Editorial Reflections Humour Short Story Film Review Voice It Health & Fitness Prev Issue Next Issue

After The Battle: What Next? - Sunny Singh Sunny Singh was born in Varanasi. She received her education in various parts of India and the world. She has worked as a journalist, teacher, and as a management executive for multinationals in Mexico, Chile and South Africa. For the last four years, she has been writing full-time. She is also a playwright. Her first play, Birthing Athena, focussed on evolving relationships and the price of ambition in post-liberalisation India. The Times of India described the play as "an intensely cathartic experience." Her first novel, Nani's Book of Suicides, had been published by Harper Collins Publishers India. Described by the Hindustan Times as a "first novel of rare scope and power," the novel explores the cultural identity of an Indian woman through a fund of myths, family lore and contemporary reality. Her second book, Single in the City: The independent woman's handbook was released on Dec 22, 2000 by Penguin India. Visit Sunny Singh's website at: http://www.sunnysinghwrites.com/

The Anglo-American media has declared that the war in Iraq is over. That it has been won. American officials, led by Rumsfeld, have declared that the past three weeks exemplify an amazing military victory. And of course, the other fat cats of global economy, the infamous G-7 have already begun squabbling over the spoils of war.

And no one, either in the Bush or Blair administrations, nor in the famed Washington think-tanks is willing to answer some basic questions.

If the militarily and economically most powerful nation in the world pits its might against a tiny country, battered and impoverished by sanctions and war, is it a “great” military victory? When its super-numerous, super-equipped troops are forced to fight a negligible enemy for more than three weeks? And when, despite their state-of-the-art defences, they still manage to suffer nearly 120 dead, and over 450 other casualties? Many inflicted by a ragtag army that hardly had ammunition to fight the greatest power on earth?

If the Anglo-American coalition went to war to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, why is it that they were the only side to use unconventional weapons? These unconventional weapons included napalm attacks, which were sighted and reported by the “entrenched” reporters, working in many cases for the Western media. These were even confirmed by officers on the ground, even as the Naval headquarters in Washington denied their use.

Unconventional weapons also included DU-tipped ammunition, used both by American and British troops. This not only causes massive destruction at the moment of use, but also wreaks havoc for years afterwards, thanks to its radio-active component. These are the same depleted-uranium tipped ammunition that was used against Basra in the first Gulf War, by Bush Sr., over ten years ago. Since then infertility, cancer and birth defect rates amongst the “newly liberated” citizens of Basra have grown disproportionately. The same can be seen in “liberated” Kosovo.

But perhaps, we shouldn’t ask such difficult questions. Just as we shouldn’t ask where the bulk of Iraqi army has disappeared? We have heard the official Anglo-American line that the soldiers have all deserted and joined the “people” of Iraq. But isn’t it also a logical possibility that they have gone underground, joining the civilians, to carry out their attacks against the occupying forces over the coming months? To regroup, or to join others who will resist the American might?

There are other questions that are still unanswered. Including the reasons for this war against Iraq. Was it for oil? Or to search for weapons of mass destructions? Or to liberate the poor “Iraqis” who have been starved nearly to death by the same “enlightened” world that wants to “free” them? Or to destroy some nebulous Islamist terrorist cell? Shouldn’t we just be honest and call it what it is: just a new chapter in the six-hundred-year old history of Western imperialism?

Interestingly enough, the current US-imperial exercise has the strongest backing from two European nations: Spain and the UK. During the height of European colonialism, both these nations won and ruled large tracts of land, leaving in their wake ethnic purges and cultural devastation that make the Holocaust look like child’s play. Now, cut down to negligible economic and military importance, and perhaps, hoping to regain some of their lost glory and international prestige, they have been quick to jump on to the US bandwagon.

But, although they may be allies, hoping to gain glory or at least economic benefits by backing this new imperialist power, neither UK nor Spain has been able to teach their protégé much of their colonizing experience. They haven’t explained to the Americans that military power and economic strength must be coupled with persuasion of the colonized populations. That horse-mounted soldiers and Gatling guns alone did not subdue the “savages” in the Americas, Africa and Asia.

Both Spain and Britain, at the height of their power, elaborately and efficiently utilised persuasion. They used the press, educational institutions, local leaders and political advisors, and especially religion to “convince” the defeated in their favour.

That seems to be the message that US has missed. That, in the long term, all show of military “power” is useless without the gentler, more pervasive force of “persuasion.” That battles to subdue poorly armed, poverty stricken populations can be easily won; have always been easily won, whether against the Cherokee, or the Burmese, or the Zulus. But battle-victories do not necessarily translate into winning wars. And the same “defeated” populations can wage guerrilla warfare, and terrorist attacks; and fight for years, even centuries, to come.

Of course, from a historical perspective, the US is the most logical inheritor of the European imperialist enterprise that began with the Renaissance, and inextricably linked capitalism, colonial expansion and the spread of Christianity through the “heathen lands.”

The schism between the Church of Rome, and the Church of England was merely a political one, based on the whims of an individual, not on disagreement of principle. Yet the split of the Catholic Church with the Protestant faiths, of Calvin and Luther, were based very much on principles, of faith, of world-views, of basic social and human values. It is important then to remember the Calvinistic conception of double-predestination, an idea that extends the views expounded by St. Paul and Augustine; which holds that if God is omniscient, then he must also know which souls are doomed or saved.

