Published on Monday, April 19.
by
Rahul Mahajan
NOTE: Doctors from four hospitals in Baghdad
were interviewed in compiling this report; all asked that their names
be left out.
Baghdad, Iraq
-- “Why do you keep asking about the closing of the Fallujah hospital?”
my
Iraqi translator asks in exasperation. I explain that this is big news,
and it
hasn’t really been reported in English. He looks at me, incredulous;
all Iraqis
know about it.
When the United
States
began the siege of Fallujah, it targeted civilians in several ways. The
power
station was bombed; perhaps even more important, the bridge across the Euphrates
was closed. Fallujah’s main hospital stands on the western bank of the
river;
almost the entirety of the town is on the east side. Although the
hospital was
not technically closed, no doctor who actually believes in the
Hippocratic oath
is going to sit in an empty hospital while people are dying in droves
on the
other bank of the river. So the doctors shut down the hospital, took
the limited
supplies and equipment they could carry, and started working at a small
three-room outpatient clinic, doing operations on the ground and losing
patients because of the inadequacy of the setup. This event was not
reported in
English until April 14, when the bridge was reopened.
In Najaf, the Spanish-language “Plus Ultra”
garrison closed
the al-Sadr Teaching Hospital roughly a week ago (as of yesterday, it
remained
closed). With 200 doctors, the hospital (formerly the Saddam Hussein
Teaching
Hospital) is one of the most important in Iraq.
Troops entered and gave the doctors two hours to leave, allowing them
to take
only personal items -- no medical equipment. The reason given was that
the
hospital overlooks the Plus Ultra’s base, and that the roof could be
used by
resistance snipers. Al-Arabiya has also reported that in Qaim, a small
town
near the Syrian border where fighting recently broke out, that the
hospital had
been closed, with American snipers positioned atop nearby buildings.
The United
States
has also impeded the operation of hospitals in other ways. Although the
first
Western reports of U.S.
snipers shooting at ambulances (see http://www.empirenotes.org/fallujah.html)
caused something of a furor, two days ago at a press conference the
Iraqi
Minister of Health, Khudair Abbas, confirmed that U.S.
forces had shot at ambulances not just in Fallujah but also in Sadr
City, the sprawling
slum in East Baghdad. He condemned the acts and
said he had asked for an
explanation from his superiors, the Governing Council and Paul Bremer.
There are also persistent claims that after
an outbreak of
hostilities American soldiers visit hospitals asking for information
about the
wounded, with the intent of removing potential resistance members and
interrogating them. Nomaan Hospital in Aadhamiyah and Yarmouk Hospital
in
Yarmouk (both areas of Baghdad) got visits from U.S. forces in the
first days
after the fighting in Fallujah started -- the lion’s share of evacuated
wounded
from Fallujah were taken to those two hospitals. Doctors generally
resist being
turned into informants for the occupation; one doctor actually told me
that he
has many times discharged people straight from the emergency room, with
inadequate
time to recuperate, just to keep them out of military custody. As he
said,
“They are my countrymen. How can I hold them for the Americans?”
While the American media talks of the great
restraint and
“pinpoint precision” of the American attack, over 700 people, at least
half of
them civilians, have been killed in Fallujah. And, according to the
Ministry of
Health, in the last two weeks, at least 290 were killed in other
cities, over
30 of them children. Many of those who died because of the hospital
closures
will never be added in to the final tally of the “liberation.”
By any reasonable standard, these hospital
closings (and, of
course, the shooting at ambulances) are war crimes. However afraid the
Plus
Ultra garrison may have been of attack from the rooftops, they didn’t
have to
close the hospital; they could simply have screened entrants. In the
case of
Fallujah, it’s clear that one of the reasons the mujahideen were
willing to
talk about ceasefire was to get the hospital open again; in effect, the
United
States was holding civilians (indirectly) hostage for military ends.
After an earlier article about attacks on
ambulances, many
people wrote to ask why U.S.
forces would do this -- it conflicted with the image they wanted to
have of the U.S.
military.
Were they just trying to massacre civilians? And, if so, why?
In fact, it’s fairly simple: the United
States has its military goals and
simply
does not care how many Iraqi civilians have to be killed in order to
maximize
the military efficiency of their operations. A senior British army
commander
recently criticized the Americans for viewing the Iraqis as
Untermenschen -- a
lower order of human being. He also said the average soldier views all
Iraqis
as enemies or potential enemies. That is precisely the case. I have
heard the
same thing from dozens of people here -- “They don’t care what happens
to
Iraqis.”
Although this relatively indiscriminate
killing of civilians
may serve American military ends -- keeping the ratio of enemy dead to
American
soldiers dead as high as possible -- in terms of political ends, it is
a
disaster. It is very difficult to explain to an Iraqi that a man
fighting from
his own town with a Kalashnikov or RPG launcher is a “coward” and a
“war
criminal” (because, apparently, he should go out into the desert and
wait to be
annihilated from the sky) but that someone dropping 2000-pound bombs on
residential areas or shooting at ambulances because they may have guns
in them
(even though they usually don’t) is a hero and is following the laws of
war.
When I was here in January, there was a
pervasive atmosphere
of discontent, frustration, and anger with the occupation. But most
people were
still just trying to ride it out, stay patient, and hope that things
improved.
The wanton brutality of the occupation has at long last put an end to
that
patience.
Before, the occupation might have succeeded
-- not in
building real democracy, which was never the goal, but in cementing U.S.
control of Iraq.
It cannot succeed now. The resistance in Fallujah will be beaten down,
with the
commission of more war crimes; if the United
States invades Najaf, it will be able
to win
militarily there as well. But from now on, no military victory will
make Iraqis
stop resisting.