Liberating Iraq: From Cyrus I to George II

By Joseph E. Mulligan, S.J.

According to an account by the new occupying power of Iraq, the former ruler had enslaved his own people and caused them great harm. So God established another ruler whose power extended over the whole world.

God called the new ruler to go to Iraq, and God was with him and with his vast army. God permitted him to take the capital city with little conflict. The people kissed the new ruler's feet, rejoicing that he had come.

The new ruler said: "I am the ruler of the worldÉ God moved the people's hearts to welcome me, as my many troops entered the city peacefully. I was glad to take care of the people's needs, restore their ruined houses, and clear away the ruins -- liberating them from their oppression.

"God was pleased by my actions and blessed me and all my troops, while we praised His infinite majesty. All the rulers honored me."

Cyrus the Great of Persia (Iran) "liberated" Babylonia (part of what is now Iraq) in 539 B.C.E. The above is a summary of his own history; his words can be read in the "Cyrus Cylinder," discovered in 1879 and now kept in the British Museum.

In 538 B.C.E. the "Edict of Cyrus" allowed the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem after almost fifty years in Babylonian Captivity. From the Bible we know that they rejoiced in their liberation (since it was a real one) and praised Cyrus as their deliverer. After all, Babylon was not their homeland, and Cyrus allowed them to leave it to go home.

But how did the Babylonians themselves feel about their "liberators"? According to some scholars, it is likely that the Persian ruler was indeed welcomed in Babylon since he paid homage to the god Marduk and promised support of their traditional cults and institutions. "The other element that would lead to his welcome is that the Babylonian king he deposed, Nabonidus, was quite unpopular with the locals," one biblical expert said.

Liberation?

Over the centuries this land was "liberated" many times by various conquering empires. In the second decade of the 20th century, Britain conquered Iraq. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," proclaimed Gen. F.S. Maude, commander of the British forces in Iraq.

Today's new rulers of Iraq speak as fervently as did Cyrus and his successors of their noble intentions for the people they have conquered.

On NBC News' "Meet the Press" (April 6, 2003), Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, played the familiar tune: "The important message to Iraqis and to everybody in that region is that we do not come as a new colonial power. We do not come as an army of occupation. We come as an army of liberation."

Nevertheless, statements by key players in the formation of U.S. policy in the Middle East, as well as a quick look at modern Iraqi history, suggest that self-interest rather than a dedication to the natives' liberation is the predominant factor in Western intervention.

Oil Exec: "I'd Love to Have Access to Iraqi Oil"

"Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to," said Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a 1998 speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, adding that he strongly supported sanctions against Iraq.

Condoleeza Rice, the U.S. National Security Advisor, was then a board member of Chevron, with one of the company's supertankers named after her.

Testifying before Congress in 1999, General Anthony C. Zinni, commander in chief of the U.S. Central Command, testified that the Gulf Region, with its huge oil reserves, is a "vital interest" of "long standing" for the United States and that the U.S. "must have free access to the region's resources." Free access seems to mean both military and economic control.

If it succeeds, the current occupation of Iraq will put Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron Texaco in control of Iraqi oil. Indeed, the administration appointed Phillip Carroll, the former head of Royal Dutch/Shell in the United States and former CEO of Fluor, to lead an advisory board which will oversee the Iraqi oil industry. Gary Vogler, the senior adviser to the Oil Ministry appointed by the U.S.-led Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), is a former executive of ExxonMobil.

One U.S. government official told a global TV audience that America does not seek to conquer or colonize Iraq but rather to insure free and open markets where all companies can compete. (Thus U.S. and other Western corporations, as the dominant economic forces, will colonize the country.)

Summarizing Modern History

American and British oil interests, and the governments which do their bidding, have been hostile to Iraq ever since Karim Kassem overthrew the monarchy in 1958 and began to put restrictions on the Iraq Petroleum Company -- a consortium in which Shell, BP, Esso (later Exxon), Mobil, and CFP, the French national company, were major shareholders.

(In neighboring Iran in 1953, the CIA and British intelligence had already taken care of a similar problem by overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh when he nationalized Iran's oil. A year later and halfway around the world, the CIA toppled the Arbenz government of Guatemala after it nationalized some of its respective natural resources -- some unused land holdings of United Fruit.)

Kassem was also on the Western business agenda. In 1959 a young Saddam Hussein, participating in an ill-fated CIA-sponsored coup attempt, shot and wounded Kassem.

Relations with the companies continued tense. Kassem became friendly with the Soviet Union and had some local communists in his government. In 1963 he was killed in a Baath Party coup in which many saw the hand of the CIA; whether the U.S. was directly involved in the coup or not, the CIA soon was supplying names of "subversives" to the new regime for elimination.

In 1972 a Baath Party administration nationalized Iraqi oil. During the 1980s the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, but the alliance of convenience broke down when he entered Kuwait. When the U.S.-led coalition sent Saddam home, some in the first Bush administration wanted to finish him off. Cooler heads prevailed, thinking that sanctions might do the job, until George II became president, with top assistants who were intent on regime change.

September 11, 2001 gave them their opportunity. But, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said of the Vietnamese in 1967, the Iraqis too "must see Americans as strange liberators."

In a strange turn of events, the captured Saddam Hussein may now be one of the most powerful people in the world in relation to the U.S. 2004 elections. What will the Bush administration be offering him . . . [for] verification of the weapons of mass destruction or of the alleged ties with Al-Qaeda terrorism?

In a strange turn of events, the captured Saddam Hussein may now be one of the most powerful people in the world in relation to the U.S. 2004 elections. What will the Bush administration be offering him, and how much will they be pressuring him (to put it gingerly), to get him to say something which could be interpreted as verification of the weapons of mass destruction or of the alleged ties with Al-Qaeda terrorism?

Joseph E. Mulligan, a Jesuit priest from Detroit, works in Nicaragua with Christian base communities. His is the author of The Nicaraguan Church and The Revolution (Sheed & Ward, 1991) and The Jesuit Martyrs Of El Salvador -- Celebrating the Anniversaries (Baltimore: Fortkamp, 1994). He may be reached by email at mull@ibw.com.ni