Exit strategies
Repost This ArticleAs of February 2007 3,103 US Soldiers have been killed and, 23,279 others seriously wounded in Iraq. $505 billion of US taxpayers’ funds, including $70 billion for fiscal year 2007 have been spent or approved for spending and President Bush is expected to request another $100 billion in war-spending for 2007 and $140 billion for 2008, which will bring the cumulative total to well over $700 billion (http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm) According to CNN the Bush administration hopes to resettle about 7,000 Iraqi refugees to the United States this year. The war in Iraq has certainly taken a serious toll in US politics and life. So why did the US invade Iraq? Did they bargain for such a costly prolonged war? How would they plan their exit strategies?
It would be too simplistic to pin point one reason or the other for the war in Iraq, rather it’s an amalgamation of reasons with some factors being manipulated to cover more pragmatic reasons. The formal line of the State Department was that the war was to purge Iraq of Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda, orchestrate a regime change, cleanse Iraq of WMD and instill values of liberal democracy in Iraq. The more pragmatic reason was to feed the Texas oil industries, and ensure that the US is on a secure footing to deal with an energy crisis that it would be facing during the next decade with the increased demands of China and India.
In retrospect it seems that the terrorism aspect of the whole game was a farce especially since there were no WMD in Iraq and since the al-Qaeda operated mainly from Saudi and other Middle East countries. Certainly there has been a regime change in Iraq but the political and economic instability that has plagued Iraq for the past few months begs the question if anything was really achieved in Iraq to improve the lives of the Iraqis.
It is also becoming increasingly clear that this invasion was orchestrated to gain control of the oil wells in Iraq. Does the US public have any information as to how much of oil is being pumped out, how many are being burnt and what oil pipe lines are being installed and what deals are being made with regards to taping also into the Caspian sea oil reserves by the US? If this line of reasoning is continued then an invasion was really inevitable since no country would allow another to pillage their natural resources. An invading army however can use the oil and re-route it and even say that it’s to cover the cost of making Iraq a liberal democracy! So a chaotic situation with looting, instability at least for some time would have been ideal for the US to set their plans in motion in the meantime. Only it seems that they didn’t gauge the dynamics of the situation well enough and didn’t bargain for being in Iraq for such a long time fighting for face saving purposes amidst growing international concern.
The exit strategy for US from Iraq after substantial human loss and spending seems to be mired on whether they achieved their main goals in Iraq. Now the US is seen to be pulling back troops. The exit strategy would obviously depend on if they achieved their unstated goals rather than on whether Iraq is now a better place for Iraqi’s to live.
Installing a friendly liberal democratic regime in Iraq is also a sufficiently pragmatic reason and is probably more important to United States’ long term interests than the immediate acquisition of oil. Surely any country that gets involved in another for war or peace (as in Sri Lanka) will not hesitate to, as Borat might say, “make benefit” for their own glorious nations. However, it’s unlikely to be the primary reason for such involvement.
I agree with the American right that all of us face a great threat from the sort of totalitarian fundamentalism spread from the middle east throughout the region and increasingly, the world. It is paramount that we attack its origins and destroy this evil before it takes over our liberties and freedoms and converts the whole western world into a religious theocracy. This is not to say that this should be a crusade against Islam. Rather, it is to create a moderate form of the religion the same way post-newtonian science, democracy and secular values have influenced and tamed Christianity during the past few centuries.
While it’s clear now that the world would have been a better place had the Iraqi invasion not taken place, it’s important to consider the implications of a withdrawal at this critical time. It would certainly make the current Iraqi regime collapse, and may give rise to a religious extremist government led by either one of the warring factions. It would be seen by terrorists everywhere as a triumph over the west, or perhaps even a divine intervention on their behalf. Even the left-liberals in the west who have always opposed the Iraq war could see that an exit at this time would only make the matters worse. The situation in Iraq is bad, but it has the potential to get much worse. The people fighting against the US backed regime are against all the values and principles we abide by, and a defeat for US in Iraq would be a defeat for everything they, we and you stand for. The unfortunate thing is that just like with the case of Sri Lanka, the leftists are unable to see beyond their romantic adoration of the insurgents and the hatred against the “oppressive occupational forces”.
While control of the Iraqi oil wells certainly was paart of the reason for the US invasion, as JM says, it wasn’t necessarily the prime one. Removing a dictator who was sponsoring terror against Israel (as well as the west) was high up in the priorities. Sure, there were no Iraqi links to Al Qaeda, but there were plenty with Palestinian terror groups. Also, the securing of the oil reserves wasn’t just to feed US industry or to avert an energy crisis, but mostly to ensure that Saudi Arabia didn’t have a monopoly on the ME oil coming to the US. Securing Iraqi oil meant that the US was no longer so dependent on Saudi, and could therefore press them to crack down on terror groups in the country. The conduct of the post-invasion campaign was obviously badly handled by Rumsfeld, and has resulted in the current chaos, bu that doesn’t mean that the original idea to invade was bad.
And to the contrary, M, the US isn’t withdrawing troops; they’re actually attempting to increase thhe numbers in-country.
Also see http://research.infoshare.lk/2007/01/19/what-12-trillion-can-buy-the-cost-of-war-in-iraq/
For an interesting perspective on why Australia is in Iraq, see Raj Gonsalkorale’s article today in the Asian Tribune – http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/4568
Dear David,
I fail to understand how the original idea to invade Iraq could be considered as well thought and brilliantly executed? To go through the bad military intel, the bad planning, the lack of strategic foresight and the over-riding mercenary goals would be to flog a dead horse really. This notion of democracy promotion as the US sees fit, that includes the invasion of countries to inject democracy through military authority, are as misguided as they are dangerous. Having claimed the life of one of the most loved and respected Human Rights advocates in Iraq, and at great cost to the UN itself, the US admin now dumps the civil and political affairs in the hands of those who are ill prepared, or who warned that what we see at present would be the inevitable outcome of the US administration’s damned war on terror.
“Dear David, I fail to understand how the original idea to invade Iraq could be considered as well thought and brilliantly executed”
Dear Ameen, I fail to understand why you think I said so.
I merely pointed out alternate reasons for the invasion. I’ve already said that Rummy screwed it up. Injecting democracy is just propoganda for the gallery. Iraq’s about strategic power. Invading Iraq was the right thing; doing it in 2003, and failing to have a better post-occupation plan was the failure. The US should have concentrated on Afghanistan, and kept Iraq til later, but Bush probably felt Saudi needed to be shown the good news early.
Perhaps from your POV we could say that US got Iraq into this mess, and it’s their duty to get them out of it. A substantial withdrawal at this stage is a lose-lose scenario for both Iraq and US. Very few people would disagree that the war was badly thought out and poorly executed, so there’s not much point in discussing that.
One way out might be to get a conglomorate of countries, including those who supported and opposed the Iraqi war, to oversee the current administration in Iraq. Perhaps UN could facilitate something like that. Whatever happens, Iraqis must not be left to their own devices because the civil war and Islamic funamentalism will consume whatever hope the largely progressive and secular society has for their country.