Hadji Girl

by Sheldon Rampton — June 22, 2006 - 7:30pm
  • Topics: Iraq, Race / Ethnic Issues, Religion, Rhetoric
    • Share/Save Share this
    Hadji Girl
    Joshua Belile performs "Hadji Girl" at the Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq.

    If you want to understand why the war is going so badly in Iraq, it may help to examine the recent reaction to "Hadji Girl," the videotaped song about killing Iraqis by U.S. Marine Corporal Joshua Belile. The song became controversial when the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) discovered it on the internet and objected to its lyrics. "Hadji Girl" tells the story of a soldier "out in the sands of Iraq / And we were under attack":

    Then suddenly to my surprise
    I looked up and I saw her eyes
    And I knew it was love at first sight.

    And she said…
    Dirka Dirka Mohammed Jihad
    Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
    Hadji girl I can’t understand what you’re saying.

    The girl says that she "wanted me to meet her family / But I, well, I couldn’t figure out how to say no. / Cause I don’t speak Arabic." They visit her home, a "side shanty" down "an old dirt trail," and as soon as they arrive,

    Her brother and her father shouted…
    Dirka Dirka Mohammed Jihad
    Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
    They pulled out their AKs so I could see

    ... So I grabbed her little sister and pulled her in front of me.

    As the bullets began to fly
    The blood sprayed from between her eyes
    And then I laughed maniacally

    Then I hid behind the TV
    And I locked and loaded my M-16
    And I blew those little fuckers to eternity.

    And I said…
    Dirka Dirka Mohammed Jihad
    Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah
    They should have known they were fucking with a Marine.

    The song is gruesome, to be sure, and CAIR complained that it celebrated the killing of Iraqi civilians. The video shows Belile performing the song before a laughing, applauding audience of fellow soldiers at their base in Iraq. Recognizing that the song could only bring bad publicity, U.S. military officials promptly issued a statement saying that it was "clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high standards expected of all Marines." Belile also apologized, saying the song was intended as "a joke" and that he didn't intend to offend anyone.

    Pro-war pundits, however, actually rallied to the song's defense. The conservative Little Green Footballs weblog thought news reports about the video controversy were the "mainstream media disgrace of the month." There's nothing wrong with the song, the Footballs said, because it doesn't actually describe a soldier killing civilians: "the people who kill the 'little sister' in this darkly humorous song are — not the Marines — but her father and brother, as they attempt to perpetrate an ambush." Some of the comments on LGF even called it "a wonderful song," and attacked the "nutless Pentagon star-chasing bastards" for their "capitulation." Here are some of the other comments about the song, from Little Green Footballs and elsewhere:

    • "Damn it, we are in a fucking war! Nobody whined about 'insensitivity' to the fucking Japs and Jerries."
    • "I expect more from the Pentagon. The State Dept & the CIA are just a bunch of cucumber sandwich eating fools. The Pentagon USED to be about waging war on our enemies. Now they just want to kiss up to them."
    • "I'm Proud of my fellow Marines in that video. That is EXACTLY the espirit de corps needed, the HIGH MORALE needed in the middle of a combat zone where those self-same jihadists are trying to kill those Marines every single day.
    • "Insensitive? Marines insensitive? God I hope so. We need them to kick ass and follow orders but we don’t need them to be particularly sensitive. A sensitive Marine Corps will be the death of this country."
    • "One of the things CAIR didn't like was the phrase 'Durka Durka Mohammed Jihad, Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah' which makes fun of the Arab language. To hell with CAIR and to hell with the Arab language. ... And the Islamist pigs can keep going to hell."

    As these comments illustrate, defense for the song quickly turns into traditional conservative anger at what they see as censorious "political correctness." They have a right, they insist, to be insensitive and hostile to Arabs and Muslims. I would argue, in fact, that this cultural xenophobia is the main theme of the song and that the violence in it is a secondary byproduct.

