The Independent (Work Experience): Growing Up With Iraq.

This article was written for The Independent and published on their website 20th March 2013:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/growing-up-with-iraq-8542599.html

AT the close of the Iraq War, Tony Blair visited troops on active service and declared that the supposed triumph in the Middle East was a momentous part of our generation’s history. “When people look back on this time, and look back on this conflict, I honestly believe that they will see this as one of the finer moments of our century” he said with confidence. Riding high on the wave of a euphoric sense of victory, the Prime Minister believed that he had proved doubters of the Iraq War wrong: his deliberately obstinate stance in the face of record protesters in the months preceding the war had apparently paid off. But not all victories should be measured by the physical change.

A decade after the conflict began, we are still living with its legacy, and feel the force of threat even more every day. A younger generation are now becoming part of the electorate; a generation for whom the Iraq War was their first engagement with pressing and current world issues. For those in their late teens and early 20s, this is their first memory of war.

Far from the prescribed school curriculum of World War II and the great British and Allied victories of the twentieth century, here was a confusing and confounding picture of modern warfare. Two of my clearest childhood memories revolve around the ‘war on terror’: the attacks of 9/11, and the opening bombardment on Baghdad some ten years ago. The former event I did not fully appreciate at the time, but remember my mother frantically trying to find a channel with children’s shows to distract our attention whilst she watched upstairs. The later seemed a rite of passage: I watched the images aged just ten, with my parents alongside.

Barrage

The picture was bewildering. How were we the good guys if we were launching such a massive barrage of destruction on this weaker nation? As a child in primary school, it was too much to comprehend.

Intervening years of destruction, violence and chaos followed, and I found myself questioning Blair’s resounding sentiment of success. Did we feel any safer in this modern world? Alongside dwindling support for the Iraq War grew increasing resentment and discontent. I came to the belief that this had been an exercise in vanity and massaging the egos of world superpowers.

As a country, we have never felt less safe as a result of British action abroad. A recent YouGov poll, carried out to coincide with the ten year anniversary of the Iraq invasion, reveals that a majority (56 per cent) of the public share this believe that the war has increased the risk of a terrorist attack on the UK, while less than a tenth of participants (7 per cent) believed it had decreased the risk of attack. It is a similar story in the US, where almost half (48 per cent) of people believe the conflict has not contributed to the long term security of the country.

In his ‘Discouraging Citizenship?’ paper, Stephen Cushion identified that “the 10–14 year old age group were the most anti-war (62 per cent opposing it), followed by the 19–22 group (47 per cent).” back in 2003. The massive 62 per cent against war are now feeling the impact of an oblivious government in which they had no say.

Apathy

When an estimated two million people marched on Westminster in 2003, placards of the mass anti-war demonstration read “Not in My Name”. The current distrust of young adults is easy to explain. This war we knew little about was waged in our name, and now we are the generation that have to deal with the consequences in a supposedly more threatening world.

Disengagement with politics does not stem from youth apathy as many assume, it sprouts from this cultural moment of war, a major milestone in public consciousness and disillusionment with the political monopoly. As the first people to grow up absorbing information from the TV, internet websites and social media, our fears and feelings, our misconceptions and misunderstandings of war are reinforced through every medium. For all the supposed benefits, we still feel less and less safe.

In his inauguration speech for his second term of office at the White House, Barack Obama announced that “a decade of war is now ending.” Withdrawing troops is not the end of the war however. While Western democracies may believe they have won a battle, the war on terror continues for those who are forced to live in the aftermath. Even if you are too young to remember the demonstrations in London, or the initial invasion, the cynicism is likely to have seeped in from reports of terrorist threats, 7/7 and elder siblings. Far from the glory of Tony Blair’s victory speech, this war will perhaps now be remembered as the finest example of the century’s incompetence and its legacy now overshadows the young. 

Driving To The Brink

It’s probably a fair assumption that even in Britain there remains some low-level of gender discrimination, a mark of a bygone era of patriarchies. More often than not, this continues to manifest itself in various forms of slanderous remarks, wittingly made acceptable by terming it a joke. Perhaps most prevalent amongst these ‘joking’ insults is the seemingly innocent observation that “women drivers can’t drive”.

Yet, there are places where this same phrase is taken more literally: women in Saudi Arabia are actually banned from driving as part of the law. And a law that seems without any reason to support it, with the King of Saudi Arabia repeatedly professing that “there will come a time for the law to change.”

