Arab and Muslim Media Reactions to the Fall of Baghdad

I. The Palestinian Press

The reactions of Palestinian newspapers to the fall of Baghdad were mixed. The front page of the Palestinian Authority (PA) daily Al-Ayyam, normally printed in color, today appeared in black and white. The Palestinian daily Al-Quds published a scene of Baghdad's "Liberation Square" – with the statue of Saddam still in place.

The editor of the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Hafez al-Barghouti, criticized the lack of effective Iraqi defense plans, and bemoaned the fact that basic military principles of warfare in populated areas were not applied – no barricades were built, no tunnels dug, no roads mined, and no fortifications prepared. Barghouti said that Iraqi tanks were exposed to U.S. and U.K. air force raids, and that even the resistance efforts in Jenin were greater than those in Baghdad. Since this was how Baghdad resisted, he said, the catastrophe could have been avoided by reaching an agreement prior to the war.[1]

An editorial in Al-Quds saw hope of revival: "This catastrophe, that adds to the series of Arab defeats throughout the last century, may create a new consciousness and profound clarity of mind within the Arab nation and Muslim world, since everyone knows they are in a state of regression, cultural backwardness, and disintegration, being unable to cooperate with each other and with the entire world… [However,] what happened in Baghdad yesterday is not the final stage in the history of that noble city. In the wreckage created by the bombings, and with the remains of the victims – children, women, and the elderly – who defended the glory and honor of this nation, lie the seeds that will prove to the whole world one day, hopefully soon, that there will be a revival of Baghdad."[2]

PA Deputy Minister of Planning and International Cooperation 'Adly Sadeq, a former columnist for Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, continued to express support for Saddam Hussein: "The man… was a thorn in the eyes of the imperialists. We will never change our mind [about him], no matter what [the attempts at] humiliation and deception. [We know] that the man made mistakes, which are an inevitable part of the experience of great leaders who rule complex societies in dangerous geographical regions during difficult times."

"The scenes of hysterical outpourings of joy intentionally taken by TV cameras after the Iraqi regime collapsed were attended by 100 or 200 people, while the hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq who chanted in support of Saddam Hussein were ignored. Bush and Blair, the leaders of this criminal imperialist aggression, did not heed the call of the tens of millions who went out into the streets to demonstrate across the world against the invaders. As we said a few months before the war, eliminating the Iraqi regime will not change history, will not defeat the people's will, and will give neither a character reference nor protection to the imperialist invaders."[3]

Al-Ayyam columnist 'Abdallah 'Awwadwrote of the possibilities of retaliation: "Before the horror, death, destruction, and plunder perpetuated by the arrogant American murder machine, the weak can do nothing but look for a more lethal weapon to defend themselves. [The American] culture of death and murder cannot lead to the creation of [the] opposite culture [of democracy]. This is the law of history and life. The weak who possess no means of resisting [their] destruction, plunder, and death will again awaken to confront the American culture of murder and destruction. There is no room for surprises."

"Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Americans are paving a long, broad path for the death of tens of thousands, maybe even more, of their people. The American madness will bring nothing but counter-madness. They [Americans] have begun an era of destructive and lethal war for human beings in order to feed their aggressive military economic machine, and they will bear the responsibility for it."[4]

II. The London Arabic-Language Press

Saudi Daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat

The reactions to the fall of Baghdad in the London-based Arabic-language press reflect the political and ideological orientation of the various newspapers.

Throughout the war, the editor of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashid, who is known for his liberal views, wrote articles condemning the Iraqi regime and criticizing the pro-Iraqi coverage of the war by Arab satellite television. In an article titled "Saddam Did Not Fall Alone," Al-Rashid wrote: "It is not Saddam Hussein who fell yesterday. What fell is more significant than Saddam. What collapsed are the big lies that accompanied him, praised him, and glorified him. Also collapsed are the minds that insisted on falsifying the facts of both present and history, that prevaricated in the name of the Iraqi people. Before the eyes of the whole world, the Iraqis decided in favor of truth, by themselves, in their own capital of Baghdad."