    Let's start with the title, "Hadji Girl." The term "hadji" (also sometimes spelled "haji" or "hajji") is the Arabic word for someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca. In Iraq and Afghanistan, it has become a common slang term used to describe the locals. According to a dictionary of war slang compiled by GlobalSecurity.org, the term is "used by the American military for an Iraqi, anyone of Arab decent, or even of a brownish skin tone, be they Afghanis, or even Bangladeshis" and is also "the word many soldiers use derogatorily for the enemy." Related terms include "haji mart" (a small store operated by Iraqis) or "haji patrol" (Iraqi soldiers).

    The term seems to have come into usage even before the war began in Iraq. Its use was noted following a U.S. military investigation into the 2002 murder of two prisoners at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan, by some of the same soldiers who later oversaw abuses at Abu Ghraib. ''We were pretty much told that they were nobodies, that they were just enemy combatants,'' said one of the soldiers at Bagram. ''I think that giving them the distinction of soldier would have changed our attitudes toward them. A lot of it was based on racism, really. We called them hajis, and that psychology was really important.''

    One of the prisoners beaten to death at Bagram was an innocent taxi driver named Dilawar whose only offense was that he happened to drive his taxi past the American base at the wrong time. According to Corey E. Jones, one of the MPs who guarded him, the beatings intensified when "He screamed out, 'Allah! Allah! Allah!' and my first reaction was that he was crying out to his god. Everybody heard him cry out and thought it was funny. ... It became a kind of running joke, and people kept showing up to give this detainee a common peroneal strike just to hear him scream out 'Allah.' It went on over a 24-hour period, and I would think that it was over 100 strikes."

    The term "haji" is not simply an ethnic slur, like "gook," "jap," "jerry" or "nigger." All ethnic slurs entail hostile stereotypes, but "haji" is a specifically religious stereotype based on hostility toward Muslims. In our 2003 book, Weapons of Mass Deception, John Stauber and I described the efforts that the Bush administration has undertaken to rebrand America in the eyes of Arabs and Muslims, spending hundreds of millions of dollars on projects including Radio Sawa, Al Hurra, a "Shared Values" campaign, and the Council of American Muslims for Understanding. Through glossy brochures, TV advertisements and websites, the United States has sought to depict America as a nation of religious tolerance that respects and appreciates Islam. These words, however, are constantly being undermined by the actual deeds and attitudes of the Bush administration's most ardent supporters, including soldiers in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq. While the White House has tried to frame the war in Iraq as a "war on terror," its own supporters keep reframing it as a war against Islam. This is a serious, if not fatal error. Rather than fighting a few thousand actual terrorists, the United States is positioning itself in opposition to one of the world's major religions, with more than a billion adherents worldwide.

    Culture Shock and Awe

    "Hadji Girl" also refers to another aspect of soldiers' experiences in Iraq: the language barrier that prevents them from communicating effectively. The refrain, "Dirka dirka Mohammed Jihad / Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah," is borrowed from the movie "Team America: World Police." According to filmmaker Matt Stone, the phrase is not real Arabic but a parody of "Arabic gibberish which they just go, you know, 'Dirka-dirka, Muhammad, Muhammad Ali.' ... And that, to me, is what terrorists sound like when I look at their little tapes that they release." This inability to comprehend the local language contributes to the soldiers' inability to distinguish between friend or foe, forcing them to suspect that anyone — including the beautiful girl you just met, or her family — might be a terrorist.

    These facts began to shape the relationship between U.S. soldiers and Iraqis early in the war, as Associated Press reporter Andrew England noted in September 2003:

    Young American soldiers — many carrying out operations they have little training for — find themselves in a hostile environment, unable to speak the local language or distinguish "the good guys from the bad guys."

    Most just want to survive and return home. Some have grown to despise Iraqis, whom they call "Hajis," scowling rather than waving as they pass locals along highways and dirt roads. ...

