It's Israel, stupid!
The change was just as sudden as it was unexpected. Washington is revising its Iraq strategy only six months after it announced the end of military operations; six months after it declared US forces in control, and that a regime that deserved ousting -- because of its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) -- had been ousted. It was not so long ago that the US administration was unwilling even to discuss the transfer of power to Iraqis: that it would not deign to grant the UN a clear role, and that it was adamant that its forces would stay in Iraq indefinitely. Iraq, the Americans promised, would be an oasis of democracy, a beacon of freedom. Repeatedly, the US refused to listen to advice. Repeatedly, it rebuffed European allies and Arab friends as they argued that Iraqis should reclaim their own sovereignty, that the UN should manage the restoration of normalcy, and that the US should pull out.
So, what happened to explain this change in the math? Over the past six months, Iraqi resistance escalated, and may no longer be confined to remnants of the regime and Saddam's special forces. The post-war toll among US troops has just topped that sustained during military operations. The US claims that fighters have infiltrated from Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and that Al-Qa'eda is involved in attacks against Alliance forces. The obvious fact is that attacks have widened. The UN headquarters was bombed. So was the Red Cross, the Jordanian Embassy, and Spanish, Italian and Polish contingents. The attacks also heightened tensions between America and its Arab friends, who have persistently resisted US pressure to recognise the existing political conditions. After years of Saddam's oppression, the US liberators marched in, only to increase the suffering of Iraqis.
The Americans thought that the restoration of electricity and water services, and the provision of food and other supplies, would diminish acts of resistance. Yet, the harshness of occupation, the insensitive treatment of Iraqis, the intrusive searching of houses, among other offences, have irked common Iraqis. For all their incompetence, Arab countries seem to have been far more far sighted than the Americans. Since the beginning, Arab countries knew that the war aimed to: (a) help the US control oil wealth and consolidate its military presence in the Middle East; and (b) help Israel achieve its regional goals. All the talk about WMDs was no more than a pretext to launch the war. Curiously, Washington is still using this same ruse to pressure Syria and Iran, in the hope of diverting attention from Israel's atrocities and continual defiance of the international community.
Some US commentators pretend -- as does Washington -- that they cannot understand why Arabs support acts of resistance in Iraq and Palestine. They pretend they cannot fathom the reasons for random acts of terror, as those that happened recently in Istanbul and Saudi Arabia. The Americans prefer to attribute the Arab mood to a lack of democracy and freedom and to the corruption of Arab political regimes. They claim that these three combined provide the conditions for extremist organisations, such as Al-Qa'eda. But there is hardly a need for such fancy interpretations. The corruption, injustice and bias of US policies towards Israel is mirrored by the corruption, injustice and tyranny in the region. Both phenomena feed off each other. Both reinforce each other's ability to sow disruption, turmoil and violence in the Middle East.
The Americans have once again failed miserably in the Arab world. From Iraq to Palestine, their troubles are far from over.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 20 - 26 November 2003 (Issue No. 665)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/665/op4.htm