This year's big winner at the Oscars looks at the Iraq war from a US soldier's perspective. But what about the Iraqi point of view, asks Aijaz Zaka Syed* The Hurt Locker, a low-budget independent movie, has stunned everyone by beating the much-lionised James Cameron epic Avatar at this year's Oscars to clinch six coveted statuettes. Interestingly, Cameron, who has broken his own box office record of the biggest grosser (previously Titanic ) with his widely admired sci-fi offering has been beaten at the game by none other than his former wife Kathryn Bigelow. The filmmaker, who in her 50s still looks stunning, has become the first woman in history to win an Oscar for best director. The movie she directed has clearly struck a chord with critics, if not with moviegoers who have so far plumped for Avatar. So what makes The Hurt Locker so special? The New York Times calls it the "best movie made so far on the Iraq war". The drama is based on the story by US journalist Mark Boal who was "embedded" alongside US forces and a bomb disposal squad in 2004 in Iraq. The film revolves around the maverick bomb disposal expert Staff Sergeant William James and his comrades who have to defuse eight to 15 bombs -- or IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) -- in any given day's work. Bigelow, who shot the movie in Jordan in the summer of 2007, explained after she collected six Oscars: "I wanted to put the audience into the shoes of not only the reporter, but also the soldier on the ground. I wanted to give the audience a real, boots-on-the-ground, you-are-there look at what it would be like to have the world's most dangerous job." I haven't seen The Hurt Locker but it seems Bigelow has been more than successful in what she set out to do: taking a close look at one of the most contested, debated and pointless wars in history from a US soldier's perspective. But then what's new? This is how it has always been like. As Churchill said, history is always written from the victors' perspective. The coverage of the war in Iraq -- like all conflicts in the Middle East -- has always come to us from a Western perspective. All the war flicks from the Hollywood stable, from Apocalypse Now to Platoon to Black Hawk Down to the Flags of Our Fathers, have been a narrative offered by the victor to the vanquished. This is how it has always been even when Western forces are not fighting clearly defined enemies on the battlefield. From Arnold Schwarzenegger's action-packed True Lies to Collateral Damage and Kiefer Sutherland's forever Muslim-bashing television series, 24, the world is turned upside down and reality is twisted and distorted to suit and please Western sensibilities. No matter what historical facts and realities on the ground are, it's a perennially "us versus them" perspective offering what Western audiences want to see, read and hear about "Islamic extremists" and "Muslim terrorists". So what's new if The Hurt Locker only shows the hurt and pain of America's brave men and women as they put their lives on the line to bring "freedom and democracy" to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan? The movie, as Bigelow says, looks at the war from the perspective of an "ordinary US soldier" that negotiates and experiences the horrors of war and death every moment of every day. But what about the people whose country these soldiers have invaded and occupied? Does anyone ever wonder or care what an ordinary Iraqi man or woman thinks of this war or how he goes about his daily life thanking his or her lucky stars every moment for surviving another day in his or her own land? The Hurt Locker offers a rare peek into the mind of Sgt James and those of his men as they negotiate their way through the great, mind-blowing minefield that is the post-invasion Iraq. It offers a ringside view of the sacrifices US soldiers make on a daily basis thousands of miles away from their homes and families, never knowing what the next step or next moment has in store for them. But how about a peek into the mind of an ordinary Iraqi? Have we ever bothered to look at the bloody mess the "coalition of the willing" has made of his ancient land? Today, amid all these backslapping celebrations over the Oscars and successful and peaceful elections in Iraq, it is easy to forget how much the people of Iraq have suffered and continue to suffer for the delusions of grandeur and Oedipal complexes of one man. I never liked Saddam Hussein. His oppressive regime gave the people of Iraq and their neighbours nothing but tears and a great deal of suffering. Iraq is better off without him. But what the Western coalition has visited on Iraq after removing the Baathists is even worse. Four years ago, the independent British medical journal The Lancet estimated that at least a million Iraqis had died since the invasion in 2003. That was way back in 2006. Those killings continued long after that report. Who knows how many more innocents have paid with their lives for the "freedom and human dignity" that Bush promised? Millions of Iraqis fled their homes to take shelter in neighbouring countries and they are still out there. Some semblance of peace and order may have returned to Iraq but it's still a country on the brink. Innocent people continue to die in sporadic attacks and bombings caught as they are between the occupiers and terrorists. So Gordon Brown has some cheek defending this disastrous war before the UK Iraq Inquiry last week. He wasn't in the saddle at the time, but with a critical election looming ahead, Brown is clearly playing to the gallery. Seems every Western leader loves a "good war" and his share of reflected glory. What gives one hope, though, is the irrepressible spirit and resolve of the Iraqi people. It was curiously exhilarating and heart-warming to see them defy bomb attacks and bullets to turn up in huge numbers to vote for their candidates. While polls with 90-97 per cent turnout are all too familiar across the Middle East, this is perhaps the freest and fairest democratic exercise in the region's history in a long, long time. The credit for this goes not to the so-called champions of democracy, as many pundits in the US and Europe suggest -- some of them even getting nostalgic about W -- but to the people of Iraq. They deserve a clutch of Oscars, and all the other laurels and trophies out there, for braving the nightmare of the past seven years and coming out with flying colours; for being to hell and back and yet retaining their sanity and humanity. For not giving up hopes and aspirations for a better tomorrow and defeating all attempts to divide them as Sunnis and Shias. The Iraqis couldn't have chosen a sweeter revenge against their tormentors and those who wrecked their great country. The Oscar goes to the people of Iraq. No one is more deserving of the honour than the Iraqis. Give it up for them, people! * The writer is opinion editor of Khaleej Times .