    "I hate the Hajis. All of them are liars. They injured one of my soldiers," said one.

    "You don't want to know what I think about them, they shot at me one too many times," said another.

    Aidan Delgado
    Conscientious objector Aidan Delgado describes his experiences in Iraq.

    It is worth noting that one of the few conscientious objectors who have actually served with the military in Iraq, Aidan Delgado, had a very different perspective of Iraqis because he did know how to speak the language:

    It was tough for me to see brutality coming out of my own unit. I had lived in the Middle East. I had Egyptian friends. I spent nearly a decade in Cairo. I spoke Arabic, and I was versed in Arab culture and Islamic dress. Most of the guys in my unit were in complete culture shock most of the time. They saw the Iraqis as enemies. They lived in a state of fear. I found the Iraqis enormously friendly as a whole. One time I was walking through Nasiriyah with an armful of money, nadirs that were exchanged for dollars. I was able to walk 300 meters to my convoy -- a U.S. soldier walking alone with money. And I thought: I am safer here in Iraq than in the states. I never felt threatened from people in the South.

    It would be a mistake to imagine that the casual brutality of "Hadji Girl" is coming from people who are simply evil or racist or cruel. The soldiers occupying Iraq are normal men and women who, in other circumstances, would never commit the abuses that have been documented in Bagram and Abu Ghraib and that are now alleged in Haditha. The situations in which this war has placed them — far from home, surrounded by a foreign language and foreign culture, carrying guns and fearful for their lives — have brought out behaviors that we would not see otherwise. If American soldiers and Iraqis could meet under different circumstances, things would be different. Here, for example, is how Iraqi blogger Salam Pax described his experience upon visiting the United States and having dinner with an American soldier:

    You have no idea how strange it feels that we share so much in common. When I told him I would never actually approach an American soldier on the street in Baghdad, he told me that if we were in Baghdad he would probably be talking to me with his gun pointing at me because he would be scared shitless. Yet there we sat, drinking beers together.

    America's cultural isolationism and prejudices are exposed by "Hadji Girl," but that's only part of the story. The war itself is encouraging these dark aspects of human nature, by bringing Americans and Iraqis together in an environment full of tension, fear, hatred and violence. And if the war itself is creating these evils, how can it hope to end them?

    Comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    Reply to rebuttal

    Submitted by Sheldon Rampton on July 18, 2006 - 7:33pm.

    USMarinesTanker wrote,

    However, despite the increase in global terror incidents there have been NO (zip, zero, zilch, nada, none, etc.) terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

    I suppose you think repeating synonyms for zero adds rhetorical emphasis to your point, but I already acknowledged in my previous reply to you that there has not been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. My point is that terrorism worldwide has risen dramatically since the invasion of Iraq. To assume that this will not eventually blow back to U.S. soil is wishful thinking.

    As for the three instances of thwarted terrorism that you listed, I'm certainly glad that the would-be perpetrators were caught, but the war in Iraq didn't play any role in helping stop them. Two of your three examples -- the one in Florida, and the one in Canada -- were cases of "home-grown" terrorism, in which the people arrested were citizens of the countries they planned to attack. How many were from Iraq? Zero. Nada. Zip. Assem Hammoud, the ringleader of the second example on your list, was Lebanese and was arrested by Lebanese authorities. (It's fortunate that they were able to apprehend him before Israel began bombing.) According to one of the officials who interrogated him, he [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/the-new-prince-of-terrorism/2006/07/08/1152240535591.html became involved with militant Islamic websites in 2003, soon after the U.S. invaded Iraq]. "He was angry with what America was doing in Iraq, and he began spending time on these Islamic sites and chat rooms," the official said. "He became more and more deeply involved. He sank into this extremist environment." In this case, in other words, it's possible that the war in Iraq may have been what motivated him to become a terrorist. So kudos to the FBI for catching him, but I don't see how this shows the war in Iraq making us safer.

