Debacle: Going it Alone in Iraq

The US acted unilaterally in invading Iraq, and therefore it has to shoulder responsibility for the outcome of that invasion. In the absence of post war planning, we stand on the brink of another tragedy in the Middle East, much like the one we now see in Afghanistan – an unstable, dangerous and poverty stricken backwash further devastated by war and its after-effects. Far from fighting terrorism and stabilizing the Middle East, US presence in Iraq is increasing unrest and inciting terrorism against US interests both in the region and globally.

US presence, weak border controls and the lack of an effective police force have made Iraq what Major General Ricardo Sanchez calls a “terrorist magnet.” Thousands of Saudis and Iranians reportedly have crossed the boarder to wage Jihad on behalf of Iraq, evidence that the invasion has indeed not eliminated, but has rather increased terrorist activity and instability in the Middle East.

Without an adequate strategy or the financial resources for post war development, the US is unable to fill the vacuum recently created by the fall of Iraq’s ruling powers. Perceived American and British ambivalence and mismanagement have only reinforced skepticism about their intentions. The recent attack on the UN has further strengthened the belief that the US is unable to govern the country. Insecurity and resentment continue to grow among Iraqi civilians who still lack basic resources, such as reliable power, clean water and medical supplies. The invasion and subsequent attacks by Saddam partisans, local guerillas and regional terrorists have wreaked devastation upon Iraq’s already inadequate infrastructure. Guerilla activity continues to increase undeterred; infrastructure such as oil pipelines and water mains is being sabotaged, civilians live in fear for their lives, and American soldiers are being killed almost each day.

According to Major. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, commander in-chief of allied ground forces in Iraq, the aggressive approach of American forces is counterproductive. The sweeping raids conducted by US soldiers have further humiliated the Iraqi public and led them to act in vengeance in keeping with their own values. Sanchez points out, “When you take a father in front of his family and put a bag over his head and put him on the ground, you have had a significant adverse effect on his dignity and respect in the eyes of his family." (1)

Iraq has not been linked to terrorism or Al Qaeda. More embarrassingly for US President Bush, there is no evidence that Iraq still possesses WMD and Washington admitted having misled the public over Iraq’s nuclear weapons program. Thus, we find the US in a precarious position of justifying an invasion that was undertaken under false pretences, inhumane, illegal, and inexpedient. At the cost of $3.9 billion a month, raids, ambushes and killings continue while Iraqis grow increasingly resentful of the occupation. While the war cost US taxpayers $65 billion, according to The Economist, rebuilding Iraq is projected to cost $600 billion dollars (2).

The US invasion of Iraq did not accomplish its objectives. It has thus far failed in its major missions. It has failed to capture Saddam Hussein. It has failed to liberate the Iraqi people who, given the current social and political climate, are arguably worse off since the declared US victory. It has failed to produce the alleged WMD. It has increased anti-American sentiment, divided the international community and discredited the US worldwide. Finally it has not prevented terrorist activities. On the contrary, the current US strategy will continue to fuel terrorist activity globally and thus play right into the hands of figures like Osama Bin Ladin. Despite smart bombs and the efforts of elite commandos, Al Qaeda remains alive and well in over 60 countries. As cries of “Death to America” and car bombs demonstrate, Iraqis do not welcome foreign occupation. How liberated do its widows and orphans feel after this invasion? Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed along with hundreds of US soldiers. 3,240 civilians died according to hospital records, but other estimates indicate that as many as 7,830 Iraqi civilians may have been killed in this war, making this the deadliest toll of civilians at the hands of US forces since Vietnam. (3) US Defense department officials admit that they are not keeping count of civilian casualties.

The US violated international laws by invading Iraq and continues to act independently in the effort to re-build Iraq, once again bypassing the United Nations and monopolizing contracts by hiring US companies behind closed doors. Iraq needs a constitutional assembly and elected representative government. The Governing Council of Iraqis just recently assembled, however may not be acceptable to Iraqis, since it was created by none other than the US and UK. Bush promised that the US would leave Iraq to govern itself. Since the Ba’ath party is no longer a major threat, the US owes it to the Iraqi people to transfer authority back to the Iraqis. Iraqis and their sympathizers will tolerate nothing less, and failure to do so will only further expose US imperial interests in the region and increase hostility between Iraqis and Americans. Once Iraq is secure, orderly and stable, with the help of UN or multilateral forces, and a more adequate Iraqi police force, US forces should gradually pull out. With US financial support and resources and the oversight of the UN Security Council the US should leave the democratic institutions of Iraq to govern Iraq themselves. This is the only self respecting and practical solution for the US government if it is to avoid a long, expensive and self-defeating occupation.

