|
Iraq war - many questions, one simple answer
By: Naim Sula, June 20, 2008
- Was the Iraq war necessary?
- Why did France take a strong position opposing US?
- Why is it so hard to win in Iraq?
- Why the idea of unconditional withdrawing of troops is a bad joke?
- What is likely to happen after a new administration takes office next January?
After the World War II the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two undisputable super-powers that effectively took control of the World affairs and its resources. For the following 50 years there were virtually no major events in the World, spare the natural ones, which were not directly or indirectly controlled by those two super-powers. A state of delicate equilibrium was established and sustained for half a century during which time they (US and USSR) successfully avoided direct confrontation with each other and maintained a course of fighting “principal wars”. Under the cover of “promoting” their superior social systems (US promoting the capitalist system and USSR selling the communist dream) they competed bitterly with each other for taking control of the World’s strategic resources which had not been clearly divided after the World War II while also trying to make headways into each others territories.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eventual upgrade of China’s status into a serious candidate super-power the state of equilibrium was disturbed. What was once deemed as an acceptable “allocation” of the strategic resources was not acceptable anymore. United States moved swiftly to take control of the countries / resources that were once under the Soviet dominance while Russia went to the brink of total collapse and China was busy adopting its dictatorial communist regime to the changing times. Eventually, as we have all witnessed, Russia emerged from the transition eager to re-establish itself as a super-power. In the meantime China’s appetite for resources grew exponentially and the super-power status for them became a necessity not simply a desire fueled by severely hurt nationalistic pride as in the case of Russia. So, we now have two willing and relatively capable challengers to the mighty US power, challengers the actions of which have grown bolder and bolder – they are demanding their “fair” share of resources proportional to their power and are testing the resolve of the United States to hold on to its areas of influence. Under such circumstances certain bold moves from the United States (like the Iraq invasion) were and are necessary for sending a clear signal to the challengers that we have the power and we do not intend to cut off our lifelines just so that they can be re-routed to support their appetite.
The Iraq oil, while a very important factor, was not the true motivation for the Iraq war as some would like to argue. America can do just fine without it as it did for years while other nations were the direct beneficiaries. The true motivation was the need to answer the big questions that our nation was facing: is America an old toothless lion that can roar but not bite and is it going to quietly shy away when challenged? The message we needed to convey to the potential challengers was and is much more important than the oil – this lion is not old and its teeth are as strong as ever!
Am I advocating that the war was the only move sufficient enough to ascertain our position in this new World? No, I am not! I could not make such claim from where I am standing – I have no specific information or knowledge of the real conditions under which the decision to go to war was made. As more and more information becomes available to the public in the next 50 years thinkers of the time will be able to judge whether a different move would have been better than the war but I believe that one thing will survive the test of time – some sort of bold move was necessary – it had nothing to do with whether Iraq had WMDs or not; it had everything to do with regime-change – not regime change because we were feeling bad for the Iraqis that were being brutally oppressed by their dictator but regime change because that regime was being used to test our determination to defend our dominant position in the new World.
So why did France align itself with Russia and China strongly opposing US in this high stakes game? Did France take a moral position opposing the war? Absolutely not! Despite the show of seemingly concerned faces of politicians and diplomats who appear to be in pain from the suffering and injustice in the World when it comes to World politics there are no moral positions, there are only interests! So no, opposing US had nothing to do with the moral high ground but everything to do with France’s interests in Iraq which were challenged by the United States. For decades France has masterfully and successfully played the diplomatic game on all sides of the fence to maximize its own benefits. For the French the Iraq story was a well calculated risk – support US and they would have to give up their significant share in Iraq in exchange for maybe a bone or two, to chew on, that US would throw them; side with Russia and China against US and first, they may be able to preserve their share in Iraq if US backs off from its position or in the worst case (as in fact happened) they will loose the share but they will make up for that lost share in interest returns from their significant “capital deposit” they were making with Russia and China. It is their (the French) mastery of global politics and diplomacy that has enabled them to control a disproportionally bigger portion of the World resources which has in turn allowed them to implement and maintain social policies that are envied by other peoples – one routinely hears the all natural question: “if France can do that why can’t we?”.