Women of the state appear to have gotten bored with the deliberation over when to lift the ban. Today, females staged a mass protest in its most demonstrative form: those that held an international licence were urged to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and drive.

Punishment for the offence is more sever than a Westerner might anticipate. Violaters are subject to a wide range of possible outcomes, from prison sentences to public lashings. More, these women are often subject to suffer the wider implications for their actions: they can lose their jobs, receive hate mail, threats online and lose their friends. Simply for taking control.

Imagine having to find a dependent to ferry you everywhere all the time. Not exactly the violation of human rights that is foregrounded by most, but a slight on freedom none the less.

Yet, I find myself wondering whether it is not a slightly hypocritical view for the West to suddenly be outraged by actions that these very countries condoned just 150 years ago (and even more recently). The ban reads to me as though a draconian, Victorian measure: and after all the Victorian era was the golden era of modern enlightenment. Perhaps this discrepancy in gender equality is something that each region and country must contend itself with in order to reach a cosmopolitan attitude.

Of course, the reasons to leave all laws as they are strike a reader immediately. Saudi Arabia is in the centre of a hot bed of political unrest and uncertainty. The Middle East has this past year ignited with uprisings and revolts that have marred the region with destruction and death. In a country that remains prosperous and with relatively low crime, there is no sense in disrupting the current politics in case it proffers the spark for wider social revolutions. Besides, a large enough proportion of the population seem so acceptant of the driving ban that their instant reaction is to shun those who make a stand.

Indeed, the powerful Shura Council have widely promoted a highly propaganda based study on the effect of women driving in society and claim that any licence for women to get behind the wheel is a full throttle approach to an increase in divorce, prostitution, drug abuse and child baring out of wedlock. How should the women make themselves heard against such controversial views?

A starting block would be ensuring the incoming choice to vote: 2015 set to be the year in which women are included in the voting system for the first time. King Abdullah, at 87, may not live to see such an event however, and there are worries that any possible successor may revoke the right.

The worry is that anarchy can come from the smallest of changes in one of the most volatile areas of the planet at the moment. Yet surely this fevour for activism is more likely should changes not present themselves as in the offing? It will only be a certain amount of time before neighbouring action causes enough friction to instigate action, and that would bring about the very scenario the government are trying to avoid.

Whilst Saudi Arabia is not a Western country, and does not want to be perceived as adhering to Western norms or culture, some lenience may be the only way to ensure a continued peace and stable state.

In The Wake of 9/11

A spectre is haunting the world. A spectre that hangs on a global scale.

Just one decade ago, as the shadow of one structure fell from the Manhattan skyline, another erect itself in its place. Greyer than its predecessor, this new structure threw a dark hue over New York, America and the world.

Over the course of an intermittent ten years, the word terrorism has come to take a prevalent place in the life of many in the Western World. Those who are now coping with the legacy of 9/11, the so called 9/11 generation, live in a domain where attack comes in any form at any time, in order to strike fear into the civilised fronts of Europe, America and Asia.

Essentially, we live amidst the largest battle of ideologies since the Cold War.

Now, as in the period that saw a stalemate of superpowers, many people wonder whether today will be one that sees their daily life thrown into chaos. When once a battle was something that happened away from public view, not only is it now an inherent part of the media and our daily life, but it could impact personally. Whether friend, family member or threat to self, with attacks on trains in Spain, airports in Glasgow and tube systems in London, the shocking increase in the frequency, ingenuity and scale by which these terror threats manifest themselves means that peace is on hold.

Segregation is the first and most evident effect on society. Many Muslims in America recount the weeks and months and even years following the devastating attacks on the country that essentially left them without identity. Belonging to a community that took credit for the death of almost 3,000 people, these American citizens became shunned.

Some claim that their livelihoods were threatened, others lost jobs and racial insensitivity ensued with the rise of misunderstanding and hatred.

One day has come to personify an entire religion and cross section of society, without room for their defence.

Recently in France, there has been a ban on the burka in public places and those with professional careers. The French government advocates that this move is to enable people of all faiths to come closer, eliminating a potentially boundary between social groups. Others remain indignant and see it as a source of racism. Elsewhere, as the clean-up from riot torn Britain continues, there are a select number who laid blame on social divisions between ethnic minorities. These fragments that have broken away from daily society trace routes to problems established on that September morning in 2001.

