The Iraq Resistance and the well-intentioned coloniser

While presenting the responsibilities of the British Ministry of Defence in the House of Commons, on 13 March, the Secretary of State for Defence, Ben Wallace, reminded the House of Commons of the growing threats in the world, as “The Middle East continues to harbour terrorism, which is why the UK still supports the Government of Iraq as part of the global coalition against Daesh.” Noting, as an example, the use of an RAF Reaper remotely piloted aircraft to conduct a strike against a leading Daesh member in Al-Bab, northern Syria, and firing two Hellfire missiles, claiming that “these actions are vital to degrading such terrorist threats, protecting British citizens and supporting our international partners.”

How do we read this statement? What is the message left by the Defence Secretary’s statement that “the Middle East continues to harbour terrorism” in the minds of his listeners in the UK, the US and across Europe, considering the fact that his statement was made in the British House of Commons, whose sessions are broadcast live by audio-visual media, in addition to it being published in written media? The danger of these statements and their coverage in the media lies in how they are shaped in the minds of Western citizens, especially since the Parliament’s sessions are broadcast via the BBC, and public opinion polls indicate that 79 per cent of British news followers trust what it broadcasts. Speeches intended to be delivered to as many listeners and viewers as possible are often broadcast at times when audiences are willing to listen and be content. So, it is not surprising that, in terms of satisfaction, when the British are asked if they believed the US and UK’s decision to go to war was right or wrong, 54 per cent said it was right. Despite the large number of anti-war demonstrations that took place before the start of the attack on Iraq, as soon as George Bush and Tony Blair announced the start of the invasion under the name “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, popular support for the war rose to back the troops. Support for the war reached 72 per cent according to the Gallup poll, between 22 and 23 March.

READ: Oil worth millions of dollars smuggled in Iraq can be prevented using technology

In no way can the statement of the British Secretary of Defence be considered a slip of the tongue or a personal statement open to interpretation as an opinion, like when former US President George W. Bush misspoke when describing the invasion of Iraq as “brutal and unjustified” when he talked about the Russian war in Ukraine. Instead, it should be addressed as a government political position based on a systematic racist ideology that views the Middle East as a haven for terrorism, presents it to the world as such, and deals with it according to this perspective, as we see in Palestine, Iraq and Syria.

Why? What gives the establishment of this image its importance in British politics, which is often reproduced in Western political and media approaches, and in Arab media with an irony that expresses a sense of inferiority?

The repetition and establishment of this image aims to strip the peoples of the “other” region of their humanity, so that they do not arouse any sympathy or moral responsibility, as their existence is reduced to a source of threat and danger and, therefore, their elimination is justified. This is what the US and UK administrations worked to promote in their invasion of Iraq, and they gave their forces the green light to commit crimes and human rights violations, including torture in Bucca and Abu Ghraib, to the massacres in the cities of Haditha and Al-Qaim. It is easy to commit the most heinous crimes if they are against the “others – the terrorists”, whose murder does not raise any questions nor does it pose a moral dilemma. Instead, it is the complete opposite, as killing them becomes necessary to protect the citizens. It is the justification used by the British Secretary of Defence when using deadly drones and missiles to carry out extrajudicial assassinations in other countries. He viewed the countries being bombed as havens for terrorists, who pose a threat to the security and safety of British citizens and said these actions “are vital to degrading such terrorist threats, protecting British citizens and supporting our international partners.” This is the same justification the US adopts in its targeted killings, i.e. premeditated killing of specific individuals chosen by a state they are not in the custody of, as they did in Pakistan and Yemen, as well as Israel’s continued targeting of Palestinian Resistance leaders in Gaza, which is faced with international silence.

The statement made by the current British Secretary of  Defence reminds us of the intense propaganda campaign that the British government mobilised all means for in order to distort the image of the Iraqi Resistance immediately after its launch, a few days after the invasion in 2003. It is not much different in its content to what the resistance movements are being accused of in the occupied countries around the world, as the colonialism and racism aspect is the same when it comes to accusing the Native Americans of barbarism, using insulting names against the Vietnamese resistance, accusing the Afghans of being backwards and accusing the Palestinian and Iraqi Resistance of terrorism. Wherever the coloniser arrives and is confronted with the resistance of the indigenous people against its imperialist policies, they find distorting the peoples’ images an effective tool used to reassure the public opinion in their country that everything they do is in the interest of the people, no matter how brutal the crimes they commit, which are no longer a secret to anyone.

OPINION: When will the UN ask the USA and UK to pay reparations for their illegal invasion of Iraq?

When the people of the occupied country and its resistance are called degrading names, it is easy for the occupying forces to show the world the extent of their nobility and self-sacrifice to rid the world of the danger of terrorist groups. In Iraq, the occupation and the Iraqi groups that were happy to cooperate with it and beg for its support worked hard to erase the word resistance/resistor from the political and media dictionary and, instead, replaced it with terms that insinuate legitimisation of their killing and providing immunity for the killers, such as Saddam’s henchmen, Saddam’s army, Al-Qaeda, Islamic jihadist, foreign volunteer, Sunni rebel, and the Sunni triangle of death. They are all labelled as “terrorists”.

While the colonisers use their new soft/deadly alterations with tireless perseverance to achieve its policy of economic exploitation and military and ideological domination to ensure their existence through agreements and their support of the proxy leaders’ class and their resounding silence in the face of their crimes, hope will remain for a popular uprising and the resistance on every level. There is hope that the popular resistance will remain alive, as not everyone who fights for dignity, justice, national unity, facing the danger of domination and plans for division and fragmentation is a terrorist, as the colonisers try to portray them.

This article first appeared in Arabic in Al-Quds Al-Arabi on 20 March 2023

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.