So much bleeding, and more to come?

As if Iraq was a patient that had not suffered too much already, news of the contention between the Kurds [of Iraq] and the Turkish government comes in to shatter the infinitesimal probability that the region might be healed soon, that peace might come in the near future in the valley between Tigris and Euphrates. But how optimistic could one be if looking at Iraq today, if seeing that the single region of this extensive battlefield spared from belligerence entertains the possibility of immediate aggression?

The warning of the president of autonomous Kurdish region Massoud Barzani against Turkey issued during an interview in Arab television station Al-Arabiyah leaves little room for doubt: if Turkey invades Kirkurk, the Kurds of Iraq would retaliate and attack back this time in favor of the Kurds of Turkey. Not surprisingly the response of the Turkish military establishment is equally lucid. In the words of General Büyükanıt the army is ready and awaiting: "a political commanding decision is needed for a cross border operation. If we are assigned the mission, we will accomplish it".

For there is nothing worse to even ponder at this point than the possibility of an escalated conflict, one that would transcend the highly porous borders of Iraq to diverge and include neighboring states, beginning here with Turkey. To the world, Iraq is already a very badly infected wound; it takes up too many resources while showing little, if any signs of progress. The prospect of grand scale conflict in the region comes only with significant drawbacks; it needs not be repeated how it will compromise the chances for peace or the economic and political stability of the broader region or how it will deepen the divide along ethnic and religious lines.

To be sure, the goal here is not to present worst case scenarios, let alone to contribute to their popularity. Nonetheless, to refuse to undertake tough questions in whole or part just because they appear bleak is no good either - shunning away from reality does not help. It does help though to think that gloomy scenarios need not materialize into dreadful realities: it goes without a say that politics involves much more talking and much less action - thankfully so in most cases. Moreover it is in times like these that one resuscitates the lost confidence in diplomacy or for that matter discovers it for the first time: whether it is power dynamics or covert strategies, a number of unrelated factors shape outcomes and skew the decision-making process for better or worse - often in unpredicted ways. Finally, if one was to stick with the facts, in order to realistically assess the situation one must consider a wide array of factors and assumptions including dispelling notions of applicable: just because Turkey has a significant Kurdish minority this does not mean that all Kurds of Turkey want independence, let alone to be found overnight in a poor, landlocked state with little to offer.

Having said that all, Kirkurk is an important city with oil "worth" vying for. But it is neither oil and the fact that it scarce nor any other such individual factor that causes the greatest concern; it is the greedy nature of humans that makes one fear the most. Mahatma Gandhi has often been quoted for saying that "there is enough on earth for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed"; he could not be more right here.


Links

The story: "Iraqi Kurds urged not to 'interfere' in fighting"
The Turkish reaction, in Turkish: "Siyasi irade isterse Kuzey Irak'a gireriz" and in English: "Assign us the mission and we will enter Iraq"
On the "international dimension" of the story and where diplomacy fits in "Gül urges Rice over Barzani's threats against Turkey"

One (more)

In his article today titled "Η φωλιά του κούκου, 2007" republished in his blog , well-respected Greek journalist Michalis Mitsos takes up the question of victims of wars and warfare. Citing the case of Iraq he underscores the disproportionately grand analogy of casualties to dead -particularly when juxtaposed against previous wars- mostly thanks to advances in the medical field.

Meanwhile here in Boston word has come of the death of a young woman in Iraq - one that was not fortunate to make it into the "list of wounded". This morning I grabbed the local edition of "Metro" newspaper before riding the "T" [the name we have for the subway here] only to find its front page dedicated to Marine Captain Jennifer Harris, of "Swampscott, MA". The next page was a report from her funeral which was held at her native Swampscott, -a small community of some 15,000- yesterday, "with full military honors" - as if this would soothe the pain of her family, her fiancé Maj. Christopher Aaby, the community, us reading the newspaper.

Of course her fellow soldiers wanted to honor Jennifer, her life, her service - this was the rationale behind the elaborate funeral. Lt. Gascinski -a roommate of Harris at the Naval Academy- in her speech stressed the "calm demeanor" of Harris whose nickname was "Dove" for this reason.

But that said and done, bottom line is that 28 year old Jennifer is dead: her helicopter went down on February 7. Fate, death, the Sunni group, -how you want to name it- did not take into account her youth or the fact that she was a woman pilot or that this week was her last week in Iraq: she was expected to come home the following week.

Jennifer and every man or woman killed in Iraq or any war: this is the version of Iraq war that rarely makes it to non-US papers. The mere listing of casualties and victims no matter which place it occupies within the newspaper or how it is commented, it can never be compared to that of "the individual dead", the resident of the community, the neighbor, the college classmate.