"It was said: 'While Basra acted as a renegade city that cheered the Americans and British, the capital will be the impregnable stronghold of the regime. Baghdad is the capital of the president, and its people are his men.' Therefore, yesterday morning's images shocked the Arabs more than anyone else. It shocked the Arabs from Manama in the Gulf, in the furthermost East, to the furthermost West, in Casablanca on the Atlantic, and all the cities in between. Their people did not sleep. They demonstrated continuously, believing that they were defending the Iraqi people, while in fact they were defending Saddam."

"Shocked were the people of Cairo, where fundamentalists, nationalists, leftists, and the misguided led marches in which they announced their willingness to volunteer. They led marches in which they volunteered to defend Saddam's Iraq. But yesterday morning, the [Arab] television stations, including Al-Jazeera, which throughout the war had participated in a campaign to defend Saddam and his regime, did not manage to conceal the scenes of the joy of the masses in the capital – without being able to explain it. Therefore, yesterday's scenes of the Baghdadis demonstrating and tearing down and urinating on the portraits of their dictator, pulled down the biggest lie in contemporary Arab history."

"The Arab media, printed and televised, which for 20 years had persistently tried to convince the people of the region that [what] they were seeing [in Iraq] was the people's army, the people's regime, and the people's ruler – collapsed. I say with confidence that the fall of Saddam Hussein and his regime was not an event important in itself, because they were bound to fall sooner or later, whether by American and British missiles or by the swords of the Iraqis. The real event is the challenge to political and cultural conventions. This is one of the rare instances in which these [conventions] are put to the test by live broadcast, and their collapse is demonstrated. These were the very same instruments that succeeded in obscuring the events of Basra and in describing the joy there as looting rather than the joy of the people; however, the images from the capital were far greater, and it was no longer possible to conceal the truth that rose like the sun before the whole world."

"The images of the joy of the people in Baghdad celebrating the fall of the Iraqi regime made a mockery of the Arab political, cultural, and media order – the order which for 50 years purportedly fought in the name of the people. Yesterday, until the very last hour, the Arab media circulated stories about the Iraqis, Arabs in general, and even Arab media people being targeted [by the coalition forces]. After a television crew member was killed at the Palestine Hotel, the correspondent of one of the stations shouted that the American forces were targeting Arab journalists to silence them. Although this [death] is a sad event, the [correspondent's] version for the Arab viewers missed something. He did not tell them that one Arab journalist was killed in this war, while 10 foreign correspondents – some with the coalition forces – were killed."

"In this war, the Arabs were divided into two groups. One, the ruling [group], claimed that this is a war of survival, a war for honor, a war against the [coalition] conspiracy. Another group – silent, with most of its members from Iraq, with no means of expressing themselves, either because they are in exile abroad or oppressed within Iraq, knew that this was a war of liberation, or did not care what its goal was, for at least [they knew] it was a war to rid them of a corrupt, murderous regime which should go out like it came in."

"It is an historical event for the regime, for which there is no precedent. All the past wars were wars with Israel or wars of regimes. But this one is the first of its kind. It is a war against the evil Arab situation."[5]

Pro-Saddam Editor of Al-Quds Al-Arabi

Before and during the war, the pro-Saddam editor of the London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Abd Al-Bari Atwan, assured his readers that the Americans were bound to encounter fierce resistance in Baghdad. He found it difficult to adjust to the new reality. In an article titled "A More Difficult Stage Has Begun," Abd Al-Bari Atwan wrote: "I don't believe that the American forces' stay in Baghdad will be enjoyable and without danger. Despite the astonishing and inexplicable collapse of its defenders, the looting we witnessed on the television screens, and the incidents of vengeance and bloody settling of accounts in Basra, all point to the fact that a new stage has begun, one more difficult than the first three weeks of the invasion. The challenges facing the American and British invaders are immense. Even more immense are the Iraqi people's expectations of prosperity, stability, and democracy."

