This piece was written in July 2005 and published by “Thought Mechanics” – then a vigorous national blog. I have seen much more thorough analyses than this, but the end-point may still be the same. After a year-and-a-half, have any of the issues changed?
This is what White House press secretary Scott McClellan said very recently when asked about the results of a new poll taken by the Pew Research Center “I think the American people understand the importance of completing the mission; success in Iraq will help transform a dangerous region.” No doubt McClellan is speaking for President Bush and his entire administration. The PEW poll found that 43% said that the US would win the war while 32% said the US can’t win the war. A more important question to address might be – “Is the region more dangerous today than before the war?” If the region is more dangerous today then one has to wonder what “win” means. The statements by the Bush administration and the opinions of the polled public do little to reveal the severity of the situation in Iraq. It really doesn’t matter anymore if Bush lied about reasons for going to war, or whether or not we should back our troops. The real issue surrounding our presence in Iraq can be stated quite simply – what can we do to prevent Iran from taking over Iraq or, at least, the Shiite dominated, oil-rich provinces south of Baghdad?
I am not an expert on the Middle East. Perhaps naively, at this juncture I see Iran’s dominance of Iraq as the only issue of importance from here on. It seems unimaginable that our pre-war intelligence and the White House would not have considered this outcome as a risk to going to war. Yet I have not heard any commentary about this scenario in talk shows or by politicians on either side of the issue of the invasion of Iraq. Could it be that we invaded Iraq because intelligence indicated Iran’s intent to take over Iraq? In deed, it is commonly known that the US supported Iraq in its 8-year war with Iran (1980-88) because it became wary of the Tehran regime after the Iranian revolution. Then Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the US intervention, and subsequent sanctions against Iraq leading up to the US war in Iraq all but destroyed Iraq’s role in preserving military balance in the Middle East.
Now we have a situation where if we leave Iraq militarily, we face the real possibility that Iran will take a weakened Iraq by subversive force and/or military force. It could be that this is the reason we did not invade Iraq in the first US gulf war - that is, to maintain Iraq as a balance for Iran. Critics have suggested that the decision NOT to ‘finish the job’ in the first Iraq war was an historic failure of the first Bush administration. I am just guessing, but the decision NOT to finish the job was possibly strategic out of concern about Iran. Now that we are trying to finish the job in Iraq at great expense to the American taxpayer, what monster will we create? Will it be a unified Muslim state of Iran-Iraq? It’s not difficult to envision the economic and military potential of a combined Iran-Iraq. Will this unified state of Iran-Iraq dominate the Middle East and absorb the rest of the surrounding Arabic countries? Will we then be forced to defend other Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and perhaps even Israel? Or go to war simply on the principle of our need for oil? The answers to these questions could be YES. This is why the Bush Administration’s policy in Iraq is a resounding failure. If our intelligence had discovered intent by Iran to take over Iraq before the war, I am sure that this would have been revealed by now. So our policy in Iraq has made no sense and we are faced with the possibility of a remarkable turn of events in the Middle East combined with a significant weakening of US economic power, military strength, and worldwide respect.
John Leavitt
I think at the very least we have to be concerned about an arms race, a cold war if you will, between the middle eastern countries who see Iran as a threat. I believe Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are already starting to venture the idea of obtaining nuclear power to “provide alternative energy for their people” as Iran is. I believe that Iraq under Sadaam would have followed a similar path. Pretty scary. I supported the Iraq war initially, given the apparent intelligence supported WMD threat, post-911 fear, the belligerance of Saadam Hussein, and the weakness of the United Nations in diplomatically solving the problem. I was expecting “shock and awe” but what I got was nation building in a sitting duck mode. Why? Political correctedness, the desire to create the image of America as a generous benefactor(freedom fighter), the threat of a politically damaging media who panders to an impatient America, pressure from the left with impending elections? In the words of David Brooks, President Bush’s surge plan is a great idea…its just 3 years too late. However, the failure of this war does not lie soley with President Bush. I think as a country we have become polarized rather than unified, lazy, impatient, and shortsighted rather than steadfast, more concerned with the values of others rather than our own, and a failure to recognize the threat of Islamofascism. All qualities our enemies are depending on. Being forced to defend other middle eastern countries? How about being forced to defend Europe who through their leftist, socialistic, appeasing ways will be unable to fend off their own demise. I understand that France’s Muslim population is already at 30%! Could this be why Chirac did not support the war? Is this the path America will take? If we lose this war it is not because of military weakness, but rather from a weakness of spirit which was once our biggest strength, circa 1943. The monster created by not finishing the job in Iraq will be the biggest threat to the tax payer. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, maybe not with the next election, but someday our failure in Iraq will come back to bite us in a big way.
