The Unintended Consequences of America’s Middle East Wars

By Rachelle Marshall

Iraqi children inspect burned-out cars following a May 10 helicopter missile attack in Baghdad’s Shi’i suburb of Sadr City which killed four people who were sitting near the cars when the missile struck (AFP photo/Jwissam Al-Okaili).

Petraeus and his fellow surge advocates are driving flat out in Iraq with no destination in sight.—Steve Coll, in the New Yorker, April 14, 2008

The more we try to explain such events in history reasonably, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible do they become.—Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

TOLSTOY WROTE these words in reference to the War of 1812 between France and Russia, but his message was that war is an irrational exercise that invariably takes on a momentum of its own, regardless of its original purpose. Surely his observation applies to the current Middle East wars in which the U.S. and Israel are unable to achieve victory despite their vastly superior military power, and for which there is no foreseeable end.

In each case the stated intent of the warmakers has been derailed by unintended consequences. U.S. forces in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq are not fighting al-Qaeda terrorists but multiple and ill-defined resistance forces, and defending governments that lack support from their own citizens. Israel’s assaults on Gaza have strengthened rather than weakened Hamas, and provoke more resistance. All four wars have caused massive damage to the countries involved and inflicted limitless misery on their inhabitants, but instead of ending terrorism they are laying the groundwork for more.

The administration neocons who aspired to change the face of the Middle East are unable even to influence the actions of their closest ally, Israel. Bush brought 43 nations to a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis last November, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has made 15 trips to Israel in the past year and a half, hoping to arrange at least a face-saving peace agreement before Bush leaves office. Yet because of Israel’s intransigence, serious negotiations between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas have yet to begin.

The goal of right-wing Israelis to take over all of the West Bank is now tacitly accepted government policy, with Olmert refusing to make even minimal concessions to the Palestinians while seizing more and more Palestinian land. After agreeing to a settlement freeze at Annapolis, Israel began building more than a thousand new apartments in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, including an area deep inside Palestinian territory. Olmert says settlement construction will continue. During Rice’s visit to Israel in March, he pledged to dismantle 50 of the 580 West Bank checkpoints and roadblocks, but as of mid-April Israel had lifted only a handful of earth mounds, most of them inside closed military areas. Defense Minister Ehud Barak said no more roadblocks would be removed.

The major obstacle to peace between Israel and the Palestinians remains the Bush administration’s unwavering commitment to Israel. Bush went to Israel in May to help celebrate Israel’s 60th anniversary but had no plans while there to commemorate al-Nakba, the expulsion and dispossession of 700,000 Palestinians that took place when Israel became a state. Instead Bush invited Abbas to the White House, where he assured the Palestinian president that a Palestinian state was a high priority of his administration. As usual Bush gave no specifics. Abbas said afterward, “We demanded that they talk about the ‘67 borders. None of them talks about the ‘67 borders.” When Abbas raised objections to Israel’s expansion of the settlements, Bush did not respond.

In an effort to bolster the demonstrably ineffective Abbas, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Robert Mosbacher, president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), announced a plan to build 10 new neighborhoods for Palestinians in the West Bank, with mortgages available for 30,000 apartments. The mortgages will be financed by OIPC, the Bank of Palestine, and the World Bank.

Blair called the plan “a major step forward for ordinary Palestinians,” but neither he nor Mosbacher explained how Palestinians who can’t get to their jobs, sell their goods, or travel from one village to another without interminable delays, would pay off the mortgages. Nor did they say how construction crews and supplies would get to the building sites, or where the water for the new neighborhoods would come from. As it stands now, the housing plan is more a cruel joke than an attempt to improve life for 3 million Palestinians suffering under occupation.

The Blair plan will do nothing for Gazans struggling to survive on a bare minimum of food, medicine and fuel under an Israeli blockade that former President Jimmy Carter called “an atrocity” when he visited the region in April. The army has continued the unrelenting air and ground attacks that, according to BBC News, killed at least 400 Palestinians in the first five months of 2008. One Israeli was killed by rocket attacks in the same period.

On April 16, day-long Israeli strikes on Gaza killed 19 Palestinians, including 5 children. Almost all the dead were civilians, including Fadel Shanel, a Reuters photographer whose clearly marked jeep was hit by a tank shell. Ten days later, as Israeli troops, tanks and bulldozers stormed into Beit Hanoun, a missile fired from an Israeli drone hit the home of Ahmed Abu Matteq and killed his wife and four small children as they were eating breakfast. A farmer and one member of Islamic Jihad also died in the attacks. According to an Israeli official, “such defensive [sic] measures will continue.“

Israel and the U.S. are determined to prolong the conflict rather than accept opportunities to end it. Carter talked for several hours with Khaled Meshal in Damascus on April 19, and afterward reported that the Hamas leader had dismissed the charter calling for Israel’s destruction as “an ancient document” and pledged to abide by any agreement with Israel that was approved in a free vote by the Palestinians. On April 30 Hamas, along with other militant groups, accepted Egypt’s proposal of a six-month cease-fire. Instead of encouraging Hamas’ move toward moderation, Israel and the U.S. are holding fast to what Carter calls “pariah diplomacy” and refusing to deal with organizations they brand as terrorist. The White House said of Meshal’s peace offer, “We take it with a grain of salt.”

Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s offer to negotiate peace with Israel received a similar turndown from the two governments, which insist that Syria must end its support for Hezbollah and Hamas before talks can take place. The Bush administration ratcheted up tensions in late April by accusing Syria of building a nuclear reactor on the site that Israel bombed last September. Syria denied the charge and offered full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. Analysts with the Institute for Science and International Security said there was no sign the reactor was part of a nuclear weapons program.

Conflict Trumps Diplomacy

The Bush administration’s preference for conflict over diplomacy continues to cause havoc in Somalia, where an invasion by U.S.-backed Ethiopian troops aimed at a growing Islamic movement has led to a smoldering war. The transitional government installed with U.S. support is deeply unpopular, its underpaid troops engage in robbing and looting, and U.S. air strikes kill many civilians and deepen support for the resistance. After a period of peace under the Islamists, Somalia is again what a U.N. official called an “abyss of suffering.”

Similar reports come from observers in Afghanistan, which in 2007 suffered its bloodiest year since the U.S. invasion in 2001. According to Jacob Kellenberger, president of the International Red Cross, “The harsh reality is that in large parts of Afghanistan, little development is taking place. Instead the conflict is forcing more and more people to flee their homes. Their growing humanitarian needs must be treated as a matter of urgency.”

President Hamid Karzai accuses the Americans and British of making decisions without consulting his government, and taking the fighting to Afghan villages rather than to al-Qaeda’s mountain enclaves. Karzai also blames coalition forces for undermining his amnesty policy by arresting and abusing Taliban members who turn themselves in. As a result, potential defectors are driven out of the country to Pakistan, where they again take up arms. Many Afghans say they felt safer under Taliban rule than they do at the mercy of corrupt officials, suicide bombers and NATO air strikes.

Living conditions for most Iraqis are surely far worse than before the U.S. invaded. After five years of U.S. occupation there not only is less clean water, fuel and electric power than before, but less freedom. Iraqi cities are now criss-crossed by checkpoints and cement walls that isolate neighborhoods and paralyze traffic. Iraqis who must show special ID cards and endure long waits to get from one place to another compare themselves to Palestinians. A checkpoint in Baghdad is known as the “Rafah gate.”

In naming Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, on April 23, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the appointment meant the U.S. would “stay the course.” He did not say what goal that course was leading to, how long it would take to achieve it, or what national interests are at stake to justify the cost. Judging by daily news reports, there is little connection between what the generals and policymakers are saying, and what our troops are actually doing in Iraq.

On his heavily guarded visit to the Green Zone in mid-March, Vice President Dick Cheney hailed the “phenomenal” security improvement that had been achieved. Later the same day a bombing in Najaf killed 43 people. Civilian deaths in Baghdad increased by 43 percent in March and attacks on military targets more than doubled. The violence across Iraq continued to increase in April, yet Bush declared on April 11, “Today, thanks to the surge, we’ve renewed and revived the prospect of success.”

Bush announced in the same speech that some 140,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq until the end of his presidency. The American military command also employs at least 80,000 Sunnis as “security volunteers,” and supports and arms dozens of Shi’i militias. David Kilcullen, General Petraeus’s counterinsurgency adviser, calls such support “balancing competing armed interest groups.” In plain words we are arming Sunnis to fight Shi’i, and Shi’i to fight other Shi’i.

“The U.S. has not been fighting al-Qaeda, it is fighting Iraqis,” according to Juan Cole, professor of Middle East history at the University of Michigan. Cole points out that al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the U.S. invasion, and says the homegrown version differs markedly from the original al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden. Ira Lapidus, of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, believes “It is an open question as to whether al-Qaeda is a unified operating organization at all.”

What Lapidus describes as “a multifactional civil war” intensified in late March, when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sent his army to the southern oil city of Basra to oust the Mahdi militia of Muqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr had been observing a unilateral truce since last August, but his forces along with other anti-government militias put up fierce resistance. More than a thousand government soldiers deserted during the fighting in Basra, and only continuous U.S. air strikes allowed the Iraqi army to establish tentative control of the city.

