Reluctantly, some American officials recently began to use a new
word when talking about our presence in Iraq: occupation. Even though
the Bush administration worked hard to keep this word out of our
national vocabulary before and during the war, it has nonetheless
started to appear in press briefings and news reports.
We may not have noticed it at the time, but our style of talking
about the new Iraq was forever changed by an institution not normally
associated with trends in American lingo: the UN Security Council.
Seeking to ease the export of Iraqi oil, Bush asked the UN to lift
the sanctions in May. Their response stated that it was willing
to lift sanctions because Iraq was now under the control of a foreign
military power, namely the US and the UK. But the message contained
more than Bush may have expected. It also stipulated that the foreign
occupying power is now legally responsible for the governance of
the occupied country.
So, what can we expect from an occupation? As Americans, we can
turn to our own experiences for some answers. In the many military
interventions we have embarked on over the last few decades-from
Vietnam to Somalia to Afghanistan-the task of governing other societies
with our military has often been more difficult than battlefield
victory. Whether we call these interventions imperialist or humanitarian,
each has been forced to confront some tough facts associated with
occupation: a disproportionate ratio of civilian to combatant casualties;
chaos about our authority and effectiveness as military governors,
especially when we fail to win hearts and minds; and the social
and health-related problems, from prostitution to drug use, that
often attend the recreation of large armies.
Ah!-cry the hawks-you forget that we were forced to go into Iraq
to prevent Saddam Hussein from using his WMDs, and to destroy the
Iraqi terrorist networks linked to al-Qaeda. But, as evidence grows
that such allegations were based on dubious intelligence reports,
these claims appear laughable. And, as violence and chaos reign
in US occupied Iraq, the other big claim, that we went to liberate
Iraqis from tyranny, has likewise unraveled.
Thousands of Iraqi civilians have already been killed by US bombs
and bullets, mostly during the war. And as Iraqi frustrations with
the current situation flare, there will no doubt be more clashes
involving US soldiers, and more civilian deaths. Moreover, while
US troops take precautions to avoid civilian casualties, one of
the strategies of the outgoing Baathist regime has been to confuse
our soldiers into killing Iraqi civilians and committing atrocities.
We should not expect tomorrow's insurgents to abandon this effective,
if repugnant strategy. With each civilian death, Iraqi hearts and
minds turn further from the publicized humanitarian aims of the
US occupation. Meanwhile, each week a few more US soldiers are killed
and wounded. At the current rate, in a number of weeks the number
of peacetime US casualties will eclipse those of the war.
Now in this context consider also the governmental responsibilities
we have just taken on as an occupying power, such as providing essential
services like food, water, health and security. Some of us who opposed
the war doubted whether the US public was financially prepared for
taking on these new responsibilities, especially when our own communities
are suffering historic budget cuts. "No problem," some
replied. Iraqi oil will fund the projects we undertake in that country.
But as petroleum economists point out, the revenues from Iraqi oil
will not be able to cover the expenses of the invasion, let alone
a prolonged occupation.
Who but us, American taxpayers, will be paying the tab? If in the
coming months you begin to notice cutbacks in your children's schools,
your libraries, your public transportation, remember this: our leaders
decided to fund military occupation there rather than vital services
here. And what's worse: if we fail to provide services in Iraq-services
that will be expensive-we should expect nothing but chaos and violence
from the occupation.
Those who steered us into this occupation have much to answer for,
especially since most Americans were not, and are not, prepared
to pay the real costs of becoming a long-term occupying power. But,
whatever the intentions of those who pushed for the war, we need
to wake up and see the new American Iraq for what it is: an occupation
that will not only be expensive, but also quite hazardous.
(Elliott Colla is professor of Comparative Literature at Brown
University. He is on the editorial committee of Middle East Report.)