Most far-reaching, the war and occupation have further demoralized the Iraqi and Arab population at large, increasing the recruiting base of young Islamic radicals globally. Fighting terrorism demands the long hard road of intelligence, tracking finances, border control, international cooperation, and winning the hearts and minds of young Muslims, not the quick fix of unilateral military force. Using ‘shock and awe’ is an outdated method of intimidation that only alienates, insults and patronizes the Arab public, who need not be reminded of their current weakness. “Successful dialogue requires minimizing power considerations and demonstrating mutual respect…Threats of force, not matter how useful in the short term, will entrench the impression of American hostility and ensure further conflict,” states Professor Marc Lynch. (4) As writer Joseph Nye points out America is selling soft power short; it is soft power that attracts and persuades, rather than the coercion of hard power or force. “Soft power arises from the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals and policies...although the US does well on the traditional measures of hard power, these measures fail to capture the ongoing transformation of world politics brought about by globalization and the democratization of technology” (5)

Given past experience of our involvement in Panama, Haiti and Afghanistan, what makes the hawks in the Bush administration think that war and occupation are the magic solution for Iraq, and that democracy will even be a natural progression there? It was not in the Gulf War, neither has it been for Afghanistan. Democracy could still lead to a civil war between the Shi’a majority (possibly supported by the Islamic Republic of Iran) and the Sunni Muslims and could also still result in a Kurdish uprising. It is for the Iraqis to decide what kind of government they want. We might recall the unsuccessful Israeli invasion of Lebanon that embroiled the Israelis in a civil war way over their heads. The British ‘Orientalist’ imperialists of the 19^th century also underestimated the difficulties of occupation in the Middle East. They too failed to understand the numerous factions that exist within the region.

Terrorism is not a US problem but a global one. For all its deficiencies the UN, which represents the aspirations of the global community, is the missing element in current US foreign policy. In a forward to The National Security Policy of the United States, Bush stated in 2002 that “no nation can build a safer, better world alone.” (6) Washington seems to have forgotten this. Perhaps now the administration is reminded that, as Shashi Tharoor, puts it “Washington is better at winning wars than constructing peace. The limitations of military strength in nation building are readily apparent.” (7) Global problems, ‘Problems without passports’ such as terrorism, demand international participation, which makes the UN indispensable.

The disagreements of nations over Iraq do not discredit the UN itself but rather reflect the contributions of humanity as a whole. Bolstered with better internal security the UN can play a vital role in the rebuilding of Iraq by providing peacekeeping forces, relief, and by developing programs for democracy, human rights, freedom of the press and reconstruction until Iraq is handed over to it’s own people under the Iraqi National Congress. If it is associated with America, the UN will be vulnerable to attack, but it can allow other nations to help shoulder the responsibility for the monumental task ahead. If NATO allies were also involved in the policing and reconstruction of Iraq under the protection and sanctioning of a UN resolution the US would also be a less prominent target for anti-imperialists.

Washington could have better demonstrated our ‘democratic values’ by addressing the physical, psychological and spiritual needs of the Iraqi people. If the US is to fight terror, the government needs to be pre-emptive in a more constructive way, by building up the trust of Arab populations. The US needs to adopt Arab friendly policies. Dropping bombs in their neighborhood hardly demonstrates democratic or humanitarian principles. America’s priority should be addressing the most pressing issues in the Arab world today, such as the Palestinian crisis, which was until recently little more than a footnote in President Bush’s war on terror. The victims of the occupation, direct or indirect, will also continue to sprout terrorism until they see justice for the Palestinian people.

The battle against terrorism is an internal fight for the minds of young Arabs and Muslims, but we are using the logic of terrorists by fighting militarily, and ignoring the very policies that engender anger against the US. Muslim nations have their own internal divisions, and Muslim extremists will continue with their own national and religious agenda’s, but as for moderate or undecided Muslims, as long as the United States is perceived in the Arab world as the aggressor, it will continue to embody the frustration of Arab peoples. Groups like Al Qaeda have among them well-educated middle class members, However, it is also the young people in the desolate social swamps of Arabia, the refugee camps of Pakistan, the occupied territories of Israel and the squalid conditions of Iraq’s bombed out cities whose desperation makes them vulnerable targets for terrorist recruitment as martyrs. Instead of competing with the ideologies that have captured their imagination, clumsy American policies and its continued presence in the Gulf have exacerbated this problem.

Author Arundhati Roy suggests: “Could it be that the anger that led to the [9/11] attacks has its taproot not in American freedom and democracy, but in the US government’s record of commitment and support to exactly the opposite goals - to military and economic terrorism, insurgency, military dictatorship, religious bigotry and unimaginable genocide (outside America)?” (8) America is sending contradictory messages to the world community, setting a precedent for pre-emptive military invasion and jeopardizing the security of the US and the entire world. The war on terror is not a conventional war; it is a spiritual, ideological and socio/political battle for the imagination of a rapidly growing population of Arabs and Muslims and it involves us all. With the military invasion and occupation of Iraq, are we fighting with the right weapons?

This article and all original materials at MidEastWeb are copyright. Please tell your friends about MidEastWeb. Please forward these materials in e-mails to friends and link to this URL. Reproduction in any other form - by permission of the author only. Please do not copy materials from this Web site to your Web site.

Subscriptions:

About

e-dialog

Viewpoints