In a densely-knit community-based America there is one puzzle, one unanswered question which at the same time dwindles support for the war and gives hope to all of us opposing it: "for how long more can people assist to funerals of their loved ones, their fellow citizens?" For Swampscott, Jennifer was not the first one. 20 year old Army Spc. Jared Raymond died just a few months ago in Taji, Iraq, the newspaper tells us, leaving us with this thought in mind - not without a reason I believe.

As numbers of dead and wounded rise, as our expectations from the constituencies in Massachusetts and elsewhere increase, so does our hope that this "war" will be brought -somehow- to an end: for one thing, the newspapers of Iraq, if they were to be printed regularly, they would need an extra budget to dedicate articles to all the casualties, not to say front pages.

But learning from the American experience and the pain and sorrow that such news brings, perhaps is better this way, without articles. It may not honor the memory of those killed, but it does not suck whatever courage has been left to the citizens of Baghdad and all those other cities where a trip to the market has a risk factor greater than swimming in a pool with sharks: an avid diver, my father tells that if you do not move and stay still the shark does not perceive your presence and hence does not attack.

Unfortunately, running or standing still, bombs manage to get you in Baghdad - somehow.


Links

"Metro" newspaper
The town: Swampscott, MA

94

When Hannah Arendt published her pivotal, prototypic and controversial [when juxtaposed against her previous publications] "Eichmann in Jerusalem" in 1963 she argued her famous "banality of evil" thesis - that people committing atrocities need not be inherently bad but may be influenced by an ideology or a set of codes. Because they are good "bureaucrats" they abide by rules, principles and orders thereby committing crimes.

Seeing the atrocities that occur on a daily basis at Iraq -United Nations announced today the death toll for Iraqis to be 34,000 for 2006- I cannot help but question what is that has made "evil" look like a "banality" in the lives [and hence the culture] of a people. Conversely, what sort of "banality" is this, which spurs an almost routinized coverage of Iraq by media and non-media actors, an awfully repetitive sorrow-dominated vocabulary to politicians and officials of any sort and a "yet again" or "not again" [at best] reaction to "innocent, powerless" civilians, if not of "evil"?

A great paradox and virtue of language is this, namely that it allows one to play games with words, to deconstruct phrases and to create wholly new and different meanings based on a word or two. Language can also downplay or increase the importance of virtual anything simply through wise word choice and word ordering. But numbers, are not like that; numbers cannot get dressed up to look "good" or "sloppy", they are destined to carry the naked version of the story - whatever this story maybe.

It so comes that 94 is the number for Iraq. If 34,000 was difficult to comprehend, the fact that this figure translates to 94 people being killed every single day at Iraq may help those not handling easily big figures, myself included. Early on we learn also that metaphors help, as they render our speech or writings clearer. Strikingly painful as it may appear, and it is, 94 dead Iraqis is almost like if a Boeing 737 crashed everyday or if the entire grade six of a 564 elementary school disappeared again and again and again every single day of the calendar year - rain or shine.

It almost causes shame to me the fact that I dared to quantify in this most disgraceful and dishonorable manner human life. And as I am about to delete my previous statement, I decide I will not - I think it does much less justice to victims to refuse to refer to their plight; it is much too hypocritical and shameful to aspire to a Pontius Pilate attitude when we all have some share of responsibility for the atrocities on the Iraqi soil. Unfortunately, few of us have the excuse of "abiding by an ideology" and fewer still are "the good bureaucrats" exercising at our best the civil duties entrusted to us.

That 94 people die everyday at Iraq because of the mess calls, once more, for urgent action. Much advocacy still focuses on "an end to the war". Will that suffice? Most journalists and experts signal otherwise; they talk about a possible splitting of Iraq into three states and they allude to further bloodshed. Even the most optimist would agree that the current state of Iraq is one of utter fragility and instability and that no deus ex machina can bring this tragedy to a bloodless conclusion. Regardless of the course of affairs at Iraq what seems clear is that we, non-Iraqis, are not entitled to any more mistakes, to any more gambling of human lives in our futile attempt to transform "vision" into action. Our duty is to help: may we be fortunate to find ways to assist - not to absolve ourselves from our atrocities, but, simply to decrease suffering. And to lower this damned 94.

References and Links:

in English: Blasts kill at least 70 in Baghdad; U.N. reports 34,000 Iraqis died in '06

en Français: Irak: plus de 100 morts dans des violences, 34.000 civils tués en 2006

an interesting study of Arendt's "banality of evil" in the context of fear is to be found in Corey Robin "Fear: The History of a Political Idea" (Oxford: OUP, 2004).