US Repeating the Mistakes of the Roman Empire
At the outset of military operations in Iraq, the Americans placed a great deal of hope on ethnic groups unhappy with the rule of Saddam Hussein. Among them, the Shiites and Kurds stood out in the Pentagon's strategic thinking as important allies. But recently, we have been witnessing a diametrically opposed picture emerge. Rather than surrendering insurgents to the Americans, the Shiites have been joining the resistance movement, and are now in fact responsible for the main problems facing coalition forces. The cost of the siege of Fallujah has been the continued deaths of American soldiers, falling approval ratings for Bush, and sagging optimism among US allies regarding military operations.
So why did the Shiites turn their backs on the Americans? After all, the democratic regime promised by Bush offered the Shiites a bright political future. When all is said and done, the Americans did get rid of a dictator especially hated by the Shiite population. And it won't do to compare Iraq with Vietnam, or Iraqi insurgents with the Vietcong. In Vietnam the United States came in as an occupier, fighting a popular regime that enjoyed support in both the north and the south of the country. But here, the Americans came ostensibly as liberators. At the very least, this was undeniably true for the Shiites.
The Americans were used, and this despite the fact that US policy is considered to be a model of pragmatism and cold calculation. But that policy misfired in Iraq. It was the Americans themselves who brought the Shiites into the political arena. After the toppling of Hussein, Shiite ayatollahs were free to preach without hindrance, and they often did so in anti-American tones. Under Hussein, those propagandizing against the regime were shot without trial. Had it not been for the Americans, the Shiites would to this day have been engaged in an underground struggle.
But these days, Shiite organizations operate legally, and besides which receive vast sums from some not very trustworthy sponsors - Iran, for example. Naturally, now that the Shiites have achieved influence in Iraq, they no longer need the Americans.
The Roman Empire experienced a similar situation in its time when it tried to conquer Parthia. A 'liberal empire' waged a war against an eastern despotism, counting on the support of separatist princes, but was defeated namely by those same separatist forces.
At the end of the 1st century A.D., the economic situation of the Roman Empire experienced a marked downturn. Civil wars led to the ruin of Italy, and money needed to rebuild was lacking. The empire had not conducted wars of aggression since the time of Augustus, at the beginning of the century, maintaining instead a defensive policy. Coming to power in 98 A.D., the emperor Trajan proposed an ambitious solution - to resume a policy of military aggression, to conquer new territory for Rome, and thereby to resuscitate a moribund economy. And that is precisely the way the Bush administration has tried to raise the efficiency of the American economy, by seizing control of Middle Eastern oil. Rome's neighbor, Parthia, was chosen as the target of Trajan's campaign.
Parhia was a state located on the territory of contemporary Iran, extending from the Hindu peninsula to Roman Syria. It was considered the second superpower of the ancient world. In addition, Parthia was at that time considerably weakened by internal strife, nomad incursions, as well as the separatism of individual rulers. Judging by everything, the Romans hoped that defeating Parthia would not be too difficult.
The justification for war was the conflict between Rome and Parthia in the Roman vassal state of Armenia. A major anti-Parthian campaign was launched in Rome. Memories of Alexander of Macedonia were revived, and of how he had destroyed the ancient power of the Achaemenids. But if Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt had remained under Roman control since then, the Persian lands and the area between the Tigris and Euphrates had quickly been lost. The war then received an ideological rationale - to retake lands once controlled by the Greeks and bring them back into the fold of 'authentic culture.' In precisely the same way, Bush proposed placing Iraq on the 'correct path to democracy' from which Iraq had strayed when the Baathists had taken over.
In order to contain disturbances in his own backyard Trajan strengthened the empire's frontiers, and then moved significant military forces to his launch point in Syria. These were professional soldiers, with an advanced command system, and not a disorganized rabble of eastern powers. Parthian soldiers were considerably the inferiors of Roman troops.
At first, Trajan's legions were victorious. The Romans quickly occupied Mesopotamia, Armenia and the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Having launched the war in 114 A.D., by 116 A.D. they had already advanced to the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon. Hopes for the separatist princes seemed confirmed as many of them surrendered without a fight, refusing to serve the Parthian king and throwing themselves on the mercy of the Roman emperor.
The Romans nearly destroyed Parthia. Soon, Trajan offered the throne to Parfamasatu, the son of the Parthian king, Hozroya, and he agreed to be Rome's de facto vassal. And the emperor had grandiose plans. It was said that while visiting the Persian Gulf, he had proclaimed: 'Oh, if only I were young right now, then like Alexander of Macedonia I would undoubtedly set off for India.' It was with similar enthusiasm that Bush greeted the early victories in Iraq, when the White House administration was already thinking about how to introduce democracy in neighboring Iran.
But those selfsame separatists dealt Rome a serious defeat. Soon, a Jewish uprising erupted in Mesopotamia. In Parthia, Jews had been a defeated people, but they had enjoyed certain rights. They did not want to live under Roman rule, as they knew full well how the Romans dealt with the Jews in Syria and Judea. Alarmed by the cruelty and corruption of Roman officials, they gathered together in militias, sparing neither Romans nor Greeks.
Trajan's army was widely dispersed, and it could not simultaneously fight the rebels and to march east on Parthia. The situation worsened on other fronts as well - local tribes rose up in Spain, Germany, Britain and Africa. Rome was threatened by widespread disorder.
And then Trajan himself died. His successor Hadrian decided to put an end to the war with Parthia, and in the end Trajan's policies not only did not help Rome's situation, but rather hastened the onset of a crisis. Romans were prostrate.
Why were the Romans unable to reach agreement with the Jews? Despite the fact that the rebels had previously been under Parthian rule, they did not want to fall under Roman control. First of all, they were afraid of forced Romanization, just as contemporary Shiites do not want the Americanization of Iraqi society - Western values are foreign to them.
Secondly, the rebels knew that Roman rule of their lands would not be profitable to them. Taking advantage of Parthian weaknesses, they had secured broad privileges for themselves. And the Shiites, freed from Hussein, have secured for themselves control of Iraq's oil and do not want to share it now with American companies.
Weakened by the Roman incursion, the Parthian court gave the Jews the privileges they had requested. Freed from Hussein, the Shiites no longer need an American presence.
As Machiavelli wrote, when waging war on a government it is important to rely on people who are unhappy with it. He also wrote that a flawed policy by the occupier could lead to a situation in which those same people become disappointed with the new rulers. Once the common enemy has been defeated, nothing obliges them to remain faithful. They can find themselves new allies and rise up against the old partner. So it is not surprising that Shiite loyalty to America did not last very long. Maksim Petrenchuk
Translated by Alex Anderson
