Iraq Invasion Issues - Essay Example

?Iraq Invasion Introduction American invasion of Iraq has been assessed and reassessed by intellectuals both inside and outside America. Though different people put forward different factors as the reasons behind the invasion, all agree on the fact that America failed to achieve any of its objectives in Iraq. Also, it becomes evident from the circumstances that America was in the dire need of strengthening its geopolitical dominance in the Middle East, and considering the situation of the time, Iraq was the most vulnerable victim. There were three main factors which can prove that the American invasion of Iraq was inevitability. They are the US global grand strategy, the US strategic position in the Middle East, and the ruling coalition in the Bush administration. The motivating factors – the war was inevitable In order to understand the American desire to use coercion as a weapon to ensure American dominance in the world, one has to read The Project for a New American Century. The Project’s Statement of Principles declares that America has a pivotal role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Also, it is pointed out that it is important to act before crises emerge, and to face threats before they grow stronger (New American Century, 2000: 4-5). Very similar are the claims in the 2002 National Security Strategy which clearly state that threats to the US would be met using both traditional containment and preventive wars (The White House, 2002: 15). One has to remember the fact that the US global hegemony was, to a great extent, dependent on its protectorate over the oil reserves in the Middle East. Ironically, the biggest threat to American domination also came from the same place; and the best example is the 9/11 attack. Thus, it was clear that America had to reshape the Middle East. In fact, American hegemony over the Middle East oil was getting questioned. In the opinion of Hinnebusch (2007: 213), US and other capitalist countries would imminently face an oil shock as the oil producing Middle Eastern nations were gaining more and more power. First of all, despite the American efforts to impose sanctions on Iraq and Iran, they managed to survive as such sanctions only benefited other nations. To illustrate, Iraq started selling oil concessions to nations like Russia, China and France. Similarly, according to Cramer and Thrall (n.d.: 18), the whole Western Europe wanted to get oil from Iran instead of isolating it; and when America tried to keep its companies away from the so called nations, its rivals were benefiting from the sanctions. Traditionally, Saudi Arabia was playing an important role in providing US with oil help. It moderated oil prices for America throughout the years. However, America was fully concerned about its high degree of dependence on Saudi Arabia for oil needs. Also, the recent years witnessed a decline in the oil pumping capacity of Saudi Arabia making it unable to moderate oil prices anymore (Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives 2007: 8). Evidently, al Qaeda and other terrorists were highly dissatisfied with use of American forces to protect Saudi Arabia, and was a motivating factor for Bin Laden to turn against America. As Reno (2012: para. 12-13) points out, it was revealed that Saudi citizens were involved in the 9/11 attack and funding; and this was sufficient for the Zionist lobby in the Bush administration to create an anti-Saudi public opinion in America. Murphy (2011: para. 12) states that, at the same time, Saudi Arabia started looking for alternatives as it felt abandoned by the US. Soon, it reconciled with Iran and Iraq. Thus, as America was losing one swing producer, it wanted to find another one; and Iraq became the primary target (ibid). First of all, it meant that America would again get access to privileged oil, at the same time ensuring its hegemony over its economic rivals like Europe, Asia and the emerging global rival China. Thus, Iraq became a one word solution. The matter can be seen in the military dimension also. Saddam Hussein was a man who challenged the US. Thus, when there was 9/11 terrorist attack, America chose Iraq as the easy victim. It was calculated that US could conquer Iraq in a few days. This would give other Middle East nations the message that US has the power to overcome resistance with military power. In addition, America would be able to have a permanent base in Iraq. It would be able to better intimidate other threats like Syria and Iran (Sykes 2010: para. 9). Also, by giving a picture of America liberating the Iraqi people, the Arab/Islamic opposition to American hegemony would again get demoralised (ibid). Though the arms/oil lobby in the American administration traditionally believed it was necessary to retain good relationships with the Arabs to have oil and arms profits, the recent issues like the high oil prices and the rise of OPEC made them think the other way. As Kiernan (2006: para. 6) points out, the new idea was that the invasion of Iraq would give a chance to restore the direct ownership of oil. The arms lobby dreamt of renewed sales of arms. For the Zionists in ruling, the war was a long-cherished dream came true (ibid). The fact is that the lobby always feared that Bush administration would be forced to give up the support for Israeli expansionist ambitions to appease the Arab oil producers. Thus, for them, the war meant a permanent solution (ibid). By seizing Iraq’s enormous oil fields, America would no more have to appease the Arab interests. Also, access to Iraqi oil could be used to break the OPEC and destabilise the oil producing Muslim states. According to Grubach (n.d.: para. 10), the war meant two things: firstly, America would not be forced to depend on Arab nations