The Occupation of Iraq

The Romans' occupation of new territories was never particularly respectful to the natives; Roman troops and government were brutal, ruthless and destructive. They carried off able-bodied men and women as slaves, and any booty they could carry. Generals got rich overnight; it took governors a little longer. They boasted of bringing Roman law and order, but it was Roman law and military-induced order; it was an occupation for Roman interests. Any resistance was brutally suppressed--not always successfully.

There were Roman conquests that didn't quite take, like that of Palestine and the parts of Roman Asia that are now Iraq and Iran. Wars with Persians and Parthians over those lands were a continuous counterpoint to the barbarian invasions from northern Europe.

Nevertheless, as hard as the life of the legionnaire was, it wasn't as hard as that of the people they conquered. Legionnaires in Libya, for example, built swimming pools for themselves (a part of the standard Roman baths), and conspicuously consumed and wasted more of the scarce water of the Libyan desert than whole tribes used. Tribal attacks may have been as much over water as they were for freedom or honor.

Transpose this experience to the American occupation of Iraq. Obviously not all the natives are cooperating. The Romans first aphorized "divide and conquer;" now Americans in Iraq, intentionally or not, have gained advantage from the ethnic divide between Kurd, Shiite and Sunni. Kurds have allied with Americans since before the invasion, while Shiites owe government power from the American takeover.

But, as a strategy, divide and rule has obvious costs: it has inflamed the Sunnis, who had controlled the country and the military, and had gained patronage from Saddam Hussein's regime; Sunnis form the backbone of an insurgency against both the Shiite-dominated government and the American occupation.

Note: With the new alliances between American troops and Sunni Awakening and Guardian groups, a good part of the Sunni insurgency has been gentled, temporarily. However, the Shiite government is still just as intransigent in arriving at compromises with their Sunni brethren, and the latter are still bent on vengeance or more, or as one Sunni Guardian told an American: "They still owe a blood debt" for the deaths of brothers, sons and families. It could be said that the new alliances are simply a refinement of "divide and rule."

The destruction, random violence and frequent brutality of the American forces have also generated resistance from many of the Shiite power-holders. In addition, just like the Roman occupation legionnaires, Americans and their allies live much better than the Iraqis, which is another likely source of resentment.

There is probably more resistance to the occupation in Iraq now, than there was by the Jews against the Romans in ancient Palestine. Yet the Romans did not fully quash Jewish resistance until they destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem and drove the Jews out of Palestine. Americans are probably not willing to go that far. Besides, Iraqis are much more numerous.

Further, even though the Sunni insurrection primarily targets Shiites and the Shiite government with its IED's and suicide bombers, and even though the Shiites retaliate mostly against the Sunnis--with death squad killings--both the Sunni rebels and unreconstructed radical Shiites also direct their anger at American forces: both set IED's against American troops; both probably send off mortars into American bases and the Green Zone. And the Shiite government is equated with the occupation which enables it to exist.

Think of Sunni bombings of Shiites as akin to the American KKK terrorizing blacks after Reconstruction, since the Sunnis were almost comparable to America's dominant Southern whites, lording it over the majority Shiites--until the invasion. With the American invasion, the US turned Iraqi power structures upside down. No wonder the Sunnis fight so bitterly; no wonder the sectarian hatred is so ugly.

Given these conditions, it is virtually impossible for the US to achieve the kind of "victory" envisaged by the neocons: a truly democratic government that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East. You can't impose democracy with an army; that's a contradiction in both means and terms. What the Iraqis have now is an elected charade, totally dependent upon the occupation forces, ineffectual, corrupt and almost at war within its ranks.

Consider what the Bush administration probably means by "success" and "victory." Iraq would become a pro-American bastion in the middle of the Middle East, opening her land to American oil companies and (mostly) American multinational corporations. It would be a model, a showcase, for American "bidness" and corporate-controlled "democracy." It would view the occupation as benign and would become a faithful US client and ally, anchoring our interests in the Middle East.

This is an opium dream; maybe the neocons smoked opium in Afghanistan, but they sure were on something! Maybe it was a hallucinogenic; maybe they turned on Bush and Cheney as well.

Can occupation forces leave without unleashing chaos?

A good case can be made that the US occupation creates a good part of the chaos and the violence. Certainly, the bombings from the air are almost exclusively courtesy of the occupation forces, as are the shootings at checkpoints. Further, the American presence makes it more, not less, likely that Shiites and Sunnis continue to fight, since the Shiite government believes it has American backing and therefore refuses agree to any meaningful compromises with the Sunni minority.

Yes, there will be chaos and bloodshed and more mass displacements of people if (when) the US leaves, but there is chaos and bloodshed already, and if the US occupation forces left tomorrow, the two sides would have less to fight about and more reason to come to a compromise agreement and a cease-fire.