The Importance of Iraq's Non-Violent Anti-US Protests

The weekend's anti-US protests in Iraq could have attracted as many as 3000,000 protesters.

As expected, however, the Western media's reporting did not match the importance of this event. Interestingly, the LA Times feels obliged to begin by emphasizing the point that such protests would have been impossible under Saddam:

At the same time, the fact that so many protesters were able to gather and voice their opinions without bloodshed or insurgent attacks suggests Iraq is making progress toward establishing a democratic system and creating a strong security force.

Similarly, other reports used the daily number of Iraqi casualties as a lead-in to the story of the protest, subtly associating a peaceful protest with the on-going violence. For example:

At least 31 people were killed and scores wounded in attacks across Iraq as followers of radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr marched in Baghdad to demand a US withdrawal...

Why are these massive protests being reported in such ways? It not only misrepresents the importance of these protests, it also belittles the ability of the Iraqi people to take control of their own destinies.

By contrast, Fatah Sheik, one of about two dozen Assembly members who support Muqtada Sadr and participated in Saturday's demonstration, said, "Today's protest proves that Iraqis are able to maintain security by themselves, without an American presence."

A few other very interesting facts from the LA times article:

- "Several times during the protest, thousands of marchers stopped in front of the hotels, raising their fists and directing chants at the soldiers in the complex. At times, the demonstration appeared aimed directly at a U.S. audience. Scores of banners were printed in English. A statement by Sadr, also in English, was read over a loudspeaker." [Still, one wonders if the WEstern reporters remained too afraid to venture outside their hotels. For example, did anyone go out and try to personally verify the number of demonstrators?]

- "A few Iraqi police officers observing the scene raised their own fists in unity."

- "Hundreds of former militia members, who showed up for Saturday's protest in yellow shirts but without weapons, helped provide security and crowd control. Many said they would not hesitate to resume fighting if Sadr called."

And a few interesting points from Juan Cole:

- Al-Hayat reports that Muqtada urged his followers not to bear arms and were not to reply with gunfire if they were shot at by the Americans, saying that God would be responsible for defeating the Occupiers.

- The demonstrators carried effigies of Saddam Hussein, President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, each labeled "International Terrorist." [This should be food for thought for all the warblogging idiots who claim that if you did not support the invasion of Iraq, you therefore supported Saddam. Interesting, many protesters in the crowd were also calling for Saddam to be tried - if not fried!]

- Off to the side a small crowd of Iraqi Christians joined in the demonstration, with placards saying, "We support the call of Sayyid Muqtada for national unity."

- The demonstration's magnitude appears to have convinced prime minister designate, Ibrahim Jaafari of the Dawa Party, to begin speaking once again of a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops.

- there was no Western media coverage of other big anti-US demonstrations in Ramadi and in Najaf.

- a Sadr aide said that the demonstrations would continue. More on this from the FT.

So not only is al-Sadr getting his followers to demonstrate in the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands, he is also getting them to demonstrate peacefully. And the demonstrations are being supported by other groups (who, one imagines, may be more inclined to join future demonstrations after being reassured of their non-violent nature). And these protests are already bearing results.

I don't know about you, but to me those are pretty significant events in modern Iraq.

Blogger News Network has more analysis of the reporting.

UPDATE: An eyewitness report from Riverbend in Baghdad:

Thousands were demonstrating today all over the country. Many areas in Baghdad were cut off today for security reasons and to accomodate the demonstrators, I suppose. There were some Sunni demonstrations but the large majority of demonstrators were actually Shia and followers of Al Sadr. They came from all over Baghdad and met up in Firdaws Square- the supposed square of liberation. They were in the thousands. None of the news channels were actually covering it. Jazeera showed fragments of the protests in the afternoon but everyone else seemed to busy with some other news story....

BBC and EuroNews were busily covering the wedding between Prince Charles and the dreadful Camilla. CNN was showing the Pope's funeral. No one bothered with the demonstrations in Baghdad, Mosul, Anbar and the south. There were hundreds of thousands of Shia screaming "No to America. No to terrorism. No to occupation. No to the devil. No to Israel." The numbers were amazing and a little bit frightening too.

Riverbend provides this link to a Bellacio story showing photos of the demonstration (and comparing them with the highly-publicized US stage-managed toppling of Saddam's statue in the same square 2 years ago).