for oil, and, secondly, America would be able to fully support Israeli interests. Thus, it becomes evident that Iraq invasion of 2003 was the result of various factors; the need to strengthen America’s world hegemony, the need to retain smooth access to oil, and the wish to support Israel in the Middle East. The proclaimed reasons - a clear cover-up The American government, with the active aid of intelligentsia, raised a large number of allegations against Saddam’s regime, which were highly untrue. The first allegation was that Iraq was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). For example, various official documents pointed out that Iraq was continuing its weapons of mass destruction program despite UN resolutions and sanctions. According to Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, a top secret document from the Director of Central Intelligence, dated October 2002, Iraq not only continues its WMD program but also possesses biological and chemical weapons. Also, the document claims that if left unchecked, Iraq would develop nuclear weapon within a decade (National Intelligence Estimate 2004: 5). Similarly, a document named A decade of deception and defiance dated 12 September 2002, from the US State Department makes the allegation that Iraq was producing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers. Also, it pointed out that Iraq had revamped its quest for nuclear weapons and chemical weapons (US Congress 2003). However, one can see that these documents were the results of high level deception. To illustrate, the report by El Baradei (2003 para. 22), the Director of the IAEA, points out that despite 38 inspections at 19 sites, which included air, water, and sediment sampling, no evidence of nuclear or nuclear related activities were found in Iraq. Another important claim was that Saddam’s regime was an important threat to the USA and to the world peace. Though American leaders later tried to claim that they did not call Iraq an ‘imminent threat,’ a release by the Center for American Progress shows that most American leaders had done the same. To illustrate, Claire Buchan, on 26 August 2003, claimed that “Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.” Similarly, on 17 July 2003, President Bush claimed that “we ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction” (Center for American Progress 2004: para. 2). The US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was more vocal in the matter. He said in clear terms that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons. So, Iraq was a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability (ibid). Thus, despite the clear knowledge that Iraq would, in no way, pose a threat to the U.S, the U.S administration selected Iraq as the target because attacking Iraq meant solution to a number of issues. Yet another vital claim was that Saddam had links with international terror groups including al Qaeda. The propaganda by the administration with the active aid of think tanks, media and intelligence agencies was so strong that nearly 73% Americans in a poll by dpreview.com opined that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack (‘Saddam Hussein behind 9/11’ n.d). To make things even more ironic, reports show that Ms. Palin believed Saddam Hussein attacked America on 11 September 2001 (ibid). Thus, it becomes evident that Iraq was deliberately chosen as the victim as the attack could serve a number of political, economic, and military purposes. Also, there was the claim that America was trying to help Iraqi people struggle out of the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. However, a look into the sufferings of Iraqi people since the war will prove that this claim was totally baseless. According to reports, the first year of occupation alone resulted in the death of nearly 100,000 civilians. In addition was the total destruction of security, infrastructure, and public health. Had the intention of invasion been to improve Iraqi life, America would have spent more time, effort and care on these things. Instead of initiating reconstruction and introducing a popular government, America introduced a puppet government with no popular support in Iraq. Also, America openly declared its desire to have permanent military bases in Iraq, and attempted to privatise and sell off Iraqi oil to Western buyers. According to Davis (2007: 23), with this much of information, one easily gains the insight that liberating Iraqi people from an oppressive regime was not even in the distant dreams of the invaders. At this juncture, it becomes necessary to add one more point that will reveal how pointless the claim was. According to reports, American military unleashed heavy dose of fear and violence instead of making the people believe that they are there to help them. In addition, according to studies, bombings and firings often aimed at residential areas resulting in massive deaths. Also, the military severely lacked in respect for the people in the occupied territory. There were blockades of suspected areas, detention camps, and collective punishment of villages. This resulted in an equal degree of hostility from the Iraqi people. The aftermath- shortsightedness backfires First of all, America only resulted in an increase in the anti-West attitude of Iraqis because America failed to introduce any improvement in the area. It neither introduced a stable, liberal government nor improved public infrastructure for the civilians. Thus, most Iraqis strongly opposed American presence in Iraq. Secondly, the Iraq war gave birth to a ‘Shiite axis’ which promotes anti-Israeli militancy in the Middle East (Medact 2004: 10). This radical bloc includes Iran, Iraq, and Hezbollah. Now, it has reached Syria which is majority Sunni As a result