Iraq: An Outsider's Perspective
Or it should have been. Before and just after the invasion of Iraq, cynics declared that it was all about Iraq's oil. Well, if it had been, maybe US would not have found itself in the mess it is in today. The Bush administration did not heed the lessons of history. It had to go back just two centuries to the heyday of the British Empire. The imperial British conquered a good portion of the world in the 19th Century - and they made so bones about it. They invaded - or connived their way into- an "uncivilized" country, in Asia, Africa or the Middle East, with the sole purpose of exploiting that country's wealth - and cheap labour - and repatriating the profits back to their homeland. Everything else was incidental. Take the current situation in Iraq. The so-called civil war would not have bothered the British too much. They would probably have been content to let the "natives" fight amongst themselves, while they stood on the sidelines and just made sure things didn't get out of hand. Less bother for them in the long run. It's probably what Cheney and Rumsfeld would do too.
Unfortunately, for them and for the American public, George Bush got "religion" - and lost the script. "Occupying" another country was plain wrong, according to his way of thinking. America went into Iraq, not for itself, but for the long-suffering Iraqi people. America wanted to shower them with the fruits of democracy and freedom (not to mention 300 billion dollars). America's motives had to be pure and virtuous. Maybe Bush genuinely believed that - and still does. But it does not work that way in the real world. You cannot post 150,000 of your country's troops in a foreign land and expect them to be hailed as liberators and benefactors by the local population. And if you are going to be perceived as the "bad guys" anyway, you may as well act like them. Get tough and show them who's boss.
So what have been the real "fruits" of democracy and freedom in Iraq? 60,000 Iraqi dead - and counting. Over 3000 US soldiers dead and dying in a meaningless war they no longer have any control over. See how they had to roll over recently, when the Iraqi Prime Minister "ordered" them to stop manning checkpoints to find their kidnapped colleague. And who are they fighting for anyway? For the Iraqi's who didn't want hem there in the first place and continue to resent them? Or for America, that no longer knows quite what it wants. It is just letting itself get overwhelmed by events on the ground. Sure, the US cannot pull out now. The loss of face alone would hand the Islamists a propaganda victory beyond their wildest dreams. But it will have to eventually - maybe after sacrificing 5000 American lives. And what will it leave behind: a free and democratic Iraq? Forget it. Probably a country split into three among the Kurds, the Sunnis and The Shias. Shia Iraq will be a client state of Iran - one of the countries on Bush's axis-of-evil list.
And speaking of Iran, it is likely to emerge as the biggest beneficiary out of this unholy mess. Things couldn't have worked out better for the Iranians if they had planned it themselves. Consider the facts. For the last three decades of the previous century, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had been a constant thorn in Iran's side. Iraq had dragged their country into an eight year war that cost them over a million lives. Moreover, Saddam had prevented the ruling clerics from spreading their Islamic Revolution to their majority Shias in Iraq. Now, in one fortuitous masterstroke, Bush had removed all those obstacles from their path. That Ahmedinejad guy and his handlers might act like kooks, but they are pretty shrewd operators. Look how cleverly they have diverted American attention to their non-existent nuclear weapons. I doubt if Iran has any intention of developing them anyway. It would not bring that nation any great dividend. Iran's real ambition is to extend its theocratic empire to Iraq - and beyond - and it is getting there. Make no mistake: whatever shape Iraq finally takes, it - and its vast oil reserves - will be controlled by Iran. One does not need to be a soothsayer to predict what damage a hostile Iran, flush with funds, can do to American interests around the world.
The whole Iraq fiasco has thrown up one reality in sharp focus. The USA may be the world's sole superpower, but it is not cut out to be a "conqueror." It does not have the stomach for it. America has historically been comfortable inside its isolationist cocoon. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.
Published by Firoze Hirjikaka
I am a retired Civil Engineer, living in Bombay, India. After retirement, I have taken up freelance writing. I have had several articles published in local newspapers and magazines. View profile
- Socialism or Democracy - It's Our ChoiceIn a republic or a democracy, the people have ultimate freedom to live and control their lives. Socialism, as actually played out, means a few hold resources and dole them out as they deem necessary to maintain their...
- To Promote Democracy and Freedom, President Bush Continues to Wage War in IraqBy- Kevin M. Neibauer
- Democracy and the Institutions Which Foster Its Two Most Important IdealsParticipation, representation, separation of powers, and competition underlie the most important ideals of democracy. All are fostered by institutions: proportional representation with multi-member districts, politic...
- Democracy and Greatness in Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in AmericaAlexis de Tocqueville visited America and wrote his book based on the then fledgling democracy. This essay analyzes the balance, or lack there of, of greatness and democracy.
- Balancing Equality and Freedom in AmericaThe balance between American freedom and equality as seen through various works of American literature throughout history.
