U.S. blew the Iraq reconstruction from the very beginning
Tempest
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
A few people pointed out an article to me titled "Iraqi Family Ties
Complicate American Efforts for Change", by John Tierney. You need to be
registered in New York Times to read it, but since registration is free,
the articles are sometimes worth the hassle. I could comment for days on
the article but I'll have to make it as brief as possible, and I'll also
have to make it in two parts. Today I'll blog about tribes and sheikhs
and tomorrow I'll blog about cousins and veils.
Iraqi family ties are complicating things for Americans- true. But not
for the reasons Tierney states. He simplifies the whole situation
incredibly by stating that because Iraqis tend to marry cousins, they'll
be less likely to turn each other in to American forces for all sorts of
reasons that all lead back to nepotism.
First and foremost, in Baghdad, Mosul, Basrah, Kirkuk and various other
large cities in Iraq, marrying cousins is out of style, and not very
popular, when you have other choices. Most people who get into college
end up marrying someone from college or someone they meet at work.
In other areas, cousins marry each other for the simple reason that many
smaller cities and provinces are dominated by 4 or 5 huge 'tribes' or
'clans'. So, naturally, everyone who isn't a parent, grandparent,
brother, sister, aunt or uncle is a 'cousin'. These tribes are led by
one or more Sheikhs.
When people hear the word 'tribe' or 'sheikh', they instantly imagine,
I'm sure, Bedouins on camels and scenes from Lawrence of Arabia. Many
modern-day Sheikhs in Iraq have college degrees. Many have lived abroad
and own property in London, Beirut and various other glamorous capitals…
they ride around in Mercedes' and live in sprawling villas fully
furnished with Victorian furniture, Persian carpets, oil paintings, and
air conditioners. Some of them have British, German or American wives. A
Sheikh is respected highly both by his clan members and by the members
of other clans or tribes. He is usually considered the wisest or most
influential member of the family. He is often also the wealthiest.
Sheikhs also have many duties. The modern Sheikh acts as a sort of
family judge for the larger family disputes. He may have to give
verdicts on anything from a land dispute to a marital spat. His word
isn't necessarily law, but any family member who decides to go against
it is considered on his own, i.e. without the support and influence of
the tribe. They are also responsible for the well-being of many of the
poorer members of the tribe who come to them for help. We had relatively
few orphans in orphanages in Iraq because the tribe takes in children
without parents and they are often under the care of the sheikh's direct
family. The sheikh's wife is sort of the 'First Lady' of the family and
has a lot of influence with family members.
Shortly after the occupation, Jay Garner began meeting with the
prominent members of Iraqi society- businessmen, religious leaders,
academicians and sheikhs. The sheikhs were important because each sheikh
basically had influence over hundreds, if not thousands, of 'family'.
The prominent sheikhs from all over Iraq were brought together in a huge
conference of sorts. They sat gathered, staring at the representative of
the occupation forces who, I think, was British and sat speaking in
broken, awkward Arabic. He told the sheikhs that Garner and friends
really needed their help to build a democratic Iraq. They were powerful,
influential people- they could contribute a lot to society.
A few of the sheikhs were bitter. One of the most prominent had lost 18
family members with one blow when the American forces dropped a cluster
bomb on his home, outside of Baghdad, and killed women, children, and
grandchildren all gathered together in fear. The only survivor of that
massacre was a two-year-old boy who had to have his foot amputated.
Another sheikh was the head of a family in Basrah who lost 8 people to a
missile that fell on their home, while they slept. The scenes of the
house were beyond horrid- a mess of broken furniture, crumbling walls
and severed arms and legs.
Almost every single sheikh had his own woeful story to tell. They were
angry and annoyed. And these weren't people who loved Saddam. Many of
them hated the former regime because in a fit of socialism, during the
eighties, a law was established that allowed thousands of acres of land
to be confiscated from wealthy landowners and sheikhs and divided out
between poor farmers. They
resented the fact that land they had owned for several generations was
being given out to nobody farmers who would no longer be willing to
harvest their fields.
