ATHENS - "As long as the U.S. troops stay in Iraq there will be violence," warns Gilbert Achcar, professor of development studies and international relations at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies.
Achcar -- a vehement critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East since Sep. 11, 2001 -- was born in Senegal and lived in Lebanon until moving to France in 1983.
He has served as professor of politics and international relations at the University of Paris VIII, and has written many books about the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East during the post Sep. 11 era.
Achcar spoke with IPS correspondent Apostolis Fotiadis about the current state of the war and what the future might hold.
IPS: Would the absence of U.S. forces in Iraq result in an interethnic conflict of total annihilation?
GA: There are many signs to the contrary. Civil conflict has been going on anyway. It peaked some months ago and has subsided recently, but still the U.S. politics of turning the communities against each other has sharpened tensions between ethnic and sectarian groups. The only undisputable fact is the correlation between the occupation and the level of violence.
As long as the U.S. troops stay in Iraq there will be violence in this country. The announcement of a date of departure would exert pressure on the various factions in Iraq to reach a consensus. In that case people will know they are facing a deadline for finding a way to co-exist or lose control.
IPS: What would a withdrawal without first establishing effective control in the country mean for the U.S.?
GA: To withdraw from Iraq without securing control over the country and the area would result in a loss of credibility. The credibility of U.S. deterrence and power has already suffered a lot. Look at Iran now -- it is clear that they are not intimidated by the U.S. threats. Iraq has paralysed them to such an extent that they are unable to turn against other threats. It has also exposed the Achilles heel of the U.S. -- which is the Vietnam syndrome. The population does not want the country to be involved in dirty wars and this creates a serious human resource shortage for the military.
IPS: Could the increasing scale of militarisation and violence in the region be connected with the declining hegemony of the U.S.?
GA: We do not deal here with some kind of a beast that instinctively produces aggression. The war drive that has been going on since 9/11 is obviously motivated by U.S. strategic interests and it is designed according to two main concerns. One is to control the major world oil reserves. We have entered into the last few decades of cheap oil . . . the strategic importance of oil is increasing. The second is that the U.S. military presence in the heart of Eurasia -- especially in areas of interest for Russia and China -- is important because they fear an alliance of both at the expense of U.S. hegemony in the region.
IPS: What is the extent of the failure of the George W. Bush administration's foreign policy?
GA: It is a disaster. It is a total mess for U.S. foreign policy. Apart from Iraq - - where they also face a contradiction between their Turkish and Kurdish partners, which could cost them a lot politically -- it is becoming clear that the operation in Afghanistan is a total disaster and the Taliban are back and are quite strong. You take Pakistan, the situation is destabilising. Washington fears [President Pervez] Musharraf and their fears are compounded by the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. I hope for some compromise in Lebanon but that might turn very serious there as well. And there are efforts of the Bush administration to do something about the Israel-Palestinian conflict in order to say they are achieving something. But there are no real conditions for a compromise or any concessions made by the Israelis.
When this administration leaves the scene the political and strategic capital acquired from the U.S. after the collapse of the Soviet Union will have been completely wasted and it will only be left with a very bad imperial reputation.
IPS: Is there a downplayed aspect of the U.S. foreign policy relationship with Islamic Fundamentalism throughout the last 20 years that this administration has made use of as well?
GA: People see all the time that Iran is some kind of 'Evil' to put in Bush's terms . . . However, the fact is that the most fundamentalist state in the world, the Saudi kingdom, is the closest ally of the U.S. This state is much more reactionary in terms of religion, women rights, and politics. This is pure hypocrisy. One should not forget that from the 1950s the U.S. has nurtured and used Islamic fundamentalism against the Soviet Union. After the defeat of nationalism and the collapse of the Soviet Union the popular protest against corrupted despotic regimes backed by the U.S. shifted to Islamic fundamentalism.
This is like a Frankenstein tale -- they produced a monster, used it for a while, and now it has turned against them. But, not all of it -- they still have a lot of fundamentalism on their side. Even inside the same factions. Take the Islamic Brotherhood -- Hamas is a wing of it against the U.S., but its Jordanian wing backs the U.S. supported monarchy, and the Syrian wing is part of an opposition coalition backed by the U.S.
Reality is much more complicated than it is reflected in any of the media.
IPS: What do you think the future will be like?
GA: To be frank I have been pessimistic about this area for over a quarter of the century. Unfortunately reality has always been worse than my pessimism. In my heart I will try to remain optimistic and hopeful because the suffering of the populations concerned is absolutely terrible. We talk about the part of the world with the highest unemployment, disastrous economic conditions, and huge inequalities, facing a prospect of explosion. Still, there is potential for positive social movement, the question is if a political force able to build upon this potential will appear.