"It is my assessment that the task of the invading forces to maintain security, stabilize military control, and set up a strong central government in Iraq is nearly impossible – not to mention very costly in both money and manpower…"

"With his rough and bloody style of government, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein both divided the Iraqis and created his own opposition. The end of his rule will perhaps divide the opposition and unite the entire Iraqi people against the American invaders."

"The Americans entered Iraq and achieved their goal by removing the forces of the regime and expelling them from Baghdad. I wonder who will expel them from Iraq, how, at what price, and after how many years?"

"Finally, I want to ask, what do the Arab leaders feel, those who abandoned Iraq, and conspired with the invaders, what do they feel when they see the statues of their colleague Saddam Hussein fall one after another, in Basra, Baghdad, and Nasiriyya? Have they given it a lot of thought, and have they learned any lessons? I believe that the statue of Saddam Hussein is not the only one that will fall. It will be followed soon by other statues, in more than one Arab capital."

"It is proven that military and security forces, no matter how violent, cannot protect a dictatorial regime – especially if its masters and protectors want to change it. According to our information, both the British and American governments have started seeking alternatives and examining names, in preparation for a change of regime in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran."[6]

Saudi Daily Al-Hayat

The front page of the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat featured two stories on the fall of Baghdad. One describes the toppling of the statue of Saddam in Al-Firdaws Square. The other, Ghassan Sharbal's article titled "Saddam Hussein – From Tikrit to the Courthouse of History," filed from Beirut, read in part: "They used to strew his pictures with flowers, envelop his statues with adulation, and pass by them filled with fear. No one dared to smile with irony or crack a joke. How they've changed! Now they strew the pictures with insults and rejoice when the statues are dragged by ropes in view of the invading forces. The wind has shifted. Where are the Republican Guards? Where is Qusai and the Special Republican Guard? Where is Chemical Ali, to carry out a thousand Halabjas?"[7]

"Saddam Hussein. The television fell silent. [Minister of Information] Al-Sahhaf is gone. 'The Infidel Wild Asses' ['Uluj] [Al-Sahhaf's term for the coalition forces] are storming the city. 'The Battle for Baghdad' is a battle that never happened. The invaders did not commit suicide upon the walls. The tanks advanced through the streets like knives in his veins. It is late. There is no longer any need to convene the country's [Ba'ath] leadership. There is no reason for a meeting of the Revolutionary Council. There is no longer any need for [Vice President] Izzat Ibrahim and [Vice President] Taha Yassin Ramadan. No longer has [Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz anything to justify or defend..."

"The stabbing of September 11 was not fatal to America, but it was fatal to Saddam Hussein and his regime. He did not understand that his only option was to arrange his surrender or his exile. He acted stubbornly and arrogantly. This is the end of a man, the end of a regime, the end of a phase."[8]

III. The Egyptian Press

While the front page of the government daily Al-Ahramreported the "collapse of the central rule in Baghdad," the editorial discussed "the health crisis in Iraq," and a column by Editor-in-Chief Ibrahim Naf'iaddressed what he referred to as disputes among leading figures in the American administration regarding the future of Iraq.[9]

The government daily Al-Akhbar's lead article reported the "Surprising Collapse of the Saddam Regime," but the editorials refrained from dealing directly with the events in Baghdad. Editor-in-Chief Galal Dwidar wrote of the death of Al-Jazeera's correspondent in Baghdad, Tareq Ayub, and the editorial discussed the "human suffering of the Iraqi people."[10]

On the other hand, the editor-in-chief of Al-Gumhuriyya, Samir Ragab, wrote: "The U.S. and its 'famous' subordinate, the U.K., may feel intoxicated with their victory, especially in light of the rapid and unexpected collapse of Baghdad. No doubt, the Americans will brag that the war only lasted for three weeks... On the other hand, the pages of history will also focus on the false arrogance of Saddam Hussein and the fabricated robes of heroism with which he has covered his body and mind for 34 years, while having no ability to plan militarily and no clue in commanding battles. This is a man who did not enroll in any military school or, in fact, the military!!..."