Following the Reformation, various Calvinist theologians took this theory to its logical end, concluding that if this were so, then God would surely “indicate” those who are “saved” by also bestowing material grace upon them. Thus, a rich and successful man would “obviously” be saved, because his material success indicated that he was in receipt of grace. Thus, in guise of that hardworking “Protestant ethic,” were spirituality and capitalism brought together to form a formidable partnership.

Which is the point to keep in mind as we watch the newest of the imperial powers flexing its muscles. Analysts have argued that U.S. is not “occupying” lands, nor is it interested in “controlling” territories and peoples, in the manner of the imperial powers of the past. Yet, it is precisely this exercise of power for its own sake, this demonstration of complete political and material superiority that forms the heart of the Protestant ethic. With each demonstration of its might, the U.S. proves its own “salvation” in the world to come, establishes and re-enforces its own position as the doubly-chosen, and thus, doubly-blessed state.

Before beginning to protest the “melting pot” nature of the US, we need to recall that it is this Protestant part of Europe that forms the heart and the soul of the American nation. Despite growing populations of non-white, and non-Christian immigrants, the US polity and national imagination is firmly rooted in the ideals of the Reformation. That the nation was founded by Puritans, and in its heart, the most extreme evangelical groups still flourish, often with governmental patronage.

Over the course of five hundred years, this extremist, Puritanical view of Christianity was soldered together with aggressive capitalism, severed from all principles of socialist reform and even social responsibility, to finally form the “great American dream.” And thus, was born the most recent of the great Christian empires, sundered by geography, but historically, clearly rooted within the long standing imperialist tradition of Europe.

Yet, history also teaches us that each great political power contains the seed of its own destruction. In case of the US, perhaps this weakness lies in their lack of understanding of the rest of the world, and of history. Because the US mistakenly believes that pounding a people into oblivion, with “daisy-cutters” and “bunker-busters” can actually subdue the population. That sophisticated weaponry, and Biblical rhetoric, and an overwhelming propaganda machinery can “win” wars, and control populations.

Instead, as the war in Iraq has shown, times have changed drastically since the centuries where the European powers controlled the Gutenberg press, and thus, the methods of widespread dissemination of information. Al-Jazeera carries images of war that CNN, Fox or BBC would rather not let us see. Those who cannot write for the New York Times, write instead for Outlook. And when journalists are fired by large American television networks for “treason,” they simply take up jobs with Arab networks.

More importantly, unlike the days of the Conquistadores in the Americas, or even the British suppression of Indian freedom fighters in 1857, the world has implementable, successful models of resisting, of fighting, and winning against imperialist powers, despite overwhelming military, economic and political disparity. We now know that it is possible to resist a great power, to strike at its very heart, to out-run and out-hide its satellites, and intelligence networks, and military prowess. That non-state actors can utilise the vast economic machinery and complex financial networks of the great powers to finance their resistance.

Which is why the war in Iraq isn’t over. Just as the bombing of Afghanistan last year, complete with the installation of another puppet regime, did not end the “war” in that country. If Syria is to be bombed tomorrow, or in the months to come, and Iran after that, the US will again “achieve great military victories” against these countries. Yet, it will also grow increasingly vulnerable to attacks, against its citizens, its institutions, and representatives, at home and abroad.

Since the attacks of September 11, there have been constant reports of killings of American citizens all through the world. US law-enforcement agencies confirm that they are constantly foiling attempted attacks in major US cities. Other nationalities, whose leaders chose to align themselves with the US, have also been targeted. In all likelihood, such attacks will increase in the months, and years to come.

And yes, civilians will die. Civilians with British, American, Australian, even EU passports. Just as civilians have died in Iraq, and Afghanistan thanks to their Western “liberators.” Just as civilians continue to die in these countries, and in Kosovo, thanks to radio-active ammunitions used by the leaders of the “free world,” years after the “war” ended.

Worse still, civilians will continue to die because American “precision bombs” targeted maternity hospitals and residential neighbourhoods. Because “economic sanctions” doomed millions to starvation and disease in the name of “democracy and human rights.” Because the result of such terror, misery, suffering is not a subdued population, but a world seething with rage. A world which will resort to nuclear proliferation to protect itself. And a world that will send forth a generation of suicide bombers.

Perhaps, that is the greatest achievement of the “war on Iraq.” After all television channels have much bandied about the term “fidayeen,” even terming normal Iraqi soldiers as “Saddam’s fidayeen,” there is no understanding of that term. And yet, it is the fidayeen that we can look forward to: Leading attacks around the world, choosing to die because they have little live for, deciding to resist because they will not subdued.

When the enemy has overwhelming military might, economic strength, political power, the weak have always resorted to suicide attacks. This is also the lesson that the Europeans forgot to teach the US. Ranging from the Hashishanah, to the Templars, from Massadah to Chittorgarh, the oldest cultures amongst us have always made a ritual military space for those who will sacrifice themselves for a greater cause. The recently concluded war on Iraq, has just provided millions around the world with just such a cause.

All the rest of us can do, is to watch. And wait. Until the terror strikes close to us.

View and Post comment on this article