Excerpts:
---
McNaught: Iraq. Where is it headed?
Fisk: Not to civil war. There is not going to be a civil war in Iraq, unless we provoke it. I?m outraged by these occupying generals who tell us they are worries about a civil war Al-Qiada wants a civil war. No Iraqi I?ve ever met wants a civil war. And one of the reasons, which American does not understand, is that Iraq is not a society divided by religion, it?s a society united by tribes. All of the major tribes in Iraq have both Sunni and Shi?ite members.
...
I?m always struck by the fact when the British invade Iraq in 1917, the British Army made the statement: To the people of Baghdad, our armies come here not as conquerors, but as liberators, to free you from centuries of tyranny. Sound a bit familiar huh? And in three years we were losing hundreds of men in guerrilla warfare, and couldn?t control it. And the Americans have lost it in one year. And now these photographs of the prisoners, the maltreatment, the torture ? we have sacrificed our last claim to morality. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, so we said Saddam was linked to Al-Qaida. Then there was no link to Al-Qaida, so they said we came to rescue the people, they love us, we?re liberating them, and now we?re killing them. The last shred of morality attached to that war is finished.
McNaught: How much worse is it going to get?
Fisk: We don?t need to know what the Pentagon?s thinking is, we can see what it is: Think of something for tomorrow! It?s one day at a time now, everything has fallen aside. Liberation, reconstruction of democracy ? it?s finished! There maybe some people like the President who haven?t grasped that fact, but on the ground they know it. The State department, soldiers, most of the British forces there, they speak frankly in private that it?s over, it?s all gone.
So what happens next? There?s got to be an Arab initiative. But god knows how because Arab League is spineless. Iraqi needs Arab forces, not Turkish, they?re not Arabs. It needs Iraqis to come together, not under the auspices of an occupying power, but through their own will. If the Americans leave ?which they can?t do- in a generally free Iraqi, without us there, of course we should never have gone there in the first place, the tribal system could provide a form of majlis, a form of representation, which could be moderate and compassionate. It would be with out an American embassy that contains three thousand diplomats, which might become a model for the Middle East. But not with us there, not with us guiding it.
But we are doing everything wrong everything we do is exacerbating this country towards what could be a civil war, which I suspect some people would like. It?s only a matter of time before we hear our leaders who led us into this appalling war say: We gave them every chance, but the people don?t deserve it. The letters are already coming in to the New York Times and the Herald Tribune saying this ? alright, leave them to their own. We did our best, and lost 100s of our own soldiers doing it, and killed 1000s of them at the same time. It?s just another betrayal, just another Middle East betrayal.
Fisk: The problem for the Americans in Iraq is that they?ve got to leave. There?s no future for them now, they?re fighting an insurgency against everybody except the Kurds, so they must leave. And they will leave. But they CAN?T leave, because if they DO leave, the whole power and politics of the United States and this presidency is torn to pieces. You ask about why the Americans are in Iraqi, they?re there for oil, on the grounds that if Iraq exported carrots they wouldn?t be there. I was doing a story about the killing of a westerner on the street. And all of a sudden a US convoy came past, the whole ground shook. I guess two thousand years ago it would have been the Roman Army, and I began to realise then that I was watching the physical symbol of something which drives the US into these adventures, and that is the sheer almost messianic need to project physical power. The need to project it. ?We can go to Baghdad, and to show you, we?ll go there.? It didn?t need a political reason ? the power IS the reason.
...
McNaught: Have you noticed the interesting use of language in this war, and the wider war on terror?
Fisk: Much much more serious than the fact that governments have adopted it, is that the press have adopted it, that the media have adopted it. When ever you turn on the television you see ?War On Terror? at the top. Newspaper headlines on the ?War on Terror?. It is not a war on terror it is a war on America?s enemies. If we want a war on terror we would have an international court, which is what the American?s pulled out of, to try people who use violence in this way. We are fighting America?s enemies, and they are fighting back. And they are going to bring us in on it to if we fight with America. We as journalists should have never used that phrase, because it will now become part of the historical narrative. It?s easy for governments to say ?yes we are fighting the war on terror?. Bush said at one point that it might be unending. This is preposterous. They all make out like it?s the Second World War. Nassar was the Mussilini of Cairo, Saddam was the Hitler of Baghdad, and Blair is Churchill. This is ridiculous, it is not the Second World War. Governments and news agencies are trying to frighten people it is not World War Three. We shouldn?t allow people to say that 9/11 changed the world, it has not.