"Once the Iraqis reorganize their ranks after awakening from the three-week-long nightmare, and once they discover that the rule of one despot can be replaced by a more despotic regime, they will no doubt resist the occupation and adhere to their national and legitimate right to govern themselves by themselves..."

"It has been proven absolutely and irrevocably that Saddam Hussein cheated his people and the entire Arab nation. The surprising collapse of his country's capital means that nothing interested him but his own survival and personal interests, and the interests of his two sons and family. Beyond that, the homeland and citizens can go to hell!..."[11]

IV. The Saudi Press

In an editorial, the Saudi daily Okaz wrote: "This is the end of a political party, the end of a regime… and the beginning of occupation... The fall of Baghdad cannot be seen as a passing event. This fall resonates in the Arab and Muslim [consciousness]. Every stone in [Baghdad] is part of a heritage, every street tells stories of glory, every building is a site of civilization. Baghdad is not a pile of iron and cement, or a factory for munitions and WMD; it is the civilized and deep-rooted scent of a glorious history."

"Baghdad will remain Baghdad, even with the change of faces. This is the Arab and Islamic capital that occupies the most beautiful place in the Arab and Islamic [consciousness]. When it suffers political and military crises, all Arabs and Muslims suffer as well... Baghdad will not fall, even if it is smothered by death and the smoke of cannons. It is eternal and will remain live ammunition in the Arab and Islamic consciousness, and even in the consciousness of the entire world."[12]

The Al-Watan editorial read: "At last, good news. The war is dying in Iraq and the regime and its men have vanished. In a short while, the results will be officially announced, along with future plans, which may alleviate the tension..."

"No doubt, the realists do not support the method adopted by the U.S., which bypassed the Security Council in order to topple the Iraqi regime... The realists also oppose the fabrication of legends and illusions and they base their position on the reality that was imposed by those forces, without supporting their method..."

"The Iraqi regime insisted on challenging [the U.S.] and its information [minister] talked of defeating the invaders on the walls of Baghdad – [propaganda] that evoked optimism in the public. But with time, it turned out that the regime has no actual power and lacks all popularity. Therefore, its collapse was expected. The realist observers disagreed on the time of the collapse, but none of them gambled on the survival of a regime that had never given its people anything that would make them risk their lives for it..."[13]

The Al-Jazira daily editorial read: "The abrupt collapse of Baghdad reflects the real relationship between the Iraqi regime and people. This relationship was fictional, despite the propaganda saying the opposite all these years..."[14]

In its editorial, the Al-Youm daily said: "... The footage of the toppling of the Saddam statue expressed the removal of a nightmare that has been lying on the chests of the Iraqi people. The only thing that can be said is that this is the fate of any dictator who murders his people, treats them brutally, and steals their resources. Had the people supported Saddam, no force, no matter how strong, could have conquered Iraq..."[15]

V. The Kuwaiti media

Ahmad al-Jarallah, the editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyasa, wrote: "How did Baghdad melt like butter under the tank treads of the Marines? How did these tanks drive in the streets that welcomed them, surrounded by the residents of Baghdad… where have the huge armies of Saddam been? We haven't seen them defend any corner, any junction… where was Saddam's army who – we were told – is attacking the enemy from the east and from the west, and is going to grill the bellies of the debased Mongols of this era, and who we were told will commit suicide on the walls of Baghdad [defending it]?"

"The answer is simple: The army was [made] only to defend the Ba'ath party from the Iraqi people, not to defend the homeland against its enemies. The armies of the Ba'ath regime were strong only against helpless people, women, children, and elderly. The Ba'ath party was strong against its enemy, which was the Iraqi people, not against Israel, the U.S. or the U.K… there is no other explanation for the embarrassing speed in which the Marine forces took control [of] Baghdad, except for the explanation that the people did not support the unjust Ba'ath regime."