Bush portrayed the episode as a victory that “demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government is continuing to protect them,” but most analysts saw the attack on Basra as an effort by the government to cripple al-Sadr as a political figure and prevent his party’s participation in crucial provincial elections planned for October.

Al Sadr’s party is the chief rival of al-Maliki’s governing party, the Islamic Supreme Council, which both Iran and the U.S. support. The Supreme Council favors provincial autonomy, which would give the south control over its rich oil deposits, while al-Sadr favors a strong central government. His party was originally expected to do well in the October elections but al-Maliki has banned it from taking part unless al-Sadr disbands his militia and turns over wanted members to the government.

In early April U.S. and Iraqi forces laid siege to Sadr City, a neighborhood of some two million poor Iraqis that is al-Sadr’s main base of support. In the first weeks of fighting between local militias and Iraqi and U.S. troops, hundreds of civilians died, and normal activity came to a standstill. Thousands of residents fled and many government troops again fled with them, despite Bush’s claim that efforts to build a reliable Iraqi army are succeeding. An Iraqi major who had led his men away from the fighting explained, “Every house in Sadr City probably has one of their sons in the Mahdi army, so it is hard to convince people to believe in the Iraqi army.”

Unable to end local resistance, American soldiers constructed a massive concrete wall along the main avenue, cutting al-Sadr City in two. The wall is intended to protect the Green Zone from rockets and create an enclave where the Iraqi government would provide the services formerly provided by the militias. As of early May, however, garbage was piling up, sewage flowed in the streets, and the government had taken no action. The only medical treatment available for wounded civilians was provided by U.S. army medics.

Members of parliament from several parties, along with supporters of al-Sadr, have urged al-Maliki to replace the use of force with talks aimed at resolving political differences, but so far he has refused. Meanwhile attacks against U.S. forces have increased, with civilians the chief victims. After a car bomb in Baghdad killed nine Iraqis and two American soldiers on May 1, a nearby shopkeeper said, “If the Americans stay I will remain pessimistic. What successes have they brought? So many people dead.”

America’s drawn-out entanglement in Iraq is in many ways a repetition of past history. Thirty years ago the war in Vietnam demonstrated that military power is no match for nationalist fervor. The Viet Cong and North Vietnamese were fighting for their country against a foreign invader; the South Vietnamese government was dependent on the Americans and was unable to inspire the same degree of allegiance. The lesson of that failed venture is being repeated today in Iraq, as well as in Palestine, Somalia and Afghanistan, where the U.S. and Israel have been able to destroy everything in their path but the desire of the people to be free of foreign domination.

Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. A member of the Jewish International Peace Union, she writes frequently on the Middle East.

SIDEBAR

To the Bush Administration, the Enemy of My Enemy Is Also My Enemy

One of the many problems with President Bush’s “war on terrorism” is that it lumps together as enemies stateless extremists, nationalist forces, and governments that refuse to accept U.S.-Israeli dominance in the Middle East. Just as administration officials once linked Saddam Hussain to the 9/11 attacks, they now link Iran with al-Qaeda as the enemy in Iraq. Bush calls them “‘two of the greatest threats to America in this new century.”

General Petraeus accused Iran of fueling the increased violence in Iraq when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April, and agreed with hawkish Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) that “Iranian-backed special groups are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians.” U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker has accused Iran of backing resistance groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza, as well as Iraq, implying that Iran is supporting al-Qaeda as well as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Petraeus was promoted to commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East after Adm. William J. Fallon was forced to resign the post for speaking out against a possible U.S. attack on Iran. In announcing Petraeus’ promotion, Defense Secretary Robert Gates hinted that it was a warning to Iran, saying, “What Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen in Iraq.” Military intelligence analysts say Iran has not increased shipments of arms to Iraq in recent months but is spreading its influence by training Iraqi militias and providing legitimate economic assistance.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and the crowds of Iraqis who greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with open arms when he visited Baghdad obviously don’t share Washington’s hostility to Iran. Nor does India, another major U.S. ally. The day after Bush urged New Delhi to exert pressure on Ahmadinejad, the Indian Foreign Ministry replied that India did not need “any guidance on the conduct of international relations” from the U.S. “India and Iran are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries,” the Ministry statement said. “Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention.”

The organization that does share Bush’s view of Iran is al-Qaeda. In an audiotape released on April 22, the group’s No. two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, portrayed al-Qaeda as the Sunni Arabs’ chief defender against the rising power of Shi’i Iran, and bitterly criticized Hezbollah. Iran has long been hostile to al-Qaeda, which was responsible for killing several Iranian diplomats in Afghanistan. There is an old saying in the Middle East that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In threatening war with Iran, the Bush administration is rejecting a potential ally in not only stabilizing Iraq, but in combatting al-Qaeda as well.—R.M.