Iraq in Summation as of 2007

Iraq in Summation 2007

As the days pass the Iraq debate becomes ever more complicated and divisive. Perhaps it is best therefore to approach such a subject as Hobbes the first modern philosopher suggested by breaking it down into smaller parts and putting it back together to grasp how each aspect works upon the other.

Justification for War

In a speech given on October 7, 2002 George W. Bush outlined his justification for war by saying “the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism”. What has become of these pre-war justifications? They have been proven false in their entirety. According to the Defense Department, 9/11 commission, and Vice president Dick Cheney there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11. In an interview on Meet the Press, Dick Cheney responded simply “No” when Tim Russert asked “Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation? (9/11)”. He of course changed his tone once our forign policy turned toward Iraq.
In regards to Weapons of Mass destruction the Iraq survey group headed by Charles Duelfer who was appointed by the CIA reported "The ISG has not found evidence that Saddam possessed WMD stocks in 2003”. According to an article published by Agence France-Presse “The Central Intelligence Agency warned US President George W. Bush before the Iraq war that it had reliable information the government of Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, a retired CIA operative disclosed. But the operative, Tyler Drumheller, said top White House officials simply brushed off the warning, saying they were "no longer interested" in intelligence and that the policy toward Iraq had been already set”. This information was released in a CBS interview. So if as overwhelming evidence dictates we conclude that the Bush Administrations prewar justifications have been proven false.
What is noticeably absent from the prewar debate however is the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq. We see this declared as a justification only after our invasion. For example in a speech given November 6 2003 he said, “Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations”. Perhaps with all original justifications discredited a new one had to be proposed. The proposition of this being a war for democracy becomes difficult to swallow from an administration actively supporting dictatorships elsewhere in the world like Pakistan who’s military dictator General Pervez Musharraf ardently supported the Taliban until 2001, and was ranked 7th in the top 10 worst dictators according to parade magazine. The argument that our invasion of Iraq was for democracy becomes increasingly illegitimate when you consider that because of the urgency that was created by the Bush administration no peaceful or nondirect methods of democratizing Iraq were attempted. The United States through the use of the CIA, Weapons sales, and other destabilization methods have successfully overthrown numerous governments including democratic ones in Guatemala and Chile . We must also wonder if our only reason was democratization then why Iraq. Certainly there are far worse dictators while Saddam Hussain has been accused of using nerve gas on the Kurds killing between 60-100 thousand before the war he had essentially been disarmed, and suppressed or as Dick Cheney put it in a 2001 interview on meet the press “Saddam Hussein's bottled up, at this point”. In contrast Omar al-Bashir of Sudan who is currently committing genocide in the region of Darfur. If we conclude by the above information that Iraq was not the security threat the Bush Administration claimed then why did we not go after the most dastardly of dictators? The level of dastardliness is of course subjective, but we must consider the motives of a government who feels compelled to drive out a dictator they consider “bottled up”. We must also consider the unfortunate reality that we do not have the means or strength to overthrow every dictatorship, and free every human being. For this reason we must be pragmatic in our foreign policy, and focus on threats to our nation. The war in Iraq has had the unfortunate side effect of exacerbating the dangers of North Korea, and Iran. Iran being a nation that actually had a direct connection to the terrorism of 9/11.
The Question of Motive
Sunday Herald newspaper (UK), "Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis", 6 October 2002.

Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.

Evening Standard (UK), "Cheney under fire over spoils of war", 11 March 2003.

BBC News, "'No basis' for Iraq war now", 31 December 2002

As we understand that as of December 2002 the world community found no reason for military conflict with iraq we must ask the question why did the bush administration and many have including fellow republicans like Alan Greenspan saying __. So what are these questionable motives that have driven loyal republicans to abandon ship and declare public condemnations.
Bush administration oil backing
The earliest April 2001

Other things

So what have been the results of the war for those accused of sadistic intentions

Haliburten 900 billion

Oil companies record profits

Project for a new american century

Front line bushs war- Rumsfeld memo about finding connection to iraq

Cheney visits to CIA- find source

Negative byproducts

Now having defined the illegitimacy of the Bush administrations justifications for war we have a right to be angry at the negative repercussions of this war which is at best a horrible mistake, and at worst criminal as the type of preemptive strike we committed is a war crime according to the UN charter. These negative repercussions are immense and numerable. The byproducts of this war have been first the deaths of 3000 and rising American servicemen and 100 Iraqis a day according to historian Howard Zinn. In addition, we have seen the break down of multilateralism, world opinion of the United States turned on its head, and an exasperation of terrorism. According to the United States institute for peace “By occupying Iraq, the United States has given al Qaeda a major opportunity to drive home its argument that the "leader of world infidelity" seeks to destroy Islam and subjugate its believers”. The war has also taken United States resources away from fighting the forces which were actually responsible for 9/11. We see now that the Taliban is beginning to regain power in Afghanistan. The overwhelming amount of resources which must be dedicated to Iraq make it impossible for us to coerce Iran into compliance with any real power, and North Korea a recorded sponsor of terrorism has been able to acquire Nuclear weapons because of our diverted attention.


