America that we can trust

Today the United States of America woke up a proud and hopeful America. You can feel relief, hope, and utter happiness in the eyes of the people walking in the streets, smiling for no specific reason, proud of being Americans, for the first time in so long. In many areas of the world, a similar degree of optimism is seen and felt. The very fact that Barack Obama has won the elections inspired hope and dignity in so many people around the world. African Americans cry with happiness, seeing the realization of the Luther Dream coming true. But not only black Americans are the ones rejoicing; students, women, white people, immigrants and minorities, from scholars to simple cab drivers; almost every American is rejoicing today, at least with the end of dark years of fear and poisonous hatred.

Yet, it is disappointing to simply be happy because a ‘black’ man won the elections. While many people might have voted for/against Obama because of the color of his skin, it is whom he is, what he is intending to do, his beliefs and his plans; these are the things that matter: to actually believe in the man, because he is worth it, and not only because he is the first African American to ever be elected as the President of the United States. Many of the reports I have watched yesterday revolved around the dream of the black people of America to finally get their rights back, and be compensated for long years of discrimination, inequality and slavery. While is this all true, yet what must not be forgotten is the fact that Obama is not the President of black Americans, but all Americans. It is as if the reversal of the race issue is taking place, which can still stand as an obstacle for Obama with his color eclipsing his character and potential. I believe he still has to cross this barrier, with his deeds and the history he is to be making.

One of the most defining moments for me in believing the John McCain would be a disaster to the world is when he replied to a woman complaining of Obama taking the lead by saying that she cannot trust him, because he is an Arab. McCain quickly and spontaneously answered, ‘no no, Obama is a decent man’. What kind of a message would such a reply give to minorities in America, and to the rest of the world? What does it say about his foreign policy approach or the way he inherently is viewing the world around him? America and the world are in no need for such mentalities anymore, and I am relieved that Americans were conscious enough to take the right decision, in an act of democracy thriving at its very best.

The hope Obama is bringing is equally enjoyed by citizens of the world. Yet the burden he has chosen to carry is tremendous, with such a heavy legacy of despair failure and mistrust. Obama does not have the magic wand that people are expecting him to wave on his inauguration day. However, a drastic change in American policies both internally and around the world will indeed be seen; a change in rhetoric has already started, with the spark of patriotism sincerity and determination gleaming in the American streets today. For non-Americans like me, the hope has been born; of a less hateful America, a less violent and inhumane foreign policy, and a more responsible and intelligent leadership. It might be too early and too naive to say, that finally injustice in over, fear is over, and hatred is no longer there. Yet, I am hoping that in the coming years, we will be seeing an America that we can finally trust.

Why do they hate us?

Why do they hate us? A question that has been asked on both fronts. Americans and Arabs suddenly found themselves in a clear state of confrontation. While 9/11 was the evident sign that seems to have changed the future of the relationship of the United States with the Arab world, it can be argued that the crack has been there for longer than it seems, but only came to the surface with the September catastrophe and its tragic consequences. If we look at the question itself, we will come to realize that Americans could not draw a dividing line between the terrorists who committed the September crime and the Arab masses that had nothing to do with it and who have been the victims of similar attacks for decades ever since the assassination of Sadat onwards.

This negative and blurred image of the Arab and Muslim world has been intensified by the words of American spokesmen, especially President George W. Bush, highlighting the problem as an irrevocable clash of principles and a fight between goodness and evil, fueling the American fear and anger in preparation for the consequent wars of Afghanistan and Iraq, and putting Arabs on the defensive. The emphasized notion of the distant ‘other’ is the key element in manufacturing an unreal clash of civilizations that is to a great extent politically useful. Quoting Edward Said, “The organization of collective passion has never been more evident than in our time, when the mobilizations of fear, hatred, disgust, and resurgent self-pride and arrogance – much of it having to do with Islam and the Arabs on one side, “we” Westerners on the other – are very large –scale enterprises”[1]