Whether invading / liberating Iraq was a good move or not one can’t help but ask the question: why is it so hard to win in Iraq? Over 150K troops of the absolute best army in the World – why can’t they shush the violence and terror there? Will those terrorists ever run out of ammunition? Why can’t we stop the in-flow of arms and munitions from the neighboring countries? Who is really behind those terrorists? Who is playing Sunnis and Shi’ites against each other – can’t they understand that they would be much better off if they worked together, after all there are many well educated, intelligent people amongst them? Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, the powers behind the curtains (no, I am not referring here to Iran, Syria, or al Qaeda those are all puppets that lick whatever hand is feeding and protecting them at the moment) that are pulling the strings with their invisible hands are masters of the game and simply stated, no matter how smart and strong willed the leaders of different sects in Iraq may be they stand no chance against the experience of those mighty powers whose only interest in Iraq at this point in the game is using it as a bargaining chip. It is those deep behind the scenes masters that make it possible for the supply of munitions to continue un-interrupted, it is those masters who play the Iraqis against each other. This question today is reminiscent of the question one would have asked decades ago: “why can’t the powerful red army win the war against the unorganized, starving Afghan farmers with rusted last century guns” – everyone knows the answer to that question now! Once we accept that the real players in the Iraq arena today are not the Sunnis and Shi’ites, nor Iran and Syria, nor the cell phone sporting caveman of al Qaeda (those are the pieces in the chess board) but rather Russia, China and other wannabe powers then we begin to understand that war and peace in Iraq are directly related to the phase in which the negotiations between the super powers are.
Will there be peace in Iraq – yes, eventually – it all depends on how much way is US willing to give to the other powers in other interests. Will letting them control Iran be enough for them to let go of Iraq? I don’t know – I suspect that the ups and downs on the Iran related rhetoric correlate closely to what happens behind closed doors between the mighty powers. Once the US controlled Iraqi government takes control of the situation on the ground the Iraqi people will see a few years of peace, quiet and prosperity. However, due to the continuous and rapid shifting of the balance of power chances are that any settlements between the super-powers will not last long – US will be challenged in Iraq again and again.
What would constitute a win in Iraq? A strong US backed Iraqi government and a relatively small permanent US military presence similar to Saudi Arabia would be ideal but I believe that under the current conditions such an ideal arrangement would be virtually impossible to achieve in the short term. Politicians who proclaim that they will unconditionally withdraw the troops from Iraq are either clueless of global politics, or unscrupulous manipulators trying to benefit politically from the moments popular sentiment! Over 4000 noble young man were sacrificed and a huge debt that will burden us for decades was accumulated, all in the interest of gaining and preserving an advantageous position in the World “battlefield”. How can anyone in the right mind consider throwing all of it away!? Whose interest would such move serve? Not that of the American people for sure!
If all those politicians who come out today strongly opposing the war were so convinced that we made a mistake why didn’t they cut the losses and run away – why did they continue to fund the war? Why didn’t they help get the masses on the street and force the administration to immediately withdraw the troops? The simple answer is: they know better, they know how high the stakes are and that we can’t afford to run away and leave it all to our competitors who salivate every time the withdrawal of the troops is discussed in America. Unfortunately, those politicians are in love with the comfy seat they occupy - what they say is driven by the immense desire to hold on to those seats rather then the truth and the interest of the people. Coming out with such bold claims as “I will start withdrawing the troops from Iraq on day one” is simple hypocrisy!
What is likely to happen is that to “keep their promises” they will start pulling the troops out from one door and getting them back in on the other door. However, be that as it may, it is probably not very fair to be too harsh on those “withdrawal” politicians for being hypocritical – after all the argument for going to war in the first place was hypocritical so in that front no one side of politics is better than then the other – they all say what they have to say in order to get what they want.
There is another plausible scenario with potentially devastating consequences for United States and the World: the very powers who are stirring things up in Iraq today and who stand to benefit the most from the US withdrawal may help create the conditions for withdrawal “enabling” (indirectly forcing) the new administration to keep the promise to its people. While in the eyes of the uninformed American people the withdrawal of the troops will be seen as promises kept, it would be a huge strategic blunder which will unfortunately nullify the very costly but clear message we sent to the World with the Iraq war and embolden the challengers. A new article to be published soon “There can be no void of dominating power” will focus on how such action would affect the United States and the World.
###
Email me your comments - if I find them rational I may publish them here.
|
|