- Bush vs. Iraq: How the war on terror became a war on Iraqi human rights
- Extending Democracy and Formulating the Modern
- Democracy and Civil Society in Turkmenistan
- Democracy and Politics of Power
- Freedom Bound
- Democracy and Politics of Power
- Political Analysis: War, Chaos, Democracy and Foreign Policy
16 Comments
Post a CommentSimilarly, this is the precisely why Afghanistan has played second fiddle to Iraq, because the only true goal was to install a US friendly government and secure deals to control the strategically vital energy transport routes in that region, and those goals were largely achieved. Hunting down Osama/Al Qaeda, Freedom, democracy, WMD--all that shit--are really just Macguffins in this whole sad story, and when we get to the later acts, many more will see this to be true.
One more thought--it is important also to realize that some major goals of Cheney & co were achieved in iraq. Namely, the constuction of permanent US military bases and an enormous Us embassy which will serve as an outpost from which to project US power in the region and beyond. Also, it appears likely that the US companies will wield significant control over Iraq's enormous oil reserves, including the all important assurances that Iraq will base it's prices upon American dollar. These are teh only reasons anyone in the Bush administration would desire "stability" & the marginalization of Iran--democracy & freedom are barely afterthoughts at this point.
From the very beginning, the Iraq invasion & occupation was about spreading American empire and knocking out a significant obstacle in teh form of Saddam Hussein, whoe only real crime in the eyes of Cheney & co, was that he dared to oppose the will of the US and decided to stop playing ball in 1990.
Good article Firoze. The only thing I disagree with is your suggestion that what Bush believes actually has any bearing on Iraq policy, or that he makes any real decisions. This was a Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz operation, among others, and all that is going on now is simply an effort to run out the clock and pass off blame. In fact, the whole campaign to implicate Iran as the culprits of instability in Iraq, may not be an effort to promote the bombing of Iran as many (myself included) have suggested. Instead, it could be that the Bush administration is trying to create the impression that the mess in Iraq has more to do with Iranian interference than it does with the Bush administrations misguided assumptions about what would happen during the occupation. This way they can mitigate the blame they will be accorded by history. But, I must say Firoze, although you didn't drive a stake into this thing in the same way I might have in writing such an article, you are right on about its roots.
Firoze very cogent and reasoned perspective on this Gordian Knot of an issue.I don't know if you read Foreign Policy online, but they launched a terrorism assessment which was undertaken with the help of America's top foreign policy leaders.
While they, to a man -or woman reflect your thinking to a great degree, they diverge rather wildly from the American publics view of the whole mess. Interestingly enough, in response to which nation poses the greatest threat, the participants voted Iran in first and North Korea second. Secondly they and BTW I agree, that instead of putting more troops on the ground in Iraq, we need to send them to Afghanistan. The reasoning is quite clear. The Taliban has again experienced a resurgence in power along the border areas, and is allegedly again working with Al Qaeda to destabilize Afghanistan.
third there is the rather large issue of an old enemy tactic-deflection and distraction. According tO FP and its experts we are in grave danger of another
Thank you, folks, for some very incisive comments.
Daniel, if by 3rd Street, you mean 3rd Pasta Lane in Colaba, then I'm right around the corner. If the Mahmoud you mention refers to Ahmedinijad, I fully concur with you. I don't believe Iran has any intention of making nuclear weapons, but the bearded one is cleverly using it to keep the pot boiling - maybe even provoke trigger-happy Bush into starting something. Any US military action in Iran would make Iraq seem like a cakewalk - and have Putin applauding all the way.
Jeff...the British Empire fell because World War II drained them of resources. They no longer had enough money to maintain their colonies.
Mr. Canaday..you lived up to my expectations. Thank you for not disappointing me. Surprising, how people like you magically emerge from the woodwork whenever I write any article having ANYTHING to do with America. I suppose I should applaud your misplaced patriotism.
Heather...one article about India coming up. You have o
Thank you, Mr. Hirjikaka, for the outside perspective. I think you made some excellent points, and your article read quite well.
...and, Firoze, where do you really live? You might actually be one of the funniest guys I have ever read...I used to live on 3rd street, right in the southeastern quarter of Bombay... that anywhere near you?
Mr. Canaday - it is YOU that does not support justice & FREEDOM. Freedom gives me the right to believe whatever I want to believe without facing persecution. That is what the United States is all about. You just can't face the facts that not all people (in fact, many people) do not believe the same way that you do - but that does not make us horrible people and in fact, it doesn't even make us wrong. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Your comment was very irrational and immature. You just can't stand the fact not everyone will conform to your own beliefs.
(and oppose)...all the elements of the equation making up those of us who are moderate and believe in some balance and tolerance.