While every hero needs an enemy to fight, every superpower needs a danger to struggle against, and every war needs an ethical reasoning, Islamic terrorism became the modern enemy, and the ‘made in America’ freedom fighters of yesterday became the terrorists of the present. The American presidency continued to stress that War on Terrorism in not against one particular known enemy that can be captured or defeated, but it is a world-wide war where enemies are numerous and unidentified: “Our war against terror is not a war against one terrorist leader or one terrorist group. Terrorism is a movement, an ideology that respects no boundary of nationality or decency…. And the war on terror continues beyond Afghanistan, with the closing of bank accounts and the arrests of known terrorists.”[2] The vague enemy repeatedly mentioned, and the tremendous loss of 9/11, the deep-rooted stereotyping of Arabs as inferior and brutal and Islam as violent and evil, made it very easy for all Arabs and Muslims to fall under the label of terrorism.

Due to the association of the War on Terrorism with negativity against Islam and the rise of Islamophobia, Arabs felt attacked and discriminated. While religion seems to be the cornerstone of the organism of most Arabs, the attack against Islam hit the core, affirming the clash of civilizations from yet another angle. On the other hand, the rapid deterioration of the American image in the Arab world is not mainly due to a cultural conflict or misunderstanding like it is the case on the American side, but due to the Arab’s resentment of the American policies affecting the region, specially The American unquestionable support and favor of Israel and the long enduring dilemma of the Palestinians. According to Shibley Telhami, the results of a survey carried out in Saudi Arabia, 59% believe that the American policies rather than values are the source of their frustration[3]. The Palestinian issue has been neglected and treated with disdain throughout the Bush years in office, allowing the Israeli government to unquestionably cross many lines, creating more fury and frustration in the Arab streets against the Israeli patron forcing the Arab governments to review their stance. Even Pro-American governments like Egypt’s and Saudi Arabia’s demanded more fairness from the American side towards the case. The 2006 Lebanon war and the American declaration of it as a part of the war on terror asserting the Israeli right to defend itself, was met with more anger in the Arab world, turning a disputed figure like Nasrallah into the modern Saladin in the eyes of many Arabs.

When Condoleezza Rice came and talked about the American plans for a “New Middle East”, an Arab uproar reached high degrees, expressing their refusal of the American domination and desire to shape the Arab nations as per the American/Israeli vision and interests. Seeking to establish democracy in the Arab world as one of the American strategic aims and as a reason for the war in Iraq was largely refuted by Arabs and non-Arabs alike. The claim that the United States invaded Iraq with the goal of liberating the Iraqis from tyranny and sharing with them the fruits of freedom and democracy turned out to be a disgraceful lie: “We are bringing aid to the long-suffering people of Iraq, and we are bringing something more: we are bringing hope.”[4] The utter chaos created in Iraq left the whole Arab world with an unshaken belief in the double standards of the American declared motives, and an absolute refusal of any help from the American side in issues like democratization and freedom of speech. Another stark example is the American refusal of the results in the Palestinian elections because they are against the American interests in the region. The American hegemony has become a reason for hatred rather than admiration in the Arab world.

The American invasion and prolonged occupation of Iraq and the disastrous collapse of Iraq since then is the ultimate reason that continues to fuel the Arabian wrath. While oil stays at the heart of the American interests in the region, many scholars and analysts explain the reason behind the Iraqi war to be more associated with the Israeli interests rather than the American: “the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.”[5] It is justifiably to ask whether it is worth all the losses?

Establishing better relations with the Arab countries and regaining the love and respect of the Arab masses would be politically beneficial for the United States. The Middle East has always been a strategic centre of the American interests, and losing its loyalty to Iran can be very damaging for the American Interests and the world economic stability. Peace in the region would be more fruitful, compared to the rise of the oil prices due to the war in Iraq for example. Putting these factors in mind, changing the bitter circumstances governing the relationship between the States and the Arab world is critical.

The way to reforming the Arab-American relations seems long and unpaved, with distrust and misunderstanding obstructing the way, and with biased American policies totally blocking it. While the American people are the victims of biased media and educational systems, the American government is neither lacking information nor understanding. Serious change in the American official attitude towards the Arab world and its major issues is an indispensable pillar for any improvement to take place. While the disgracing problem of Iraq is complicated, and some of its tragic consequences cannot be corrected, the United States needs to address the problem differently, forsaking the myths and lies of the current administration. The hope of a different leadership thought may bring about some needed change, yet no miraculous solutions are expected.