of the war, all the regimes which supported the US had to face criticism from people as people started widely opposing US alignment (ibid). Now the radical Islamist groups have gained more power and influence among the Arab people, and the democratisation of Middle East has become more difficult. Also, Iraq has become a new fertile land for terrorist groups as the young ones who had to bear the brunt of American greediness happily join terrorist groups (Democracy Now 2007: para. 5). In fact, the American intention in attacking Iraq was to suppress the anti-West fractions in the Middle East, and, at the same time, impose a decision on Palestine, which serves the Israeli expansionist desires. However, the tactics evidently backfired as America could not bring Iraqi population under control. In addition, with the war, the anti-West radicals gained more power and influence among the Middle East people. Thus, the result is increased hostility towards the West among the Arabs. Thus, the intention of America in invading Iraq was to strengthen its declining geopolitical dominance in the Middle East. However, the failure in the program jeopardised the American dream of world leadership as envisioned under ‘the coalitions of the willing’ as the allies, especially the European ones, consider the US, not the Middle East, as the oppressor. This is so because the increasing Christian-Muslim divide will have more impact on Europe than on the US. The war once again taught America that military superiority cannot always be translated into unchallenged hegemony as it had happened in Vietnam. Conclusion – a fore-drawn one From the analysis, it becomes evident that the intentions of America in invading Iraq in 2003 were not the declared ones. Though the American public and the international community were made to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and that he had ties with al Qaeda leading to the 9/11 attack, later information proved that this was a well-crafted treachery to promote the American-Israeli interest in the Middle East. In the case of America, it would provide a solution to the oil insecurity faced by America, ensure American control of Middle Eastern affairs with permanent military bases in Iraq, promote democratisation of Middle Eastern states, and control anti-West fractions effectively. For Israel, it meant imposing a one-sided solution in the Palestine issue on the Arabs with the support of American hegemony. However, the war only created more chaos as the Iraqi people were not ready to surrender as easily as America would have liked. Thus, in total, Iraq invasion of 2003 was an American effort to strengthen its hold in Middle East, which went wrong. References 73% said Saddam Hussein behind 9/11!, Dpreview.com., [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Center for American Progress (2004) ‘In their own words: Iraq’s imminent threat’, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Committee on Foreign Affairs House of Representatives (2007) ‘Statements of Mr. F. Gregory Gause, III, Associate professor, Department of political science, University of Vermount’, US Relations with Saudi Arabia: Oil, Anxiety and Ambivalence, pp. 1-42, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Cramer, J. K. and T. A. Thrall (n.d.) ‘Why did the United States invade Iraque?: A survey of international relations and foreign policy scholars’, pp. 1-43, [Online] Available at: Davis, W. S. (2007) ‘Providing a framework to understanding why the US invaded Iraq in 2003’, pp. 1-97, [Online] Available at: < http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-05032007-200028/unrestricted/ETD.pdf> [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Democracy Now., 22 February 2007. The Iraq effect: New study finds 600% rise in terrorism since US invasion of Iraq, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. El Baradei, M. (2003) The status of nuclear inspections in Iraq: 14 February 2003 update, International Atomic Energy Agency, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Grubach, P. (n.d.) ‘Did the Zionist lobby drive the US into the Iraq war?’, Codoh, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Hinnebusch, R. (2007) ‘The US invasion of Iraque: Explanations and implications’, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern studies, 16(3), pp. 209-228. Kiernan, P. (2006) ‘Iraq’s oil: A neo-con dream gone bust’, Asia Times, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Medact. (2004). Enduring effects of war: Health in Iraq 2004, pp. 1-13, [Online] Available at: Murphy, C. (2011) Post-Sept. 11 Saudi Arabia modernizing, slowly, NPR, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. National Intelligence Estimate (2004) Iraq’s continuing programs for weapons of mass destruction, pp. 1-92, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. New American Century (2000). Rebuilding America’s defenses: Strategy, forces and resources for a new century, pp. 1-76, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012] Reno, J. (2012) ‘Was the Saudi government involved in the 9/11 terror attacks?’, The Daily Beast, [Online] Available at: < http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/13/was-the-saudi-government-involved-in-the-9-11-terror-attacks.html> [Accessed 26 May 2012]. Sykes, D. (2010) ‘The 2003 invasion of Iraq under the microscope’, e-International Relations, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. The White House (2002) ‘The national security strategy of the United States of America’, National Security Strategy, pp. 1-31, [Online] Available at: [Accessed 26 May 2012]. US Congress (2003) United States of America: Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the 108th Congress First Session.USA: Government Printing Office. Read More