Day of Rage Redux

My last entry to this blog addressed planned demonstrations across Iraq and the Middle East for what was billed as the “Day of Rage.” Libya aside, it might more appropriately be referred to as the “Day of Umbrage.” Not that there weren’t more than a few hotheads out there stirring the pot, but the overall effect was one of testing the waters, trying to establish where limits might exist for freedom of speech.

In Iraq, this tentativeness applied to both the people and the government. The people wondering how far they can push to make their point without drawing the ire of security forces, and the government wondering how far they can let things go without compromising their ability to protect themselves. In the end, each made some poor decisions and people were killed and injured.

In spite of the aggressive associations implied by the naming of the day, the intent was actually to conduct peaceful demonstrations across Iraq (as well as other regional countries) to allow folks to express their general lack of appreciation for their quality of life. In most cases, that is how it panned out. Large groups of people showed up with placards depicting the varied sources of their righteous indignation. They milled around and made some modicum of noise to project the general ambiance of rebelliousness. The powers-that-be in several of the provinces met with protestors, talked through their many differences, and parted ways to follow up on progress later. A few local leaders essentially agreed that they were unworthy and simply quit.

Other venues were more complicated. In Baghdad, a group of rabble rousers very quickly broke from the main protest site and headed directly to a bridge leading into the International Zone, home to most of the central government as well as foreign embassies. The government of Iraq, however appreciative they might be of the right to assemble and free speech, are very much less appreciative of crowds of angry young men patrolling their neighborhoods. Thus, the entrances to the International Zone were heavily guarded. It is difficult to guess what the motivation of the afore-mentioned rabble rousers was, but it prompted them to march directly to security forces on the bridge and start chucking rocks at them. The outcome was fairly predictable and the takeaway is that throwing rocks at armed and nervous men is not a recommended way to express or exchange grievances.

In parts north of Baghdad, another highly energetic group with equally dubious intent marched directly to the local seat of government, chased the leadership away, and burned the building. Like most Iraqi protestors, what they really wanted was better services, more jobs, and less corruption. Unlike most protestors, what they got was a club upside the head. There were a lot of teachable moments that day.

Poor choices were not the sole domain of the populace. Iraqi leadership was very, very nervous because of the more serious outcomes of protests in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. While publicly proclaiming the constitutional rights of citizens to gather and protest, they were working hard behind the scenes to make it extremely difficult for any large gatherings to occur. It was done under the guise of protecting the people from terrorists, but the effect was to limit the ability to travel and the ability to stay in any one place for very long.

It was a bad day for journalists, with some killed, some stabbed, and some beat up. Nobody has been able to pin this on the government, but it smacks heavily of suppression typically associated with strong-arm regimes.

Not all of the security forces were well-disciplined; a number of people were shot and killed in confrontations that did not appear to require such drastic measures. Noting the examples of restraint shown across most of the country, it seems reasonable to say these isolated violent security force responses ran heavily counter to the intent of the government and will cause some serious trouble to the unit commanders involved.

To paraphrase an old pearl of wisdom: when all was said and done, much was said but little was done. It appears that nowhere was there a crowd that exceeded 10,000 people. The protests were widespread but lightly attended. The main messages were clearly conveyed to the government, which responded with numerous measures and recommendations to help.

Words, not yet deeds, so the rumblings continue. A week after the “Day of Rage” we saw more scattered, but subdued, protests in what was dubbed either “Day of Regret” or “Dignity Friday.” As I write this on Monday, 7 March, we are in the midst of the “Day of Remorse.” The apparent lack of enthusiasm for violent protest will hopefully soon get us back to “Day of the Week.”