If Americans need a quick out from Iraq after the war, they will learn the value of Canadian friendship.

Angus Reid
Vancouver Sun

This past week was punctuated by two shock-and-awe events in the world of public opinion: one in Iraq and the other at a posh Toronto luncheon club.

Ever since the start of the Iraq war, I've been glued to my television—often while simultaneously scanning the Internet—looking for clues to answer the biggest mystery of this conflict: How do Iraqis feel about the prospect of regime change brought about by an American-led invasion of their nation?

The answer unlocks the biggest riddle about the armed intervention in Iraq. And it might provide a road map to future relations between the Islamic world and the West, especially America.

The success of the Bush-Blair gamble depends on how Iraqis greet advancing coalition forces. If Iraqis embrace the troops as liberators—and work with them to unseat Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath regime—the gamble might pay off. With Iraqi support, the passion of the Arab street might subside sufficiently to allow a brief but precious moment to rebuild strained relations. Perhaps this will even provide renewed energy and focus on the Israeli-Palestinian impasse.

Unfortunately for the Americans, the first week of the Iraq conflict has been marked by a noticeable absence of popular support among Iraqis for the United States-led coalition. Instead of an armed uprising to overthrow forces loyal to Saddam Hussein, Iraqis have appeared ambivalent or even hostile to their self-appointed liberators. The mass surrenders predicted by coalition planners have yet to materialize and the refugee camps in Jordan are almost empty.

Of course, this lack of enthusiastic support could reflect anxieties about a possible repeat of the 1991 uprising. Back then, thousands of Shiites died when America encouraged rebellion, but failed to stop the Iraqi tanks and armed helicopters that put it down. There's also evidence that Iraqi forces might be harassing the local population in places like Basra, dampening any show of affection towards the liberators.

Regardless of the source, the muted response in the supposedly "friendly territory" of the Shiite south suggests that gaining public support in the Sunni centres to the north will be much more difficult. We know that many Iraqis hate Saddam, but what we don't know is how many hate the armed invasion even more.

Across the Muslim world, an anti-American passion is evident, not just in the riots and demonstrations at street level, but also behind the facades of most households.

Earlier this month, before the bombs started falling, the U.S. polling firm Zogby International reported levels of anti-American sentiment among more than 80 per cent of residents in countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, and the United Arab Emirates, all places that maintain friendly relations with the U.S. For the people of these countries, watching the carnage on Al-Jazeera or on Abu Dhabi TV will only deepen these passions.

A population opposed to the invasion is one prepared to engage in a lengthy and costly guerrilla war to repel the outsiders—another Vietnam. And it could produce a situation that would drive tens of thousands of Muslim youth to the bosom of Islamic fanaticism, foreshadowing a potentially apocalyptic clash of civilizations.

It's too soon to predict the outcome of the battle for Iraqi and Muslim public opinion, but based on the evidence to date, it would be prudent for the U.S. to draw up a contingency plan that would have American forces leave the region soon after the war ends. Such a plan would have to rely heavily on the involvement of allies in post-war Iraq that weren't involved in the invasion. Ironically, countries like Canada that chose not to participate are the Americans' best insurance should conditions require a quick U.S. exit.

Which brings me to the other surprising event of the week. On the morning of Mar. 25, business executives at the Toronto Economic Club were treated to back-to-back speeches on the war, delivered by the prime minister's pollster Mike Marzolini and U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci.

Cellucci, one of the most aggressive U.S. ambassadors in more than a generation, berated the Chrétien government for its decision not to join the so-called "coalition of the willing" invading Iraq, warning of "consequences" for Canada as a result of this policy. Cellucci claimed a lot of Americans are upset with Canada, especially since "there is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with."

I was shocked by this statement, not only because it stretches the bounds of diplomatic protocol but worse, because it stretches the bounds of credibility. The U.S. waited two years before becoming involved in World War II. Over the last decade, the American government has turned its back on Canada—and the rest of the world—on treaties and agreements over land mines, the International Criminal Court and the Nuclear Test Ban, to name but a few. These are all issues we, as Canadians, consider to be in our security interests.

Cellucci might have been emboldened in his attack by Marzolini, who spoke first about what the polls are really saying about how Canadians view our absence from the war. According to Marzolini, polls that showed Canadians were opposed to joining the U.S. led-coalition without the authorization of the United Nations (UN) were misleading because they "asked the wrong question." The right question, according him, would have been: "Do you accept going to war alongside the Americans?"

Presumably, he delivered this finding to prime minister Jean Chrétien several weeks ago. And Chrétien, knowing the difference between what the public wants and what it's prepared to accept, chose to ignore him.

My reading of the polls in Canada is that there was overwhelming support for Chrétien's decision to remain on the sidelines when the U.S. and Britain decided to launch their attack without UN support. This support was especially noteworthy given Chrétien's sagging approval ratings.

But as we sit on the sidelines and watch the invading forces face tough opposition, mounting casualties and a mixed reception from Iraqis, Canadians aren't indifferent to the outcome. I don't need a poll to tell me that virtually everyone in Canada prays for a swift end to this conflict or that few people side with the Saddam regime. With a battle now engaged, Canadians would indeed "accept" the decision, even if somewhat belated, to participate.

The Canadian government has wisely decided to bide its time until the outcome of the Iraq situation becomes clearer. If the early warnings about the mood of the Iraqis prove prophetic, an American presence in the rebuilding of Iraq will be difficult, if not impossible. If the mood turns ugly, the U.S. will gain far more from a Canada whose hands are free of Iraqi blood. And then Paul Cellucci, and the administration he represents, will finally understand the true meaning of friendship.

Archive Search

Search the Angus Reid Global Monitor Politics In Depth archive.