History Fuels the Fire of Anger

The Bush administration might use the scenes of Iraqis toppling statues of Saddam Hussein to portray the American invasion of Iraq as an act of liberation. If that were true, it might expect Iraq, and the Arab world in general, to become more peaceful, more democratic and, most important, less hateful of the United States with the Iraqi dictator gone from the Middle East.

But America’s apparent victory in Iraq will probably have the opposite effect. The consequences of its occupation could be extremely dangerous, not only for the region and the international community but also for America.

Even before the war, Arabs burned with anger at the United States. Most U.S. embassies in Arab countries have become fortresses protected by Marines and local security forces. Many times in the last 10 years, hundreds of thousands of Arabs have burst into the streets of their capitals to burn the flags of the United States and Israel. Many called for “opening the door of jihad.” Protesters condemned Arab governments allied with the U.S. Sometimes, these governments had to occupy their own capitals with security forces to keep their citizens’ anger from exploding into rebellion.

There are many explanations circulating for Arab anger at the U.S., yet few put the phenomenon in historical context. This anger predates the U.S.-led war against Iraq and the destruction rained down on the great city of the Abbasids. It did not originate with the second Palestinian intifada and the series of massacres of Palestinian civilians by Israeli forces. These events fueled the fire, but they did not start it. The fire was already burning.

In Arab eyes, U.S. political and military intervention revives horrible and humiliating memories of colonialism. Any student of modern Arab history knows that colonialism was -- and remains -- a traumatic experience for Arabs. The story of colonialism, as told by an Arab, would begin with the French invasion of Algeria in 1830, proceed to the British invasion of Egypt in 1882, then go on to include the Franco-British mandates in Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq after World War I. In this story, Israel is a contemporary -- and temporary -- extension of old colonial arrangements.

America’s patronage of Israel places it in the camp of colonial powers, and that yields a hard calculus. For many Arabs, an Israeli attack is also an American attack; U.S. intervention is pro-Israeli colonialism, including the American-sponsored peace process.

It is true that many Arab governments fought alongside the Americans in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But America’s victory just reinforced its colonialist image. In a sense, America was too victorious for its own good.

The U.S. bombing and strafing of Iraqi troops withdrawing along the Kuwait-Basra highway, dubbed the “Highway of Death” by the media, killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers -- as many as 50,000, by some estimates -- in an act widely seen in the Arab world as a massacre. A U.S. military presence on Saudi soil, sacred to Muslims, turned America’s previous allies, the Arab moujahedeen in Afghanistan, into enemies. Osama bin Laden founded Al Qaeda, and some Arab anger had an outlet. I believe it would be much harder for people like Bin Laden to find recruits willing to kill Americans if images of Iraqi and Palestinian civilians dying because of U.S.- supported sanctions or weapons were not a staple of Arab TV.

But America’s words also aggravate Arab anger. Talk of liberating Iraq, bringing democracy to Baghdad and “teaching Iraqis how to live a better life” echoes Rudyard Kipling’s “white man’s burden.” This was the colonial discourse of Britain and France in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Any 12-year-old student in the Arab world knows that.

And like yesterday’s Franco-British colonial discourse, there are references to religion, especially to the Crusades, in America’s words today. France’s Gen. Henri Gouraud, who occupied Damascus in 1920, is reported to have stood over the tomb of Saladin, the Muslim sultan who took Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine back from the Crusaders, and said, “Saladin, we have returned.” British Gen. Edmund Allenby, on occupying Jerusalem, said: “Today, the Crusades have ended.” In the Egyptian city of Port Said, a puppet representing Allenby is burned every year during spring festival. In fact, Harq Allenby -- “the burning of Allenby” -- is the name of the festival.

Unfortunately, President Bush’s retreat from using “crusade” to describe the war on terrorism came too late for millions of Arabs and Muslims. To them, the Crusades were nearly 200 years of humiliation, carnage and rape, as one Christian Arab novelist put it. The war in Iraq is the new link to the Crusades and colonial domination of the Arab world.

The anger Arabs feel increases every time they see the image of an American tank passing under a palm tree. It is not the product of a belligerent culture; it is the natural tendency of a people wanting to stay independent. Nor is it directed at American values and ideas. American values, especially the right to self-determination, were once cherished and admired by Arabs. America was seen as a free country eager to bring freedom to others. But when America became an ally of Britain and then its heir in global affairs, and when it became an unquestioning ally of Israel and an occupying force almost on Israel’s behalf, America betrayed its values. Arabs, naturally, considered it an enemy, one that threatened their independence. Given what has happened to them for the last hundred years, anger seems a natural and justifiable reaction.

The coalition victory in Baghdad should be bad news for farsighted Americans. When Baghdad fell, no person of wisdom should have celebrated.