    The disturbing thing to me about these plots -- none of which came close to fulfillment, fortunately -- is that two of your three examples involve people who were citizens of either the U.S. or Canada deciding to become terrorists. We're fortunate that they were so amateurish, because home-grown terrorists are going to be harder to stop than foreign citizens. And the fact that we're talking about this kind of anger from people whose nationalities and ethnic backgrounds are this diverse demonstrates my point that making the WORLD a more dangerous place also increases the danger of attacks on U.S. soil.

    USMarinesTanker also wrote,

    I cannot recall a single news account (paper, tv, radio) of one successful reconstruction effort. No one reports them because it doesn't sell.

    For starters here, I should point out that the examples you cited of successful efforts to interdict terrorists in the United States and Canada were all taken from news accounts. You're playing a contradictory game here. On the one hand, you cite the news media as authorities when it helps make your argument. On the other hand, you dismiss them as biased when their reports don't support your argument.

    It's true that journalists are more inclined to report dramatic events than non-dramatic ones, but that's a distortion whose effects are a lot more complicated than your comments suggest. In 2001, for example, approximately 100 times as many people died prematurely in the United States from tobacco-related diseases as died from terrorist attacks, but guess which threat got more coverage? Media sensationalism also helped spread the lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that got us into this war in the first place. You're presuming that the media have an anti-war agenda, but it's just as easy to make the argument that they actually have a pro-war agenda.

    You write that you haven't seen any news accounts of reconstruction efforts, but I have seen some. I agree that there haven't been many, but some of the reasons for this don't support your assumptions about a "media agenda." For one thing, the situation in Iraq has gotten so dangerous for journalists that they have to take extraordinary security measures, which in turn limits their reporting. A case in point is ABC news anchor Bob Woodruff, who visited Iraq in January for the precise purpose of doing what you accuse journalists of failing to do: reporting the good news that the Bush administration complains is ignored by the news media. Woodruff spent a day chatting with friendly Iraqis on the street and eating ice cream at a Baghdad shop to show the "normal" side of life in Iraq. The following day, he and an ABC cameraman were badly wounded and nearly killed traveling in a routine military convoy. Incidentally, the war in Iraq has already been the deadliest war for journalists since World War II. So far, 99 journalists and their assistants have been killed in the war, which is more than the number killed during 20 years of war in Vietnam or the civil war in Algeria.

    Finally, there is one other reason why journalists are unlikely to focus on reconstruction projects. When they do publicize them, the projects become targets for terrorist attack. You might want to read the observations of Robert J. Callahan, a former press attache at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad:

    http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4071

    He writes,

    Well, the media did run positive stories, perhaps not as many as we would have liked, but again the situation in Iraq often made it difficult, impractical or counterproductive to get coverage for the good news. For example, we stopped taking reporters to the inaugurations of many reconstruction projects because, as we quickly learned to our dismay, publicity might invite a terrorist attack. On several occasions, one involving a school, terrorists struck the site and killed innocent people the day after an article or television story appeared. We concluded that good publicity simply wasn't worth the cost in lives and damage, and we stopped advertising them. It was frustrating, to be sure, but prudent.

    USMarinesTanker also wrote,

    Over 80% of the fighters in Iraq are from foreign countries.

    I don't know where you come up with a figure like 80%. It's the opposite of everything I've seen from every other source. The Washington Post reported last year that foreign fighters comprised between 4 to 10 percent of all insurgents:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html

    I know you don't trust the news media, but if you read the article, you'll see that its information is taken from U.S. military officials whom it quotes by name. CENTCOM estimated in the summer of 2005 that 90 percent of the insurgency was Iraqi and Sunni, with a maximum of 10 percent foreigners. Who should I believe, you or CENTCOM? Moreover, these estimates are consistent with what President Bush said in November of last year in his "Plan for Victory" speech to naval cadets at Annapolis. According to Bush, "The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein. And they reject an Iraq in which they're no longer the dominant group. ... The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein, people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. ... The third group is the smallest but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda."

