Shoe-throwing did not effect US Iraq policy. What the incident did provide was a little comic relief in the midst of a regrettable situation and an insight into the true feelings of many Iraqi citizens toward the American government and the foreign troops occupying their country.
On December 14, 2008, President George W. Bush made a surprise trip to Iraq. It was to be a farewell visit, since Barack Obama would assume the presidency the following month. As Mr. Bush was speaking at a news conference in Baghdad, a Shi'ite reporter, Muntadhar al-Zaidi, hurled his shoes at the president, forcing him to duck.
In Middle East culture, throwing one's shoes at someone is considered a sign of contempt and a gross insult.
Al-Zaidi later asserted his action was done to protest the killing of a million Iraqis since the US-led invasion of his country in 2003.
No real harm was done. Mr. Bush obviously has excellent reflexes; the footwear missed him completely. The thrower was immediately apprehended and led away by security forces.
Mr. al-Zaidi was charged with assaulting a visiting head of state and sentenced to three years in prison. His sentence was later reduced to one year.
The Iraqi government lost no time condemning the reporter's action but a poll indicated that 62% of the Iraqi public hailed him as a hero. Messages of praise and congratulations poured in to his family and his employer from around the Arab world.
Offers were made to buy the shoes as souvenirs, with the highest being $10 million from a citizen of Saudi Arabia.
In January, 2009, children from an orphanage in Tikrit helped erect a three meter high monument of a shoe in remembrance of the occasion, but the government had it destroyed the following day.
The shoe-throwing incident had no effect at all on President Bush's Iraq policy. He continued to believe he had followed the correct course and to congratulate himself and his government for establishing a free and democratic government in the Middle Eastern country.
What has changed the US policy concerning Iraq is the ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency. Following his campaign promise, he will withdraw two-thirds of American troops by August, 2010, and the remainder by the end Dec. 2011.
However, the schedule may be advanced. American troops in Afghanistan suffered the most casualties to date in July, 2009. The top US commander, General Stanley McChrystal is about to request more NATO troops to conduct an Afghan "surge" in an effort to defeat the Taliban and their supporters. Many of those troops would have to be brought in from bases in Iraq.
Perhaps it's time for the United States and its allies to reconsider their priorities. There is a global economic crisis to consider, environment issues to contend with, homegrown terror cells to uncover and control, millions of illegal immigrants abroad in the land and a myriad of additional concerns which could easily absorb our complete attention and our best efforts.
As the Iraq episode has demonstrated, military action will not win the hearts or the loyalty of an occupied country. The native people have their own government, their own traditions and their own way of life. No matter how imperfect their system seems to us, it's their own and they will fight to defend it.
They shoe-throwing incident did not affect US Iraq policy. It should have. The people's reaction to the incident, and their praise and adulation of the thrower should have demonstrated that the deaths, the wounds, the suffering, and the billions spent, had not accomplished a thing. There was no gratitude for the new democratic government. The Iraqis just wanted the Americans gone.
Now America and its NATO allies face a similar commitment in Afghanistan. Do we really want to repeat the Iraq experience?
tweet this!