“A New Way Forward”

The question of the legitimacy of this war becomes irrelevant when we consider that we are already entangled in this quagmire. We must move forward in the most logical, and beneficial way possible. The Bush administration has failed to do that. They have maintained a failed policy for over two years now using the rhetorical line “stay the course”. Following the 2006 Midterm elections demonstrating the countries frustration with the war George W. Bush was forced to make a change. After the great public debate over what path to take in an Iraq which had fallen into sectarian violence, and become a haven for Al Quide the commander and chief determined that his new policy which he described as a “new way forward” would be nothing more than the increase of troops in Iraq by 21,500, and some vague benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet with no consequences if they fail. Military leaders in Iraq at the time had declared that there is not a military solution in Iraq "Gen. George W. Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, called the military's efforts 'the Pillsbury Doughboy idea' - pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere” Despite the advice of experts on the ground the president decided on an exclusively military action to remedy the situation. The Washington Post reported that Bush’s plan “has been met with opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who worry that a short-term increase in troops would not support long-term US goals in Iraq and would ultimately help the insurgency. This troop surge is not a new idea; the United States military has had four troop surges that year some of which were larger in number. Now many point to decreasing violence in Iraq as a sign that the surge was a success. This is a difficult pill to swallow as violence levels remain high, and much of the decrease in violence can be attributed to the anbar awakening which occured prior to the surge.(need source) Finally, despite these positive changes no further political compromises have occured which could ensure a lasting peace between the divided ethnic groups of Iraq.. On the other side of this debate you have Senators like Barak Obama who promote what they call a “phased redeployment of troops out of Iraq”. Barak believes that the United States presence insulates the Shiite dominated government from coming to compromises on divisive issues like oil distribution. His logic is sound, but his conclusion that simply redeploying troops will solve the problem is flawed. While the United States military can not have a sustained effect in curbing the violence between sectarian factions we can't expect any government to establish any real policy changes in a nation in such chaos.. Unfortunately, it seems that our honored leaders can only think in extremes. The options being proposed are either escalate or leave. What this nation needs is fresh thinking, and a truly new way forward.

A Modest Proposal

One Senator in Washington is coming forward with a truly creative and progressive solution for the dilemma in Iraq. Senator Joseph Bidden has proposed a partitioning of Iraq along ethnic lines. The president had promoted this war on the basis of democracy. In that spirit perhaps we should look to the Iraqi people for a solution. In a nonbinding referendum 98% of Kurds voted to have their own nation. In addition, in the past Iraqi elections over 90 percent of all ethnic groups voted for their individual ethnic political parties. In addition, the constitution which was created is essentially a road map toward separation. It allows for individual armies and does not give the government the ability to tax.
Looking at examples historically in which warring ethnic groups have been forced together artificially by hegemonic forces we see that it only leads to extreme bloodshed. In fact the two most recent genocides in Rwanda and Sudan have both been caused by warring ethnic groups forced into one country by the British Empire.
I am not proposing that if we allow sovereignty to the three sects in Iraq that violence will cease, but the three governments will be able to maintain themselves without United States force stemming the ever growing tide of discontent. If we look at India and Pakistan the two nations certainly have a volatile relationship, but they have two sovereign governments which sustain themselves, and can take care of their people. The United States troops in this scenario can have an impact in aiding each ethnic group with developing infusructure with out constant violence, and can have a hope of returning home in a reasonable amount of time, and can spend there term of duty in an exponentially less deadly environment.

Regarding the world community
The Iraq Study Group report suggests that the United States “engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues.” While a dialouge with Iran is essential to avoid the kind of international misunderstandings we saw during the Cold War “Iran has no incentive to appear as a deus ex machina to enable America to escape its embarrassments” according to Henry Kissinger. Therefore unless we can provide some leverage over Iran we have little hope of securing their compliance. It is true that Iran would not benefit from absolute sectarian violence in Iraq as it could lead to an expansion of sectarian violence which would destabilize the entire region according the ISG, but there are varying levels of U.S. failure some of which could benefit Tehran. In summation, without something to pressure Iran it is unlikely positive help can be garnered from them.
This However, should not discourage the United States from pursuing help from other surrounding states like Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordon who can exert pressure on forces in Iraq to move forward as even if we do partition Iraq Oil distribution a very decisive issue will have to be decided on.
In conclusion
A combination of partioning Iraq and negotiating pressure from neighboring nations to stem sectarian violence in my humble opinion is the most logical step forward.
There are no good options left in Iraq only ones which are better then others. This is simply a modest proposal for a real change, and a positive way forward.

Bush, George W.. "Remarks by the President on Iraq." Cincinnati Museum Center- Cincinnati Union Terminal. Cinncinati, Ohio. 07 Oct 2002.
Eggen, Dan. No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says." Washington Post [Washington D.C.]June 16 2004
Keen, Thomas H.. United States. National Commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States.9/11 Commission Report. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004.
"Dick Cheney Interview." Meet The Press. Tim Russert. NBC, New York. Sept. 16 2001. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html
"Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz Interview." The Laura Ingraham Show. Nancy Collins. 01 Aug 2003.
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030801-depsecdef0526.html
Duelfer , Charles. United States. Iraq Survey Group.Iraq Survey Group Final Report. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2005.
Kniazkov, Maxim. CIA Warned Bush Of No WMD In Iraq." Agence France-Presse [Washington]24 Apr. 2006
Bush, George W.. "President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East ." 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. Washington D.C.. November 6, 2003 .
Wellechinsky, David. "Meet the Contenders: Dictators 11 to 20." Parade Magazine 01 Jan 2006:
Cullather, Nicholas. United States. Central Intelligence Agency.The United States and Guatemala 1952-1954. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994.
United States. National Security Council.Memorandum of NSC Meeting- Chilie. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970.
Zinn, Howard. A power governments cant supress. City Lights Publisher, 2007.