So they came to the meeting, wary but willing to listen. Many of them
rose to speak. They told the representative right away that the
Americans and British were occupiers- that was undeniable, but they were
willing to help if it would move the country forward. Their one
stipulation was the following: that they be given a timetable that gave
a general idea of when the occupation forces would
pull out of Iraq.
They told the representative that they couldn't go back to their
'3shayir', or tribes, asking them to 'please cooperate with the
Americans although they killed your families, raided your homes, and
detained your sons' without some promise that, should security prevail,
there would be prompt elections and a withdrawal of occupation forces.
Some of them also wanted to contribute politically. They had influence,
power and connections… they wanted to be useful in some way. The
representative frowned, fumbled and told them that there was no way he
was going to promise a withdrawal of occupation forces. They would be in
Iraq 'as long as they were needed'… that might be two years, that might
be five years and it might be ten
years. There were going to be no promises… there certainly was no
'timetable' and the sheikhs had no say in what was going on- they could
simply consent.
The whole group, in a storm of indignation and helplessness, rose to
leave the meeting. They left the representative looking frustrated and
foolish, frowning at the diminishing mass in front of him. When asked to
comment on how the meeting went, he smiled, waved a hand and replied,
"No comment." When one of the prominent sheikhs was asked how the
meeting went, he angrily said that it wasn't a conference- they had
gathered up the sheikhs to 'give them orders' without a willingness to
listen to the other side of the story or even to compromise… the
representative thought he was talking to his own private army- not the
pillars of tribal society in Iraq.
Apparently, the sheikhs were blacklisted because, of late, their houses
are being targeted. They are raided in the middle of the night with
armored cars, troops and helicopters. The sheikh and his immediate
family members are pushed to the ground with a booted foot and held
there at gunpoint. The house is searched and often looted and the sheikh
and his sons are dragged off with hands behind
their backs and bags covering their heads. The whole family is left
outraged and incredulous: the most respected member of the tribe is
being imprisoned for no particular reason except that they may need him
for questioning. In many cases, the sheikh is returned a few days later
with an 'apology', only to be raided and detained once more!
I would think that publicly humiliating and detaining respected members
of society like sheikhs and religious leaders would contribute more to
throttling democracy than 'cousins marrying cousins'. Many of the
attacks against the occupying forces are acts of revenge for assaulted
family members, or people who were killed during raids, demonstrations
or checkpoints. But the author fails to mention that, of course.
He also fails to mention that because many of the provinces are in fact
governed by the sheikhs of large tribes, they are much safer than
Baghdad and parts of the south. Baghdad is an eclectic mix of Iraqis
from all over the country and sheikhs have little influence over members
outside of their family. In smaller provinces or towns, on the other
hand, looting and abduction are rare because the criminal will have a
virtual army to answer to- not a confused, and often careless, occupying
army and some frightened Iraqi police.
Iraq is not some backward country overrun by ignorant land sheikhs or
oil princes. People have a deep respect for wisdom and 'origin'. People
can trace their families back for hundreds of years and the need to
'belong' to a specific family or tribe and have a sheikh doesn't hinder
education, modernization, democracy or culture. Arabs and Kurds in the
region have strong tribal ties and it is considered an honor to have a
strong family backing- even if you don't care about tribal law or have
strayed far from family influence.
I'm an example of a modern-day, Iraqi female who is a part of a tribe-
I've never met our sheikh- I've never needed to… I have a university
degree, I had a job and I have a family who would sacrifice a lot to
protect me… and none of this hinders me from having ambition or a sense
of obligation towards law and order. I also want democracy, security,
and a civil, healthy society… right along with the strong family bonds
I'm accustomed to as an Iraqi.
Who knows? Maybe I'll start a tribal blog and become a virtual sheikh
myself…
--
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act.
- George Orwell