“Teaching the British reduces the killing”

"I never tell people about my work. A lot of people have been killed for working with the British or

From the beginning of the war, the Ministry of Defence ran programmes to prepare British soldiers for the challenges of peacekeeping. Servicemen and women of all ranks were put through crash courses - usually of about two weeks - in the language and culture of Iraq.

Najma, aged 24, who moved to London in 2001, is one of a number of British Iraqis working with the army on such programmes. She and colleagues role-play as Iraqi civilians; though London-based, their work is not without dangers. Like her compatriots in southern Iraq who work with the British, Najma finds that her involvement risks her being labelled a traitor.

"I never tell people about my work," she says, puffing on a cigarette. "A lot of people have been killed for working with the British or Americans, especially in Iraq. One of my close friends went back as an interpreter in 2004. He was shot dead in less than two weeks."

A particular concern is the safety of her mother, who still lives in Iraq.

"Last year someone wrote an article on the internet saying that we're betraying our country and helping the enemy for the sake of money. They didn't mention names but they listed some people's initials. I got really scared. At the end of the day I have a family in Iraq. Even if I am safe here, they are definitely not safe there."

Najma insisted on meeting at a cafe in an area where no one would know her. She says she has been working for the army since early 2005, in bases around the British Isles and in Germany. I ask her if she had had doubts about helping people who had killed her countrymen.

"The first thought that came into my mind was: 'They are in my country; you can't change that,'" she says. "The only thing you can do is to try to help the situation. I thought if I could teach them a little bit about how Iraqi people operate, it could reduce the killing."

But she has had doubts. "Every time the situation changes, my opinion changes. Sometimes I think I'm doing the right thing. Then when I watch the news and see soldiers mistreating Iraqi people, killing people, it makes me wonder why I am working with them. I don't feel guilty, because if I did I would stop, but it hurts to see them doing these things."

She has always been different, she says. When she was growing up in west Baghdad, her male relatives gave her a boy's nickname, because she would run ahead in the street instead of walking behind them as they thought she should. She later determined on a career in the theatre despite the strenuous objections of her family.

Iraqis recruited by the army have to be fluent in English and must have recent experience of their homeland. They are paid £100 per day.

"It is hard work," Najma says, and it can be overwhelming. "Sometimes the Iraqis forget they are acting and get upset. They start to think that it's real. I once saw a girl doing an exercise lose it completely. She started crying and just couldn't stop. She was thinking about Iraq and everything that has happened there.

"My opinion of the British army hasn't changed from doing this work. They are trying to learn the culture and they're trying to understand the way we react to what they do there. I've heard colleagues say that they wouldn't work for the Americans who haven't bothered to learn simple things, and their way of treating people is appalling. For example, they don't knock on the door, they just break in. That is the Iraqi opinion of American people."

Najma won't be put off working for the army, and is determined to continue trying to increase understanding. The child who took the nickname of a boy in the streets of Baghdad still refuses to fall in line.

Days of war

29 January 2002: Bush names Iraq as part of the "axis of evil"

3 February 2003: Publication of "dodgy dossier"

14 February 2003: Hans Blix tells UN Security Council that Iraq is co-operating more

15 February 2003: In London, over a million march against war

17 March 2003: Bush gives Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq; Robin Cook resigns from cabinet

18 March 2003: Commons votes for war; 139 Labour MPs rebel

20 March 2003: Invasion begins (far left)

9 April 2003: Statue of Saddam toppled (left)

1 May 2003: Bush announces victory

12 May 2003: Clare Short resigns from cabinet

18 July 2003: Dr David Kelly found dead after being named as source that war dossier had been "sexed up"

13 December 2003: Saddam captured

April 2004: Reports surface of torture, rape and murder at Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad (right)

28 June 2004: US hands sovereignty to interim government under PM Iyad Allawi

19 October 2005: Saddam goes on trial accused of crimes against humanity

19 November 2005: US marines massacre 24 civilians in Haditha

20 January 2006: Shia alliance emerges as winner of first parliamentary elections

21 August 2006: Bush acknowledges Iraq had "nothing" to do with 9/11

25 December 2006: After Christmas Day car bomb attack, US military death toll surpasses that of 9/11

30 December 2006: Saddam executed

10 January 2007: Bush announces "surge", proposing 21,500 extra troops and $1.2bn more funds

1 May 2007: Reports of death of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, Iraqi leader of al-Qaeda

1 August 2007: Main Sunni political group in Iraq withdraws from cabinet, plunging central government into crisis

16 September 2007: British hand over control of Basra to Iraq

Research by Edmund Gordon

This article first appeared in the 17 March 2008 issue of the New Statesman, Iraq: the war that changed us

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times