"Now the question is not limited to the fate of Saddam, rather it includes the fate of the Ba'ath regime. In Germany, Nazism was finished as a barbaric ideology before its head, Hitler, was finished. Eliminating the Ba'ath regime is vital so that another Saddam is not cloned... What is necessary now is that Syria learns the lesson, and does not argue with the facts… the reality is dangerous, and nobody has the time to listen to the theories and the common slogans of the Ba'ath people, that are intended to brainwash people."[16]

Editor of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai Al-'Aam, Jasem Boudi, wrote: "We hope that the fall of Baghdad without anyone committing suicide on its walls, as Saddam has threatened, [symbolizes] the fall of the walls of illusions that support such regimes that do not lead to anything but humiliation of the people… We hope that the fall of Baghdad [symbolizes] the emergence of national Arab, free and democratic, Iraq, an Iraq that knows to utilize the country's capabilities for the benefit of its people, and that knows how to remove the remains of the aggressive unjust regime that pushed the country to destructive adventures."[17]

VI. The Jordanian Press

The editorials of two Jordanian dailies, Al-Rai and Al-Dustour, ignored the fall of the Iraqi regime, choosing instead to focus on a communiqué sent yesterday by King Abdallah to Jordanian Prime Minister 'Ali Abu Al-Ragheb requesting that he take all steps necessary to provide rapid humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people.[18]

The editor of the Al-Arab Al-Yaum daily, Taher 'Adwan, wrote: "Had Baghdad fallen in resistance, the women would have rejoiced as the Palestinian mother rejoices when her son falls as a martyr from shooting by the Israeli occupation. But Baghdad fell without resistance, and without warriors standing before the American tanks. Some of the Baghdadis even celebrated…"

"The Arab regimes are in a state of political and economic weakness, and [suffer] from division, conflicts, and disagreement, and therefore the war was easy, and the fall of Baghdad [came] even more easily. The politicians and their ruling class in Baghdad distanced the individual, thought, and society, which happened also in many Arab capitals, large and small. Therefore, the invasion was easy, and the fall of Baghdad came even more easily…"

"In Baghdad, the Arabs stand at a crossroads: Either they consider the defeat a final situation to which they will submit, or a new spirit of resistance will be born in them, in order to replant, in the generations to come, the desire to win… Some or most of the Iraqis say that in Baghdad, there was political, social, and economic injustice that destroyed their minds, souls, and honor. But occupation is also a kind of injustice, and we will see whether the Iraqis will resist this occupation as a bridge towards freedom and democracy…"[19]

VII. The Syrian Press

None of Syria's official newspapers referred to the fall of Baghdad yesterday, and no editorial discussed the American takeover of the city. Also, no pictures of the toppling of the statue of Saddam were printed.

VIII. Iranian Reactions

Reactions of Iranian Leaders

Former Iranian president and Expediency Council chairman Hashemi Rafsanjani said, "No one will agree to a retired American general ruling the Iraqi people… All know that the U.S.'s goal in the war is to get a grip on the country's oil resources and regional wealth and to safeguard Israel's interests." He expressed regret that the Americans were continuing with their crimes under the false pretext of freedom and democracy.[20]

In a celebratory meeting of the Iranian parliament, Iranian president Muhammad Khatami called for adopting "proper and realistic" measures for dealing with issues "under the currently sensitive circumstances." He stressed the damage caused to the U.N. by the American disregard for it, and said that "Iraq's future must be determined by the Iraqi people and their individual votes."[21]

Iranian Foreign Minister Kharrazi and the Russian foreign minister stressed that the U.N. had to take a leading role in the post-Saddam era in Iraq.[22]

Western Region Operational Headquarters Commander Fereydoun Nouri announced that the "Western borders of Iran are quite safe and secure currently, and all military operations conducted inside Iraqi territory adjacent to Iran's soil are carefully pursued by the Islamic Republic of Iran's armed forces." He added, "The Iranian army will strongly defend the territorial integrity of the IRI and will respond firmly to the any violation of the international borders of Iran by the foreign forces… Since the beginning of the U.S.-British forces' military attack against Iraq, no bullet has been shot into the sacred territory of Iran in the West region."[23]

