Why Some Iraqis Will Resist Occupation, While Others Collaborate

Background
Firstly, and in fairness, the jury is still out with mainstream historians as to whether or not the Iraq war is colonialism or neocolonialism per se. The historians (former college professors) I've spoken to recently all seemed to be of the mind that if not done right, it will be seen as colonialism or, worse, in fact become recognizable colonialism. Most said that there are overwhelming factors that will complicate a transition to democracy, and will require a tremendous marshalling of resources and finances to overcome. Also, I was reminded that there are still troops in Germany some 57 years later.

Capitalism has always been the motivation for colonialism. In the past, Colonialism was seen as a solution to limited domestic markets in terms of investments, raw materials, and new markets. Furthermore, segments of indigenous capitalist classes have always operated and collaborated with colonial states to enhance their wealth and power. In other words, the plans for capitol investment in Iraq are not due to U.S. beneficence, but obviously because we will economically gain from it. In any case, the direct food aid does not buy Iraqi gratitude for the simple reason that it is Iraqi oil that is paying for the goods we insultingly call “humanitarian aid.”

Ideological myths are always a component of colonization. Although it is true that the U.S. and Western powers are currently fighting a just war against terrorism, the links between Al Qaeda and the current secular regime of Iraq have not been proven to the satisfaction of many. In fact, CIA director George Tenet has warned that the attack on Iraq may generate more terrorism. Therefore, in attacking Iraq a strong case could be made that the current U.S. ideological myth, or political cover, is “the fight against terrorism,” or “national security.”

Another past myth is “civilizing” the native population. The modern day equivalent is “bringing democracy.” In fact, Bush himself often uses anachronistic language by declaring the U.S. and Europe as the “Civilized World.” Occupation has been used to divert attention from problems at home, whether Southern Italian landless peasants clamoring for land and political representation, or currently, as one suspect, the economic problems facing the U.S. today.

Pacification and Resistance

In the past, imperial powers (European & U.S.) have consistently underestimated the level of resistance. For example, “Italian policy makers decided to occupy Libya with limited military operations thinking that the natives hated the Ottoman tyranny and backwardness. Instead they faced one of the longest and most militant anticolonial movements in the history of Africa in that period.” (Ahmida, page 117). In fact, it took the Italians from 1911 to 1932 to conquer the entire country.

The overriding feature of colonialism, and one that both Western and Native Historians agree upon, is the extreme level of brutality needed to pacify a country or region. In this regard, the U.S. does not have clean hands. The Treaty of Paris (1898) transferred Philippine sovereignty from Spain to the United States but was not recognized by Filipino leaders, whose troops were in actual control of the entire archipelago except the capital city of Manila. Fighting flared with increased bitterness on the island of Samar in 1901. General Jacob F. Smith, enraged by a guerrilla massacre of U.S. troops, launched a retaliatory campaign of such indiscriminate ferocity that he was court-martialed and forced to retire. The Americans committed barbaric acts because of the population’s support to the guerrillas. For instance, by December 25, 1901, all men, women, and children of the towns of Batangas and Laguna, were herded into small areas within the their respective towns. The American troops burned their houses, carts, poultry, animals, etc. The people were prisoners for months. In the end, it has been estimated that as many as 200,000 civilians died. (onwar.com)

During past colonial adventures, the level of violence reached epic proportions. For example, Italians bombed cities, used poison gas, sealed wells, dropped rebels from airplanes, confiscated herds, and sealing borders with Egypt, much of which was done before Italy became fascist.

Democratic France too had a horrific history in its colonies. By reading recent accounts of French General Paul Aussaresses, we know that no less than 10 to 20 Algerians were tortured to death daily during interrogation by the French Army in Algeria in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. However, nowhere in the world did resistance to colonial occupation end.

The violence swung both ways, and the multitude of atrocities against both the settlers and the occupiers were creatively and inventively cruel. During negotiation, both sides turn up the heat to gain leverage. Both sides seem to say, “You better make a peace deal advantageous to us because you see what we can do if you don’t.” Today, this is why an Israeli incursion is begun or a Palestinian Militant’s bomb will go off at the very moment a peace negotiation is under way.

Who Collaborates and Why

Iraqi merchant families will want to retain their fortune and influence in the region. This is why many of them will aid the Americans in occupying the country. No doubt too they will label the resistance to American invaders as “terrorists, thugs and bandits”.

Some will not see their efforts as collaboration, but as a means of getting even with rivals or the ethnic groups previously in power. We are already seeing this in Basra, as some citizens volunteer information to British troops laying siege to the city. As in the past, various competing ethnic/social groups will ally themselves with the occupying force to correct what they see as injustice committed against them. In short, many will not see the U.S. as the main enemy, but regard opposing ethnic groups as a more urgent threat to their status and power. As always, the occupying force will seize upon these rivalries to their advantage.