However, the Arab-Israeli conflict, though more long-winded and deep-rooted, seems to be the most urging and possible area of improvement. The assistance in establishing a Palestinian State is a necessity that United States needs to put into consideration. If the United States chooses to lay a positive role in solving the Arab-Israeli conflict and creating an atmosphere of peace in the region can have a remarkable effect in putting out the Arabs’ anger and outweigh their distrust. Regaining the trust of Arabs will need effort, but it is not impossible. Nevertheless, it is critical in any attempt from the United States to spread out her democratization plans, which in themselves are in great need to modifications.



References:
· http://www.whitehouse.gov/.
· Mearsheimer John J. and Stephen M. Walt (2006). THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. Middle East Policy Council
· Telhami, Shibley (2004) The Stakes.
· Said, Edward Orientalism.


[1] Said, Edward Orientalism. Preface p. XVII.
[2] An excerpt from a speech by George W Bush on (December 7, 2001). Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/.
[3] Telhami, Shibley (2004) The Stakes. P. 46
[4] George W. Bush: Operation Iraqi Freedom – Radio Address: 05-04-2003.
[5] Mearsheimer John J. and Stephen M. Walt (2006). THE ISRAEL LOBBY AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY. Middle East Policy Council p. 54.

The Biggest daylight Robbery of the 20th Century

Human Rights in Iraq?! Give me a break!

The promise of freedom welfare and hope, brought by the Americans in their "just" war, evaporated with the first soldier stepping on the Iraqi lands. Fear, violence, use of banned chemical weapons, mass murder, and rape are the American explanation of a brighter future for the Iraqis. Serious concerns about human rights in Iraq rise and fade out with the endless number of daily violations. News about trials and court martial sessions are propagated but no further coverage is available for many of the incidents that remain 'under investigation'.

More than 10,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the first year as a direct result of the American occupation of Iraq. According to Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, over 12,000 Iraqis were killed from January 2005 - June 2006.

The major scandal of Abu-Ghraib in 2004, in which inhuman acts of torture, murder, and rape of Iraqis of all ages and genders were committed, drew the attention of the international community to what is actually happening in Iraq. The horrifying photos that were released in addition to the testimonies of the prisoners proved the occurrence of unbelievably cold-blooded crimes like:
- Attack dogs snarling at cowering prisoners
- Naked prisoners forced to have sex with each other
- American soldiers sodomizing Iraqi boys
- Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
- Urinating on detainees
- Torture that leads to death
- Shooting prisoners
- Raping female detainees

However, Abu-Ghraib was not the start or the end of the series of abuses taking place every day in Iraq. Here are some examples of the true side of the American face seen in Iraq:

Fallujah
It has been reported that there was a repetitive use of white phosphorus in April 2004, November 2004, and three times in November 2005 in Fallujah, resulting in mass murder of civilians including women and children. The use of White Phosphorus results in fatal burns and the acidic gas can attack the eyes and mucous membranes. Such use is internationally banned against civilians.

Mukaradeeb
The village of Mukaradeeb was attacked by American helicopters on May 19, 2004, killing 42 men, women and children. The casualties, 11 of whom were women and 14 were children, were confirmed by Hamdi Noor al-Alusi, the manager of the nearest hospital.

Abeer and Asma
In 12 March 2006, six US soldiers from the 502nd Infantry Regiment gang-raped and murdered Abeer a 14-year old girl after killing her family and burning the lower part of her body. The crime remains under investigation.

In May 2003, Asma, a young engineer, was abducted in Baghdad. Asma was kidnapped in a car and driven to a farmhouse outside Baghdad, where she was said to have been repeatedly raped. The following day, she was thrown out of a car near her house. No news of investigation was announced.

Haditha Massacre
In 19 November 2005, 24 Iraqi civilians including women and children were killed in the Haditha Massacre when the American marines bombed their neighborhood when searching for a suspect. The massacre investigation remains open.

