The Question the Pentagon Doesn't Want Answered

In lightning attacks from the south, Iraq is invaded by superior forces, resulting in many civilian casualties. It is not the spring of 2003, but the winter of 1927, when bedouin herders in the steppes of Iraq were slaughtered by fierce fighters from the Ikhwan movement, quasi-military forces based in the lands of the Al Saud, driven by a virulent ideology and a quest for plunder. In several raids on December 9, for example, Ikhwan forces killed at least 87 Iraqi tribesmen, and looted some 10,700 sheep,1,637 donkeys, 100 camels, six horses, 83 rifles and 180 tents. In the wake of this spree of killing and plunder, scores of families were shattered and fell into destitution. True, these were not "important people," not kings or merchants or even soldiers, but we are fortunate that the British authorities occupying Iraq at the time expended the effort to record their losses.

Why? Because the more we know about a society's past - its gains as well as its losses - the better we will understand it. More importantly, it gives us a sense of perspective. This should be self-evident, especially after Sept. 11, but to many Americans, it isn't. While they may insist that anyone wishing to have an insight into the character and history of our country must know about such episodes as the American Revolution, slavery, the Civil War, the Great Depression, and the New Deal, most Americans are blithely unaware of the rudiments of other peoples' histories, much less their great national traumas. At best, this phenomenon is the luxurious ignorance of a citizenry that had for most of its history been shielded from "the world," its bloody wars and travails. At worst, it is a swaggering arrogance that expresses an inner belief that "we" are the strongest, most enlightened, most free people in history, and the rest of the world matters not a whit.

This latter worldview has dire consequences, and is playing itself out quite vividly, in Iraq and across the globe. The Bush administration has asserted carte blanche based on the horrendous, catastrophic Sept. 11 victimhood of our country, despite the fact that our human losses on that day pale in comparison to scores of other massive human traumas around the globe. Historians will look back on many of the administration's policies as the most craven manipulations of a national tragedy in our history. While I am not saying that all our troubles would be solved if Donald Rumsfeld knew more about the tragedies of the Iraqi tribes in the 1920s, I do believe that it is in our basic American interests to deal with the rest of the world with a deep grounding in history and with an understanding of our shared humanity. From the dawn of time to the present, the world has been full of Sept. 11s and worse. By not acknowledging this simple but compelling fact, the Bush administration is walking blind into a dangerous and complicated world, and dragging our country into avoidable calamities.

A recent newspaper headline about post-war Iraq aroused a sense of deja vue: "U.S. Has No Plan to Count Civilian Casualties." It reminded me about the detailed records recorded by the British in Iraq some 70 years ago, and illustrates how the Pentagon's refusal to deal with this simple human reality threatens an already perilous period of occupation and reconstruction. It is somewhat strange that Rumsfeld and his generals show no fear sending forces into bloody combat (as long as the foe is relatively weak), but they seem to tremble at the possibility that an accounting of civilian casualties would show that their forces and gold-plated weapons systems are imperfect. So what? The great struggle now in Iraq is political, social and economic, not military. A large part of the challenges faced by the occupation forces is the perception of their endeavor in the Arab and Muslim world. One strand of these perceptions is that U.S. policies in the Middle East are insensitive to attacks on Arabs, notably the Palestinians, but now Iraqis as well. It is common to hear Arabs say of U.S. officials that "They think Arab blood is cheap." Many would respond, rightly, that Arab regimes themselves, Saddam Hussein's most notably, have shown a monstrous disregard for the lives of their citizens. But I for one do not want my country to be judged by the Butcher of Baghdad's deplorable standards.

At nearly every press briefing during the war, Pentagon officials stated that U.S. forces were performing "magnificently." Fine. Let these forces stand on their record, but let there be some sort of accounting of Iraq's civilian losses as well. It would show the world that we truly did not think Arab blood was cheap. And it would give the new Iraq a clearer vision of what its people sacrificed for a future that contains at least the seeds of hope.