On the other hand, often the lines between racial/ethnic/tribal divisions have been blurred by centuries of inter-marriage. “In the case of pure Berber of the Maghrib (N.Africa) was a colonial construct designed to separate people hierarchically, so as to facilitate domination”(Ahmida, 114). Although distinct, the divisions between pure “Kurdish”, “Shiite” and “Sunni” will similarly be played to the advantage of the U.S. occupiers. It will be interesting to see if Iraqi Christians will remain as integrated into the political, economic, and power structure of post-war Iraq, as they have under the Ba’ath party.

Reasons for Resistance

The invasion of Iraq has become a major Arab and Moslem embarrassment. Furthermore, Arab media and popular opinion preceding and during the early phases of the war has mobilized Arabs (Christians and Moslem) and the wider Moslem population against the war.

Resistance to the occupation will continue after the initial war ends. Resistance will be designed to be extreme, so that the counter-measures necessarily taken by the occupying force will be harsh and eventually impact adversely on the daily lives of civilians. As the cycle of violence and counter-measures spiral to heights of maniacal lunacy, more ordinary civilians will be drawn to the side of the resistance. This formula has played itself out in nearly every country that had been a former colony. The indigenous population which bears the brunt of the brutal repressive measures blames the occupying force, and does not excuse the counter measures as a legitimate response to “terror”. In fact the local population is correct in their assessment. Without the occupying army, there would not be resistance.

Franz Fannon’s “The Wretched of the Earth” will offer a bone-chilling model for the resistance, as it probably did in 1960’s Algeria, 1980’s Lebanon, and currently in the occupied territories. If you are unfamiliar with the author’s work which chronicles the relationship of occupier to occupied and the psychology behind resistance movements, I recommend you put it next on your reading list. Get the 1963 edition with an introduction by Paul Sartre who presciently tells readers not to be surprised when there is a massive attack upon your trading centers.

The current-day map of Iraq was drawn somewhat arbitrarily by former British colonialists. The ethnic, political and social divisions will remain after the war ends. The new political system installed upon Iraq will have political winners and losers. Traditionally, ethnic geopolitical losers have sought to remedy the situations by taking up arms to protect their interest.

Outside influences will seek to aid the resistance within Iraq. This is the reason for the multiple warnings to Syria and Iran to stay out of the conflict, the latest being from Secretary of State Colin Powell at last night’s address to AIPAC. The entire border in a country the size of California, will have to be secured in order to prevent this from happening. All movement will be carefully monitored and all trucks, buses, and cars will have to be searched. The other option under consideration by the administration is for the U.S. to invade Syria next. Although the political climate will not probably not allow for this upon cessation of the war, but this could change if there is another “event” within the United States. Also, be reminded that resent of the U.S. within Syria will be at an all time high. Syria just lost a major source of discounted Iraqi oil. The arrangement so beneficial to Syria will not be repeated either during the occupation phase of Iraq, or with the installment of the next government. Another source of Syrian ire is the fact that they have just lost their major trading partner. Indeed, at some point, trade between Syria and Iraq will begin anew unless, of course, the U.S. imposes sanctions against Syria.

Conclusion and Recommendations

It is too early to tell what direction post war Iraq will take, but some of the signs coming out of the administration are not encouraging. Despite Colin Powel’s assurances that the U.S. wants a just settlement of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, political considerations within the U.S. will continue to exert pressure for a deal which is advantageous to Israel to the detriment of the Palestinians. As long as the conflict rages, prospects for a successful post-war phase within Iraq will be complicated.

Perhaps the best scenario would be for the U.S. to leave the country for administration by the U.N. Currently the U.N. seems to be reluctant to assume the task, even if they were asked which they haven’t been. Within the Middle-East, the U.S. neither has credibility nor the goodwill of the people. This will compromise the post-war administration of the country. If George Bush’s handlers/puppet masters were smart, they would leave the country after perhaps a 90 day occupation. A financial incentive could be given to the U.N. for administering the country, and also fund the U.N. operations along with rebuilding. Unfortunately, it appears that we will not cede our war booty nor seriously reinvest in the country, other than the oil infrastructure. Already we have seen some grumblings in congress about post-war aid to the country. As with Afghanistan, promises of lavish aid will fizzle out like a scud missile hitting the desert floor and missing its target by a mile.

In a general way, I have tried to show some of the forces that may work against the U.S. during the post-war phase. It is perhaps impossible to know all of the influences and forces that will work both for and against the reconstruction phase. Finally, I would like nothing better than to be entirely wrong in my dire assessment for Iraq.









Sources

“The Making of Modern Libya: State Formation, Colonization and Resistance” by Ali Abdullatiff Ahmida, 1994, State University of New York Press

“Battle for the Casbah - Counter-Terrorism in Algeria” Paul Aussaresses, Robert L. Miller (Introduction)

“The Wretched of the Earth” Frantz Fanon, Constance Farrington (Translator


Internet Sources
http://www.msc.edu.ph/centennial/filam6.html