The "unlikely" Incident of Ishaqi!
InMarch 2006, the US troops were accused of deliberately shooting 11 people, including five children and four women, in Ishaqi, and blowing up their houses. Despite the availability of compelling evidences, the American government refused to continue investigating the crime, commenting on it as "unlikely to be true".

The doomed wedding
In19 May 2004, following a local wedding in the small village of Mukaradeeb, the American forces bombed the village killing 42 civilians. American military claimed that traditional celebratory gunfire was misinterpreted as an attack on American helicopters. The bombing took place twenty four hours after the alleged celebratory gunfire, at 3 AM. The crime remains under invertigation

Respecting the Freedom of Religion!
Al Askari Mosque bombing occurred on Feb 22 2006. Although no injuries occurred in the blast, the bombing resulted in violence over the following days. Over 100 dead bodies with bullet holes were found on February 23, and at least 165 people are thought to have been killed.Most if not all of these crimes are said to be under investigation; an investigation that seems to have no end.

These crimes take place everyday in every part of Iraq, not by the 'Iraqi insurgents' but by the American heroic troops in a severe smothering of the simplest of human rights.

Peace in Palestine

For decades now, we have been hearing about negotiations and people sitting around the peace table to talk about the doomed future of the occupied land of Palestine. With each side blocking their ears and waiting for the other to lean, nothing but more blood and more loss are happening each day. With Israel hiding behind the only super power in the world, with the Vito card in their pocket ready to stop anyone from attempting to find a solution that could have a shred of justice, nothing would ever be done with the scale of power unbalanced to such a deteriorated extent.

Again the Arab leaders joined in their fancy ball room to talk about the future of peace, playing the same old game of hollow rhetoric and superficial patriotism. I sit there to watch them, knowing that a big zero will be the outcome of their big words and lavish banquets. How would they ever feel the suffering of a young girl, lying silent in a poor hospital, who has just lost her family under the fire of bombing, or a helpless young man who has no hope in a simple secure future with a stone in his hand as his only self defence. The irony of the situation lies in the generations that come and go with unshaken belief in their rights, being accompanied by weak leaders sitting round the peace table doing them nothing at all. The faces might change, yet the same attitude remains on both sides.

And here we are again, the leaders are talking, and the people are dying. May God bless the noble land of Palestine standing tall with no protector except the young man with the stone in his hand.

Hijaab Reflections: A Moment of Truth (1)

It was a moment of peace and serenity; one of those moments where one feels detached from their surroundings and involuntarily close to something bigger and more important. It was a moment of reflection and deep connection. I found myself opening the Qur’aan to Surat Al-Ahzab (The Allied Parties). I had just watched a television programme where this ayah (verse) was mentioned in passing and for some reason I needed to read it to myself once again in more detail. I needed to read it with my heart this one time.

“O you Prophet, say to your spouses and your daughters and the women of believers…”

Women of believers! This ayah is talking to me. This message is for me. I found myself in a cautious and attentive mode, eyes widening with anticipation. My heart raced, what will I read next?

“…that they draw their outer garments closer to them…”

Be modest and be chaste. I contemplated for a moment. Cover up and do not expose yourself. I silently agreed as I searched for more.

“…that will (make) it likelier that they will be recognised…”

Recognised?! I read it again – recognised. Why does Allah want me to be recognised and what does He want me to be recognised as? Is it as a Muslim or is it as a true believer? I looked at myself for a second. Maybe He wants me to be identified as one who is close to Him, one whom He loves. Maybe He wants people to realise that I love Him and believe in Him. My heart beat with intensity. The meaning of this ayah is much bigger than I ever imagined, but wait, there is still more.

“…and so will not be hurt.”

The emotions building within me could not contain themselves anymore and my eyes watered instantly. Here was the reason being stated plain and simple. Is this why Allah wants me to be recognised? Allah wants me to cover up so that people can associate this modesty with His love for me. He wants to protect me! He wants me to be recognised and to be specifically distinguished from other women so that I could be protected.

“And Allah has been Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful.”(33:59)

In spite of my misgivings and in spite of my weaknesses, He forgives and He is kind.