    Finally, USMarinesTanker wrote:

    May I also remind the reader that NO U.S. Troops have been charged with any war crimes other than the Abu Ghraib "torture" scandal. Our Marines in Haditha and Soldiers accused of raping and murder of a 14 y/o girl are innocent until proven guilty.

    It's interesting that you feel compelled to put quote marks around the word "torture." Do you believe that torture happened at Abu Ghraib, or don't you?

    Since you read milblogs, I'm sure you know that many milbloggers and supporters of the war are utterly contemptuous of the torture revelations at Abu Ghraib. It's not uncommon to see people write that the only bad thing about Abu Ghraib was the fact that the photos got published. A number of people have suggested that newspapers were guilty of treason for publishing the photos, and there has even been talk about shooting reporters for treason. (So much for the notion that this war is being fought to protect our rights back home.) Joseph Darby, the soldier who first reported the abuse at Abu Ghraib, was denounced for doing so. His home was vandalized, and he and his family received so many death threats that they had to go into protective military custody at an undisclosed location. This suggests to me a culture within the military that is not very receptive to investigating its human rights abuses.

    Of course you're right that the Marines in Haditha and the soldiers accused of murdering that 14-year-old girl are entitled to a fair trial, with a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. They have the same rights as the accused terrorists you mentioned in Florida or anyone else who is accused of a crime. Everyone has that right. This doesn't mean, however, that the rest of us have to wait until after the trial before we form any opinion. I believe that the accused terrorists in Florida are guilty (even though they haven't gone to trial yet), and I also believe that the marines in Haditha and the soldiers accused of rape/murder are guilty. I believe this based on the information I've seen to date, and I'm prepared to revise my opinion if I see other information that suggests otherwise.

    In the case of Haditha, I think they're guilty in part because I've watched the video of an interview with James Crossen, the marine who was badly injured by the roadside bomb in Haditha that served as a catalyst for the killings. (Another marine, Miguel Terrazas, was killed.) Crossen was removed from the scene for treatment of his injuries and did not see the killings firsthand, but he was friends with the soldiers who did the killing, and he has spoken with them after the events. The interview makes it clear that he thinks of them as "good guys" and that he is not at all sympathetic with the Iraqis who were killed, but nevertheless he believes that the marines committed a massacre. I don't think he'd be saying that if he didn't have good reason to believe it were true. Here's the video so you can watch it yourself:

    http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/VideoPlayer/videoPlayer.php?vidId=68258&catId=81

    As for the rape/murder of the 14-year-old girl and her family, the circumstances under which this came to light (through the confession of one of the soldiers involved), combined with other known facts about the character of the instigator, Steven Green, suggest to me that the charges are probably true.

    what is news now

    Submitted by maitreya on July 10, 2006 - 9:47pm.

    Maybe Joshua Belile was there when the soldiers raped that 14 year old girl in her home with her family present and when they killed the girl's family and the girl after they got threw gang raping her. As evidenced by his song he seemed to have known alot about that story before it was ever "officially" investigated or made US news. I watched his performance of "Hadji Girl" on the video several times and I got the impression that he had written that song straight from the gut, like he wanted the world to hear every line of the story. First time I viewed it I immediately thought he has either heard about this story or had witnessed it first, hand, that it had some personal meaning to him. Regardless alas, we all now know "Hadji Girl" is a true story. If he survives Iraq (G-d willing), maybe he will write a book about how he came up with that little number.

    Hadji girl

    Submitted by Mutternich on June 23, 2006 - 11:21am.

    I remember hearing "haji" as far back as 1989 when I lived in Los Angeles. It seemed to apply to anyone from North Africa to Bangladesh. The derivation from the Haj didn't occur to me until more recently when someone pointed it out. Probably the people I heard using it in '89 weren't aware of it either.