Although subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have played out on a different continent, the psychological effects reach further. For those who know any serving member of the army, each day is a blessing, as no news is good news. Establishing Middle East war zones sets up a dichotomy by which there is a comfort that there is justice for the innocent people that lost their lives, yet the dangers of antagonism, overthrowing illusive figures and daily bombings adds to death tolls.

More importantly on home fronts, with Wootton Bassett ending its tour of duty as representative for those fallen, an entire town is bearing responsibility for public grief one last time. Across the Atlantic, one prison has become so intertwined with the myth of Army brutality in the name of public safety that there is a passive acceptance to its morals.

These are the truths of life post 9/11. Initial reactions to a plane hitting the North Tower were the cries of a tragic accident. Barely 15 minutes later, all such nativity and good nature was lost not only from those who lived in New York, but gradually across America and later Europe.

News channels now do not hesitate to question whether some unidentified disruption is the cause of a terrorist attack. Until September 2001, there would have largely been questions that came before this: what was known of the problem, or what were the authorities doing, or whether there would be a state of normality resumed soon?

Now: Is it a terrorist attack? Who claimed responsibility? What could have been done?

For all the expectations of attacks that are now a constant worry of the average person, still each extravagant declaration of a problem with a nation comes as a surprise. What did we learn from 9/11? Extremists still managed to successfully detonate a bomb in Spain. English police forces had tips of an upcoming attack on Underground facilities and yet services remained unprepared in the event. 

Norway, the latest victim, disbands the belief that only countries of certain proficiency and status on a global front are targets. Although only the actions of one man, the ripples of this double attack are testament as to how far social divisions are at a play on a global scale.

The worry is that such divisions are irreconcilable and beliefs incompatible.

From the ashes of ground zero, the ashes of dead businessmen and women, should instead rise a beacon of hope and a dedication, a pledge, that never again should deaths of innocent people be the bi-products of hatred.

However, this can never be the case if there remains a volatile system that constantly refers to broken social groups and minorities as outsiders.

Following 9/11, the role of the media should be to focus on stories and occasions wherein there has been a coming together, a conglomeration, of different segments of society. We all bear a responsibility to accept, understand and recognise the rights of individuals and groups and their ways of life.

Instead, in film, in press and on radio, the reverberated sound is one of hatred and denial. Hollywood has cashed in on a priceless tragedy. Blockbuster releases, such as ‘World Trade Centre’ and ‘Flight 93’, do not aid the public memory of the attacks on America. Rather they are demeaning to American citizens, whose lives were cut short, doing their jobs. In the press, we seek to lay blame solely on those in the East and quickly forget the role the West has played in previous decades; supplying arms and choosing sides is but all forgotten amongst the chaos.

Somewhat with bad taste, the humorous ‘4 Lions’ mockuments the plans of 4 would be terrorists. Despite the comedy film, it is this ironic take on something so serious that has a relaxed stance taken by public officials. If we are able to laugh in the face of adverse terror, why should we prevent it?

Media outlets are the voice of the 9/11 generation. Their function should be to allow a communication between those victims of attacks, to ease their pains and to bring society together.

A spectre of terror haunts the modern world. Whilst it is a unifying spirit, it is simultaneously a spirit of terrible trepidation and divisive deeds. Since its inception, this ghost of fear has served to make one group a scapegoat and one group a leader of peace. It lingers to separate world populous into those who are would be victims of terror and those who incite terror.

Instability abound, the Western world finds itself precariously balanced: for with power comes a duty of care. If it is to lead nations from the threat of external invasion, it firsts need look within and proactively protect its citizens.

9/11 serves as an unheeded warning. Most remain unprepared for an attack and many remain ignorant of the country and customs of those being invaded. The media breaches its own duty in not being a reliable source of information.

No longer can terrorism be swept under the rug: it is public domain.  

Currently, the Manhattan skyline is dominated by the spectre that stands at 1,368 ft. Soon, it will be joined at that height by World Trade Centre 1, or Freedom Tower. With Freedom comes the hope that the current ideology of terror will be washed by the waters of the fountain that circle the Twin Tower base: otherwise, there will progress a stalemate of fear, a waiting game of attack and consequence. 

 Interactive Ground Zero Site (BBC)

Countries where there have been attacks with more than 20 victims since 2001.

After 9/11: Global Effects (BBC)

"During the 1990s, world leaders looked at the mounting threat of terrorism, looked up, looked away, and hoped the problem would go away."

-John Boehner