I never contemplated the meaning of this ayah in that way before. Just reading it with my heart and realising its sweet and poignant meaning brought tears of regret and shame to my eyes at Allah’s blatant affection. Tears that expressed the years I had wasted ignoring and reading this ayah superficially; living my life superficially. I remembered the times I had comforted myself with the thought that I was always conservatively dressed and modest in behaviour. I never felt any different from a non-Muslim who was also conservatively dressed and modest in behaviour. I never felt the need to be different; we are all humans after all. Religion is a way of life, not manifested in the way you look. Yet here was Allah saying it so clearly, that He wanted me to be different. He wanted people to know that these morals - modesty, chastity, dignity, strength of resolve and belief - these high values were inherent and central to Islam. He wanted me to be distinguished and identified in that sense. He wanted me to be protected so people with weak hearts would not hurt me! It was no longer a matter of just being conservative and modest in the regular sense. He wanted me to be identified by everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, as someone who has these values. Yet how else would I be different if I already cover my whole body? How would I distinguish myself as one who is close to Allah? It suddenly dawned upon me like a bolt of lightning. The only way for me was to wear a scarf!

Many a time did I hear this ayah explained in a harsh, forthcoming way as a clear indication of it being an order to cover up and be veiled. It was always firmly indicated not only to cover one’s body but also one’s hair. I had always wondered about the significance of covering one’s hair. Would a head cover make that much of a difference? Surely it must be an over-exaggeration. Then again what about the millions of women the world over who cling to their scarves like it had become a part of them. I never understood it until this moment. It was suddenly all crystal clear! That last part of the ayah, Allah’s Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful nature was always viewed as a warning. Yet never did I consider it as a gentle gesture of affection. The same way one protects a treasure from harm by covering it up and looking after it. How blind and deaf I had been! A stance not shared by any of His creations to be likened to a valuable token of affection.

I wiped my tears as I felt the shame filling my heart at the wasted time and years. How weak one is in reality. How non-obliging and ungrateful we can be as humans to Allah’s boundless blessings. May Allah forgive me. I knew that this was the beginning of a life-changing moment. My outlook to the world would never ever be the same again.

This is the first in a series of reflection on hijaab.

Doublespeak in the Oratory of G.W. Bush

Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell


Countless examples of doublespeak (1) have invaded our daily vocabulary and became an ordinary part of it; these examples usually find their way to the public through their constant use by the media and public political speakers. Among this phrasing we can find ‘collateral damage’ for innocent bystander deaths or injuries, ‘friendly fire’ for death caused by mistaken shooting of one’s own allies, ‘defence’ for war as in the Department of Defence, moreover, we usually hear ‘incontinent ordnance’ for accidental bombarding of civilians or schools, and ‘ethical cleansing’ for genocide, etc. Using such meaningless phrases perfectly fits in Orwell’s analysis of their use:
Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. (Politics and the English language: 12)

Abu-Gharib:
Sometimes truth can spring out from a photo, and speak for itself. It can say things that can be comprehended by all. However, what is ironic about the whole matter is that describing the photo in words can indeed be misleading. Talking about the horrifying torture that happened in Abo-Ghraib Prison in Iraq, one would think that these photos are taken from a Hollywood horror movie. But never would it come to the mind that they are real pictures of Iraqis imprisoned by the American heroic liberators who came to free the Iraqis from villains and tyrants, as they always claim. Although, the matter does not seem to be open for interpretation, as the photos clearly show an act of torture, the American leaders seem to hold another view. In political terminology, nothing is certain and everything is open for interpretation, as political words are elastic by nature. President Bush describes this incident as follows:
The American people were horrified by the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. These acts were wrong. They were inconsistent with our policies and our values as a Nation. I have directed a full accounting for the abuse of the Abu Ghraib detainees, and investigations are underway to review detention operations in Iraq and elsewhere. (June 26, 2004: President's Statement on the U.N. International Day in Support of Victims of Torture)

The calculated use of the generic term ‘abuse’ instead of the severer term ‘torture’ is made in order to create a less significant image of a wrong behaviour. We can easily notice how the speaker chooses a lighter word that does not create such a brutal mental image, as the word ‘torture’ would have done. What is actually done here is belittling the subject into a trivial unintentional mistake done by an exceptionally lawless bad soldier; this mistake does not represent an attitude or policy of the administration, but only a circumvention of an individual. The speaker is presenting us with a stark example of doublespeak, as he intends to avoid the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of an act of torture, while ‘abuse’ would only seem tolerable.