------------------------
Linky
---
McNaught: Iraq. Where is it headed?
Fisk: Not to civil war. There is not going to be a civil war in Iraq, unless we provoke it. I?m outraged by these occupying generals who tell us they are worries about a civil war Al-Qiada wants a civil war. No Iraqi I?ve ever met wants a civil war. And one of the reasons, which American does not understand, is that Iraq is not a society divided by religion, it?s a society united by tribes. All of the major tribes in Iraq have both Sunni and Shi?ite members.
...
I?m always struck by the fact when the British invade Iraq in 1917, the British Army made the statement: To the people of Baghdad, our armies come here not as conquerors, but as liberators, to free you from centuries of tyranny. Sound a bit familiar huh? And in three years we were losing hundreds of men in guerrilla warfare, and couldn?t control it. And the Americans have lost it in one year. And now these photographs of the prisoners, the maltreatment, the torture ? we have sacrificed our last claim to morality. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, so we said Saddam was linked to Al-Qaida. Then there was no link to Al-Qaida, so they said we came to rescue the people, they love us, we?re liberating them, and now we?re killing them. The last shred of morality attached to that war is finished.
McNaught: How much worse is it going to get?
Fisk: We don?t need to know what the Pentagon?s thinking is, we can see what it is: Think of something for tomorrow! It?s one day at a time now, everything has fallen aside. Liberation, reconstruction of democracy ? it?s finished! There maybe some people like the President who haven?t grasped that fact, but on the ground they know it. The State department, soldiers, most of the British forces there, they speak frankly in private that it?s over, it?s all gone.
So what happens next? There?s got to be an Arab initiative. But god knows how because Arab League is spineless. Iraqi needs Arab forces, not Turkish, they?re not Arabs. It needs Iraqis to come together, not under the auspices of an occupying power, but through their own will. If the Americans leave ?which they can?t do- in a generally free Iraqi, without us there, of course we should never have gone there in the first place, the tribal system could provide a form of majlis, a form of representation, which could be moderate and compassionate. It would be with out an American embassy that contains three thousand diplomats, which might become a model for the Middle East. But not with us there, not with us guiding it.
But we are doing everything wrong everything we do is exacerbating this country towards what could be a civil war, which I suspect some people would like. It?s only a matter of time before we hear our leaders who led us into this appalling war say: We gave them every chance, but the people don?t deserve it. The letters are already coming in to the New York Times and the Herald Tribune saying this ? alright, leave them to their own. We did our best, and lost 100s of our own soldiers doing it, and killed 1000s of them at the same time. It?s just another betrayal, just another Middle East betrayal.
Fisk: The problem for the Americans in Iraq is that they?ve got to leave. There?s no future for them now, they?re fighting an insurgency against everybody except the Kurds, so they must leave. And they will leave. But they CAN?T leave, because if they DO leave, the whole power and politics of the United States and this presidency is torn to pieces. You ask about why the Americans are in Iraqi, they?re there for oil, on the grounds that if Iraq exported carrots they wouldn?t be there. I was doing a story about the killing of a westerner on the street. And all of a sudden a US convoy came past, the whole ground shook. I guess two thousand years ago it would have been the Roman Army, and I began to realise then that I was watching the physical symbol of something which drives the US into these adventures, and that is the sheer almost messianic need to project physical power. The need to project it. ?We can go to Baghdad, and to show you, we?ll go there.? It didn?t need a political reason ? the power IS the reason.
...
McNaught: Have you noticed the interesting use of language in this war, and the wider war on terror?
Fisk: Much much more serious than the fact that governments have adopted it, is that the press have adopted it, that the media have adopted it. When ever you turn on the television you see ?War On Terror? at the top. Newspaper headlines on the ?War on Terror?. It is not a war on terror it is a war on America?s enemies. If we want a war on terror we would have an international court, which is what the American?s pulled out of, to try people who use violence in this way. We are fighting America?s enemies, and they are fighting back. And they are going to bring us in on it to if we fight with America. We as journalists should have never used that phrase, because it will now become part of the historical narrative. It?s easy for governments to say ?yes we are fighting the war on terror?. Bush said at one point that it might be unending. This is preposterous. They all make out like it?s the Second World War. Nassar was the Mussilini of Cairo, Saddam was the Hitler of Baghdad, and Blair is Churchill. This is ridiculous, it is not the Second World War. Governments and news agencies are trying to frighten people it is not World War Three. We shouldn?t allow people to say that 9/11 changed the world, it has not.
------------------------
Linky