I believe that the hype around “weapons of mass destruction” and the supposed attack of one of our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin should be taken in the same vein. The hype of “terrorism” is comparable to the promotion of fear of communism in the 1950′s and ’60′s which was the ultimate justification of the Vietnam War. I’m not saying we should dismiss concern about terrorism today, nor am I saying that we should have dismissed concern about communism in the early ’60′s. But the invasion of Iraq and the continuing “war” effort was contrived from the start and will ultimately play out WORSE than the Vietnam War did just 30 years ago. I don’t believe that any other candidate for the Presidency in 2000 would have led us in that direction…a direction that has only weakened our “economic power, military strength, and worldwide respect.” This is what happens when you elect a buffoon as President and surround him with militant dimwits who can’t see the trees from the forest.
Taking the threat of islamofascism seriously or merely regarding it as hype is a fundamental difference of opinion. Regarding Iraq as one front in this war against terrorism and regarding it as oil driven Vietnam-like imperialistic endeavor is another. Regardless of the difference of opinion we can both agree that President Bush failed. Some folks believe we never should have gone in, I believe we didn’t go in strong and quick enough. Maybe 911 wasn’t enough, maybe the Spain and London bombings, the decapitations, the rhetoric coming out of Iran, the Chechnya school killings, the French riots, the bombings of the African and Greek embassy’s, the suicidal bombers, the shoe bombers, the kidnappers are still not enough to convince a memory impaired America that terrorism is to be taken most seriously. We have to be careful when convincing ourselves that worldwide respect for our actions is more important than our self-preservation.
I submit that the invasion of Iraq reduced our effectiveness in dealing with terrorism. Those beheadings took place because we we there. The huge monetary investment in an inept war strategy and the wasted money (in the news today) could have been better spent to deal with terrorism as well as many other things that need fixing. Future generations will bare the tax burden of this wasteful effort. Then also consider the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost and million or so maimed.
I don’t think that it was the invasion of Iraq so much as our follow through and our weakness of will that not only reduced our effectiveness but cost more lives and limbs than necessary. Our war policy has fueled the terrorists who no longer fear us. The financial and deficit burden is being limited by a very strong economy. Nevertheless, you are correct, our money could have been better spent and more trouble is around the corner. Comments coming out of France’s Chirac today claiming that “if Iran possessed a nuclear weapon or two it would not pose a big danger” is typical of the mindset we must avoid. Chirac goes on to claim that if Iran used these weapons it would face immediate retaliation. What??!! Pre-emption must be our policy. But as we have seen in Iraq, this policy is fraught with speculation, criticism, and political heat. Needless to say, Chirac is seeking to retract is statements. Voila’!
Thanks, Randy. I agree with “pre-emption” when it is strategically justified. Unfortunately it was not justified strategically in the case of Iraq. It did seem to be justified in the case of Afganistan. More unfortunately, what we have done in Iraq has distracted and undermined our ability to focus on and deal with Iran, Korea, and other important global matters effectively.
It is hard to know where to start when discussing Iraq. I’ll just hit a few points of interest to me.
Iraq and terrorism:
Before the war there were no credible links between the Iraqi government and Al Quaeda. Our main worry was that Iraq may have eventually (see new article “Bowman Weighs in on Iraq” Admin)
A couple of years ago I had a chance to talk with a student at ECSU that was taking a course on the Mid East taught by the same Prof. that I had when I went there. It was interesting to note that when the US went into Afghanistan to rout the Taliban/al-Queda, the whole country was at a fever pitch over 9/11 and we wanted revenge. When the US forces invaded Afghanistan as the Taliban decided to protect Osama Bin Laden, we felt our cause was just and honorable. Rather quickly we dispatched the Taliban government and sent al-Queda into the mountains. The military defeat of the Taliban with relative ease was one of the reasons, I think, for the invasion of Iraq. When the US forces were able to expend very little manpower and munitions in Afghanistan, it was inevitable that Iraq was about to get the same treatment, no matter what the reason. Were we wrong in invading Iraq? Many say yes. I say only history and time will tell if this was a huge blunder or the beginning of the end for terrorist regimes that act without impunity.