U.S. Looking To Israel For Lessons In Occupation

by Ferry Biedermann

Now it is a software program that supposedly teaches soldiers what to expect. Several months ago there was talk of U.S. officers attending courses in Israel.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the United States is pretty desperate if it wants to take a leaf out of Israel's occupation techniques. Ethical or moral implications aside, since the mid-80's the Israeli occupation has not been terribly successful by either military or political standards.

All one can say of the Israelis is that they have held on. That, presumably, is not the purpose of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

It is remarkable how quickly the level of resentment against the U.S. presence has risen. Even if it does not yet mirror the level of resentment among Palestinians towards Israel, it is rapidly catching up.

While there are many complaints about the United States, the overriding feeling is that people everywhere just do not like to be occupied. This seems particularly true of an Islamic Arab country occupied by Western Christian powers.

The implications for the security situation are overwhelming because even if the large majority of people who are resentful will not take up arms, they do provide a huge pool of tacit support for resistance fighters. Any armed faction, whether Baathist, the al-Qaeda or a fundamentalist group, can tap into that reservoir.

The U.S. military seems to have picked up on that point. The New York Times in an article earlier this week says military intelligence and State Department intelligence polls have set alarm bells ringing in the Pentagon.

The report cites defense officials who acknowledge that "cultural factors" play a role in fanning resentment and hostility. One element that the military recognizes is the treatment of women by U.S. troops.

This is indeed one of a plethora of recurring complaints that arise in conversations with Iraqis. In the countryside outside Baghdad, in villages within the so-called Sunni-triangle where many of the attacks on U.S. soldiers take place, treatment of women seems to be at the heart of the resentment.

In the course of raids, U.S. troops kick down doors to houses and bedrooms, they search women, and sometimes take them into custody.

Still, the complaint about women is only one in a long row of gripes. Much of the resentment centers on unfulfilled promises to bring democracy and to make life better. Anger over services not yet restored such as electricity, water and telephone, and over continuing lawlessness in parts of the country complete the picture.

Resistance groups seem to have a core of experienced soldiers, ex-army officers and Baath militia members who melted away during the much-proclaimed "fall of Baghdad." Several 'ordinary' Iraqis have joined them driven by such resentment. Logistical support seems often to be provided by people angry with the U.S. for a combination of such reasons.

U.S. administrator Paul Bremer has indicated that he sees no time limit to the U.S. military presence in Iraq. This was an admission that the military situation inside Iraq will remain volatile. It will also take time to rebuild an Iraqi army. In the background of course, may be a U.S. intention to keep military bases in Iraq indefinitely.

The U.S. has announced several steps to improve security for its troops in Iraq. It is still attempting to draw in more international forces to lighten the burden on U.S. soldiers. In light of the 'cultural' aspects of the hostility, the Pentagon has expressed a special interest in troops from Muslim countries.

The progress of a resolution in the United Nations Security Council that would make wider international participation possible is slow, however, and may get bogged down.

In the meantime, five leaders of Iraqi factions that resisted Saddam Hussein's regime have come up with a plan of their own. They have called on U.S. troops to hand over policing and patrolling to their militias, and withdraw to their bases.

The five, including two Kurdish factions, the Iraqi National Congress, the Iraq National Accord and the Shia group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) all participate in Iraq's Governing Council that was set up by the occupation authorities. They want to continue cooperating with the U.S. They say, however, that U.S. troops are making a mistake by turning themselves into a "frontline" occupation force.

The U.S. has this week come up with a new deployment idea that partly fits in with the proposal of the five groups. The idea is to make the occupation less conspicuous and to take steps like shortening the 11 pm to 4 am curfew in Baghdad.

More significant is the possibility, touted by the commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt.-General Ricardo Sanchez, to withdraw troops from the center of some cities and hand over security to local authorities.

"We would be willing to do that immediately if those conditions existed any where in the country," Sanchez said. "We are looking at that right now to see if there are some cities in which the capacity is already in place, and we'd be more than glad to begin to move out of there."

A combination of such measures may ease resentment as well as the security risks to U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Since May 1 when U.S. President George W. Bush declared combat operations over, some 160 U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq. Hundreds more have been wounded and quietly flown back to the States

There is, however, always a slim chance that the resentment against the United States will die down anyway as conditions improve in the country, even without much outside support or a significant change in the U.S. security posture.

The results of a poll that the U.S.-based Zogby International Agency carried out in Iraq are interesting. The poll found that despite complaints, a substantial majority of Iraqis expect themselves and the country to be better off in five years.