own precious lives. This is true of our enemies (Mr. Hussein and Mr. Bin-Ladin) as well as for our own allies (the same Mr. Hussein when he was still on our payroll, as well as Generals Suharto and Pinochet to name just a few).
It is also true of our own leaders. Who could ever forget that long and embarrassing silence when the US President and Commander-in-chief learned that our country had been attacked on September 11th? He finished his infantile reading and went to hiding, becoming virtually incommunicado. Have we ever heard from him that he is flying immediately to New York City or Washington, ready to spill his blood to personally supervise the defense of the cities so dear to this nation?
Of those who went to fight to far away places in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama or Grenada; how many were top ranking political, economic or even religious leaders? How many of those were their children?
To achieve the permanent peace, we should probably demand that in case that we decide to go to war, our elites and their children would lead soldiers to the battle. If they so strongly believe in the causes that we are "defending" all over the world, they should be ready to abandon their mansions and villas, put on the uniforms and go to the battle.
We should demand that it's done the old-fashioned way. Not by bombing from tens of thousands of feet some innocent civilians, but by the ground offensive, where everyone has similar chances and where only those who are the most determined and brave will win.
If the "freedom", "democracy", but above all free trade, open markets and economic dominance are so sacred to our elites, let them fight for it. Let neo-cons and market fundamentalists form their own battalions and platoons. Let them train for the invasions in some filthy ditches. Let them "spill their blood" for it. And let them also say: "those who are willing to join are welcomed; those who want to leave are welcomed as well". If we would succeed in those demands, if participation of the elites in any invasion would become conditional, it would lead to one and only result: permanent peace on earth.
Until we succeed though, let's not ridicule al-Sadr, a man from the city of Najaf, who is not obliging anyone to follow him, but is ready to defend his city even if he has to do it alone. Right or wrong, his behavior is more honorable and brave than the behavior of those who are throwing other people to the bloody battlefields all over the world, while risking nothing themselves.
END
ANDRE VLTCHEK is American political analyst, writer and filmmaker, currently living in SEAsia. He can be contacted at: andre-wcn@usa.net