His use of the definite tone in ‘these acts were wrong’ implies firmness and finality. This tone is used as a complement of the same sequence, as it shows the speakers undoubted attitude about the unpleasant incident, and thus it leaves no chance for condemning him with its responsibility. As a result, the government leaders will come out clean from the whole matter, and will look honest and peace - loving despite the blood that still stains their hands.

The word ‘detainees’ also presents a less serious impact than ‘prisoners’, as the first implies temporary confinement. Accordingly, the doublespeak of the orator is an act of thought corruption, as it aims at concealing and twisting the truth. The American crime done in Abo Ghraib is a proof of the fear and not the hope brought by the Americans.

Terrorism:
The two terms ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ can be said to be nearly synonymous, as both terms mean armed political rebel or fighter. However, the irony that envelops the use of these two terms is emphasised by the fact that ‘terrorist’ is used for the bad guy; the one fighting against us, while a ‘freedom fighter’ is the good guy, as he is one of us or fighting with us.
Examples:
Terrorists who attack a self-governing Iraq are showing us and the Iraqis who they really are. They're not fighting foreign forces; they're fighting the Iraqi people. They're not just enemies of America; they're enemies of democracy and hope. They're enemies of a peaceful future in Iraq. As Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq said last week, "Anyone involved in these attacks is nothing more than a traitor to the cause of Iraq's freedom and the freedom of its people." He went on to say, "These are not freedom fighters. They are terrorists and foreign fighters opposed to our very survival as a free state." The Prime Minister and I share the same resolve. (June 16, 2004 President Salutes the Military at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa)

The president is talking about the hope brought by the Americans, which turned out to be murder, torture and imprisonment of any person suspected of patriotic feelings. The American law in prohibits the Iraqi citizens to fight against the concurring forces, thus these rebels are labelled as terrorists not just against America but also against America’s vision of Iraq.

MacDill (2) is the home of the U.S. Central Command. The Command was activated in the early 1980s. Back then, America needed CENTCOM (3) to help protect our allies from aggression and to support Afghan freedom fighters. (ibid)
What is ironic about this excerpt is who is here being named as freedom fighters. The Afghan freedom fighters are Osama Bin Laden’s group who were then fighting against the Soviets. At this time, United States’ biggest enemy was the other global force; the USSR. Accordingly, the fighters in Afghanistan were supported as they had a mutual enemy. The same people are now called terrorists, because it is now a new era. The change of interests has also changed the label from one opposite to the other.

Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy. (State of the Union: 2002)
The only reason that the group responsible for calculating the embassy’s bombarding is being labelled as terrorists is that they are working against the United States. They are on the other side, so they are terrorists.

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yet camps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- including groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad … -- operates in remote jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. (State of the Union 2002)
You have to share the same perspective of the speaker in order to see that all the groups mentioned here deserve to be called terrorists. However, if you are not on the same side, then you can see that they are freedom fighters struggling against an evil mighty power that is Israel, which is occupying their land destroying their homes and killing hundreds of their people everyday. You will find that there is no shame in what they are doing; on the contrary, it is a patriotic act. Therefore, it all depends on where you stand and on whose side. Doublespeak prospers when liberators are seen through the eyes of invaders.

In fact, such labels gain authority from the one who uses these labels. Such phrases do not describe an inner attribute of the one holding this label, but they express the speaker’s own perspective and the way he wants others to think about and evaluate that person or group. Accordingly, governmental official speakers, especially the most powerful speaker: the president, play the leading role in determining the identity of the terrorist, which leads us to the notion that “speaking is governing”. Steven Livingston argues that:
The power to shape perceptions of violent events and their principal actors (both perpetrators and victims) usually rests not with the terrorists but with government official. Who the terrorists are in the first place is a question largely determined by these officials. Those who have routine access to the mass media, those to whom reporters turn when the dust settles and shooting stops, have the ability to shape coverage and perceptions. (Quoted in Silberstein: 2002: 3).
Therefore, it would only be appropriate to think about what the Americans are doing in Iraq from a different perspective than the one they are claiming. Let us see things from the other side for a change. According to the United States Department of Defence, terrorism can be defined as: the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. (http://www.gao.gov/atext/d03165.txt). Next, we are going to witness how a different stand of what is being said can lead to a different understanding. The coming excerpts will try to prove how the American doings in Iraq can be considered an act of terrorism according to their own definition of the term.

Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent. (May, 1, 2003: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended Remarks by the President from the USS Abraham Lincoln)
This excerpt is one example out of many others that state the tactical use of force to dispose of the Iraqi government. Therefore, the Americans have themselves fulfilled the first rule of carrying out a terrorist act: the calculated use of violence …intended to coerce or to intimidate government or society. Of course, the motive declared by the US officials is to free Iraq from the dictator, however, they chose to end the Iraqi tragedy by the introduction of a new kind of tragedy; invasion. Therefore, the Iraqis are now free from a tyrant, but are captives in the hands of their new leaders and invaders. The sentence: “no device of… from war” is very intriguing due to the fact that it implies the accidental loss of civilians in this act of war, which according to the speaker can be justified by a nobler aim; a known Machiavellian law.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime… We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We're helping to rebuild Iraq…And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government …We are committed to freedom in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in a peaceful Palestine. The advance of freedom is the surest strategy to undermine the appeal of terror in the world. (ibid)

As has been said before, the label of ‘terrorist’ is now an American trademark that is given to anyone who stands in the way. The American president classifies the world into two groups: with or against. Accordingly, the parts in Iraq that remains dangerous are the parts where Iraqi rebels have chosen to stand in the way of the invader. Therefore, it would only seem inevitable to get rid of any voice asking for a real freedom that is not presented by the Americans, so at first these voices must be labelled as terrorists in order to fit in the scheme. Consequently, the Iraqi resistance of the US intrusion is not tolerated by the Americans, who chose to intimidate the society after the coup d’etat.

A second point raised by this excerpt is one of the political reasons behind the war; the elimination of any opportunity of possessing a nuclear power that would threaten the American domination of the world. A final point is implementing the American vision of the Middle East and the Moslem world at first in Iraq and then Afghanistan, and Palestine. The modern Iraq is being built according to American standards, with a new federal government that would play its role designed in accordance with the American vision. An ideological aim springs out here; the American government is scheming to shape the lives of other nations, specifically in Iraq, in a way that serves their strategic interests. The word ‘freedom’ in the concluding remark of the excerpt can be taken to mean voluntary compliance if we wish to see the other side of the coin: Compliance would undermine rebellion. Therefore, compliance is the safest ground for avoiding the terrorist’s label.

As we have seen the American forces in Iraq have fulfilled all the conditions that represent an act of terrorism. They have used calculated force to overthrow a governing regime, intimidated fear and violence among civilians, and invaded a country for political and ideological reasons. Seeing things from a different angle can lead to other types of labelling that symbolizes the ideologies and perceptions of the speaker or the view holder, and may not perfectly portray the truth. Difference in opinion, beliefs, and interests can create a fertile soil for label exchange.


Reference:
Silberstein, Sandra (2002) War of Words – Language, Politics and 9/11. London: Routledge.
Orwell, G. (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four. London, Martin Secker & Warburg.
Orwell, George (1946) Politics and the English Language. http://eserver.org/langs/politics-english-language.txt
Lakoff, George (1991) Metaphors in Politics. http://philosophy.uoregon.edu/metaphor/lakoff-l.htm
http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/CENTCOM
http://www.gao.gov/atext/d03165.txt
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

(1) Doublespeak is a kind of euphemism that is associated with typical phrases used in the political arena as a way of avoiding mental associations.
(2) Air Force Base in Florida.
(3) United States Central Command: is a Unified Combatant Command unit of the U.S. armed forces, under the operational control of the U.S. Secretary of Defense. (http://www.yourencyclopedia.net/CENTCOM)