Reactions in the Iranian Press

In an editorial titled "The New World (Dis)order," the reformist Iran Daily wrote: "From the ravages and ruins of Baghdad, a new world order, or perhaps disorder, will emerge… The first lesson, the U.S.-U.K. invasion of Iraq, has given to the world a verification of the ancient adage that 'might is right' – which has almost made the U.N. irrelevant… The U.S. agenda goes much deeper than it appears, and involves grandeur [sic] designs in the region than just controlling Iraq's oil or taking out Saddam Hussein." The paper called for an examination of inter-Arab relations, saying "[Arab] solidarity has been blown to pieces by bombs dropped on Iraq by U.S. planes flying from bases in Kuwait and other Arab states." The paper called for "robust and genuine democratization" in the Arab and Muslim world to "discourage the likes of Saddam from seizing power…" The paper also called for a reexamination of relations between the Arab and Muslim world and Europe, "in the wake of the blind support [given] to the U.S. by certain European countries," and stated, "certainly, the war on Iraq has taken away the moral ground from the U.S. and Europe to preach to others about human rights, democracy, and rule of law."[24]

The reformist Persian-language daily Iran wrote that the American attack had contributed to acknowledging that powerful countries can undertake operations without international approval (i.e. the U.N.) and in spite of domestic public protests.[25]

Taha Hashemi, journalist and director of the Persian-language daily Entekhad, condemned the student demonstrations and threats by pro-regime students and Basij[26]members against the British Embassy in Tehran, saying, "Many have not yet understood that… attacking and capturing embassies and representative offices of other countries are things of the past." He added, "Violent acts under such sensitive regional circumstances will only give invaders a pretext to isolate the Islamic Republic internationally."[27]

In an editorial, the reformist Iran News recognized that Washington "has invested with American blood and money to topple the Ba'athist regime and the chances that the Bush administration will consent to a U.N. run post-Saddam Iraq are indeed slim." The paper said that the duration of the American forces' stay in Iraq would be longer rather than shorter, and said that it was the right time for Iraqi Shi'ites, who make up 65% of the population to play an appropriate role. "The Iranians, as natural allies of the Iraqi Shi'ites, should grab this opportunity to help their Iraqi brethren enjoy democratic institutions such as moderate and representative political parties," but that Iran would "not try to revolutionize the Iraqi Shi'ite community," which could fracture its unity and lead to the forfeit of "their legitimate right to participate in the post-war Iraqi community."[28]

The reformist Yas-e No daily celebrated Saddam Hussein's defeat, and noted that three decades of dictatorship had come to an end. An article titled "From Berlin to Baghdad" sketched a portrait of Saddam as a dictator of the magnitude of the late Egyptian president Abd Al-Nasser and the late Syrian president Hafez Al-Assad. The paper noted that the Iraqis today were like the Germans after Hitler, and the Iranians after the Shah, and that "dictators come and go, but the people remain… Life without Saddam looks more beautiful, also for the villagers of Halabja…"[29]The conservative Tehran Times, which is affiliated with Supreme Leader 'Ali Khamenei, complained that the Shi'ite opposition group The Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)[30] had been warned by the U.S. that if it tried to enter the battle against forces loyal to Saddam, the U.S. would regard it as an enemy. The paper said that warning the Shi'ites to stay out of the fray is "outrageous. The U.S. claims that it seeks to liberate the people of Iraq, but tells Iraqis who are members of a legitimate opposition group that they will not be allowed to fight for their own liberation." The paper stated that the U.S. "does not want to see a coalition of the [Kurdish] PUK, [Kurdish] KDP, SCIRI, and other legitimate Iraqi opposition groups take control of Iraq" because it was "opposed to the will of the Iraqi people and the establishment of real democracy in Iraq," and that the "U.S. plan to install a military governor in Iraq… and finally ending with some sort of elections and a transfer of power back to the Iraqis, is obviously a plot to buy time in order to install a pro-U.S. puppet."[31]