Page 117 - Mass Media, Mass Propoganda Examining American News in the War on Terror

Railing Iraqi Resistance 107

Distinguishing between the various factions that are violently resisting oc-
cupation is also essential if one is to gain a better understanding of the complexi-
ties of the Iraq war that are often ignored in the American media. While it is
somewhat accurate to refer to a singular "resistance" or "insurgency" to the U.S.
in that many Iraqi resistance cells are loosely affiliated in working against the
occupation, it is also an inaccurate reference in that it assumes that there exists a
single tight-knit group of fighters who work together and share common goals.
After reviewing some of the various factions that make up Iraq's violent
resistance, it becomes obvious that different groups retain radically different,
often contradictory goals. This means that any framing of a united "resistance"
or "insurgency" is flawed at its foundation. Baathist remnants in Iraq have little,
if anything in common with foreign Islamist terrorist cells in terms of their ide-
ologies. Likewise, many Iraqis who have taken up violent opposition to the U.S.
may not necessarily agree with the basic tenets and principles that guided the
Baath Party, Saddam Hussein, or foreign Islamists. Many who commit to violent
attacks against the U.S. may just want to see the U.S. withdraw from Iraqi soil,
rather than see a return of Saddam Hussein or an Islamist takeover of Iraq.
While loosely or temporarily allying with one another, competing factions may
progress toward the goal of forcing a U.S. withdrawal; and yet, such associa-
tions may also stand in direct opposition to the political, economic, social, and
religious agendas that various groups would like to see implemented in Iraq in
the long-term.
Iraqi discontent with the occupation, rather than with "American freedoms,"
is reinforced by the Pentagon Defense Science Board, which released a 2004
report explaining hostility toward U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The
report concluded: "Muslims do not hate our freedom; but rather they hate our
policies."35 The study cited U.S. support for Israel and its occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza, support for repressive regimes such as Egypt, Saudi Ara-
bia, Jordan, and Pakistan, as well as the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The report went on to state: "In the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of
Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and
suffering." The study was not heavily emphasized in the American mainstream
press, as its contents contradicted the simplistic notion that any hostility directed
against American foreign policy translates into blanket "anti-Americanism.'' The
report also questioned the simplistic media-promoted myth that only "insur-
gents" are to blame for violence, destruction, and terror in Iraq. Still, the report's
conclusions should be an integral part of any debate on the Iraq war, at least if
the goal of public dialogue is to consider a wide range of views on the reasons
for widespread opposition to the occupation.