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
6 Comments so far
Show AllWhat goes around comes around. During the supposed cold war, We trusted the Russians more than the Americans because with the Russians, we knew who our enemy was. The destruction of democraticaly elected goverments (including Australia 1976) by the CIA do remember the orders come from a higher source and that wasn't Bush's hot line.
We supported and armed Saddam from 1980 to 1988 while he prosecuted a war that killed 2 million people, even helping him gas the Iranians and the Iraqi Kurds sympathetic to them. In the first Gulf war we killed many thousands and destroyed civilian infrastructure, then clamped on cruel sanctions, including on vaccines and chemotherapy drugs, that killed over 500,000 children. We encouraged the Shia, Marsh Arabs and Kurds to rebel against Saddam with promises of support, then let him slaughter them. This time round we've killed about a million and driven over 4 million into destitution and homelessness. For all but two of the past 27 years we have heaped misery on these people, and we think they are supposed to like us.
Now we're wheeling and dealing, arming various factions against each other and irresponsibly allowing weapons to fall into the hands of various militias. Better we agree to pay-as we should--for a UN peacekeeping force and leave as soon as possible.
Getting out has to be the first step towards any reconciliation. Seeing bases that look awfully permanent, a massive 'embassy' being built, and even the so-called opposition party in the US saying we'll have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq for as long as they can foresee .... all of this surely has to add to the anger of the Iraqis at us. They certainly want us out of their country, so the very first has to be to make it plain that we are leaving.
Beyond that, we owe Iraq some serious reparations for what we've done to that country. That's got to be another part of a reconciliation. Maybe some war crimes trials of high ranking people responsible for the horror in Iraq for the last 20 years would be another good step.
Short of all of that, its hard to imagine the Iraqi people doing any forgiving and\or forgetting any time soon. Two million dead Iraqis is just a little short of 10% of the population that we've killed.
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. - Jefferson
Good quote, rtdrury. Unfortunately our corporate media has no intention of enlightening the people. Most Americans are clueless about what we are doing to people in other countries, especially if they have resources or dictators we want or democracies we don't want.
And why should the Iraqis even considering forgiving or forgetting? We've killed over a million of them under Clinton, another million of them under Bush, displaced 4 million of them, and destroyed their country. Would WE forgive and forget, considering troops and Blackwater are still murdering us? I think not. We won't stop the mayhem until they agree to let us steal their oil. Even Alan Greenspan admits that is why we're doing this to them.
One of the myriad mistakes "Made in America" is assuming the world thinks like Americans. This is because Americans are taught to consider their country as at the leader in a worldwide race toward "civilization" and "prosperity". The fact is that other countries are not running that race, but blazing their own trails.
Americans think Iraqis should "forgive and forget" the invasion and join the rat race under the sphere of US influence. Americans should learn that Iraqis do not traditionally forgive and forget so easily. Many, if not most, cultures on this planet view themselves as part of a long progression in time. They compare themselves with their own ancestors, NOT with the rats across the ocean.
The American idea that everyone should fall in line in the fossil-fired parade toward corporate-controlled nirvana is driven by capitalists in pursuit of their Randite hyper-selfish interests.
The best way for Americans to untangle the ugly web of capitalist influence is to shift their individual exchange/association away from the capitalists and toward their local communities. The many benefits include a reduced work week, so Americans can educate themselves. Failing that, the capitalists will continue lying at them, enslaving them, and further endangering them with the threat of imperial blowback.
When this administration leaves the scene the political and strategic capital acquired from the U.S. after the collapse of the Soviet Union will have been completely wasted and it will only be left with a very bad imperial reputation.
Today progressives have an unprecedented opportunity to further erode the influece of the wounded beast. When the entrenched ideology FAILS it's time to replace it. The entrenched ideology in the US today has failed by addicting Americans to economic activity and imperial adventures that are highly destructive to the people's health, prosperity, their cultures, societies and institutions and the biosphere. Build your local self-sufficiency and use that power to further purge the capitalist influence from your minds and help free your family, friends and neighbors from the clutches of capitalists.
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. - Jefferson
"As long as the U.S. troops stay in Iraq there will be violence" No one running for office (that is paid attention to) says that we'll be leaving Iraq sooner as opposed to later.
The US has increased the scale of militarisation and violence in the region for control
of the oil, but as the article mentions, that's just part of it.
Marginalizing troublemakers by reinforcing conflict between each other is an effective management technique. Terror and shrink wrapped dollar bills are two other potent weapons but suprisingly the Mafia still hasn't been able to get control yet, after all, some of the fighting is being done with weapongs manufactured in China.