The Risks Involved if the U.S. Withdrew From Iraq - Essay Example

The Risks Involved if the U.S. Withdrew From Iraq Most Americans now agree with what the rest of the world has known all along, that the invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of western-Arab relations and was unquestionably illegal as defined by the International Court of Justice and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. At best, the information provided to former U.S. George Bush was faulty, at worst his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. This flawed justification has since been proven to be untrue as well. However, because of the occupation of Iraq, the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda has grown in number, increased attacks worldwide and has infiltrated the borders of Iraq. The war was wrong on many fronts but withdrawing would be committing yet another wrong. Even those against the reasons the U.S. is occupying a sovereign nation admit that leaving would be a catastrophic mistake that would plunge the entire region into chaos. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 was initiated and largely conducted by the United States in response to what it claimed was an attack on its soil by various agents operating from within these countries. These actions have been defended by the Bush administration as not only legal but morally necessary to protect U.S. citizens. Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden hoped the U.S. would timidly withdraw from the Middle East, but he appears to have been aware that an aggressive U.S. response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan: Al-Qaeda hoped to draw the U.S. into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the U.S. military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. The U.S. cleverly outfoxed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, using air power and local Afghan allies (the Northern Alliance) to destroy the Taliban without many American boots on the ground. However, the Bush administration then went on to invade Iraq for reasons still unclear, where Americans faced the kind of wearing guerrilla war they had avoided in Afghanistan (O’Brien, 2005). Bin Laden obtained his wealth as an inheritor of his family’s highly profitable construction business. He has used this capital to finance the infamous terrorist group initially formed in an attempt to force the U.S. to remove its military base in his home country of Saudi Arabia. Since that time the groups’ objectives have evolved and, because of the illegal occupation if Iraq, Al-Qaeda has succeeded in several of what are now its main goals. It had been trying to convince Muslims that the United States wanted to invade Muslim lands, humiliate Muslim men, and rape Muslim women. Most Muslims found this charge hard to accept. The Iraq invasion, along with the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal, was perceived by many Muslims to validate bin Laden’s wisdom and foresight. The U.S. (along with its ‘coalition of the coerced’) invasion of Iraq has strengthened support for Al Qaeda in the Arab regions of the world and is the instigator of its growth but pulling forces out of Iraq too soon would not necessarily reverse this trend and would likely prompt a calamitous outcome on at least a regional and possible global magnitude. “Sectarian violence could erupt on a scale never seen before in Iraq if coalition troops leave before Iraq’s security forces are ready” (“No Safe Way”, 2007). The widespread civil war that would follow a premature withdrawal would likely affect neighboring countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey pulling them into a broad, regional conflict. President Bush rejected a war funding bill offered by the Democratic-controlled Congress because it mandated a partial troop withdrawal beginning in October, 2007, and continuing until all U.S. military personnel in Iraq were back home by April 2008. Bush responded with a veto stating that deadlines for troop withdrawals would be “irresponsible.” The Congress soon acquiesced and approved an Iraq spending bill with ‘no strings attached.’ Even congressional democrats who are bitterly opposed to the war acknowledged that quickly withdrawing from Iraq would irreparably damage America’s long-held image of strength. This eventuality would be a political coup for Al Qaeda, as well as other terrorists groups, who could then credibly claim that the U.S. cannot back up its rhetoric with successful actions. “It [an early withdrawal] would also play into their [Al Qaeda’s] strategy, which is to create a mini-state somewhere in the Middle East where they can reorganize along the lines of what they did in Afghanistan in the late ‘90’s” according to CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen. “It was in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda allied with the Taliban, and was allowed to run terror bases and plan the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States” (“No Safe Way”, 2007). Bergen echoed the sentiments of the Bush administration by saying Iraq must not be another base of operations for Al Qaeda, that this would make this well-financed and growing terrorist organization much larger than ever. Leaving, in essence, would allow terrorism to become a much larger threat to the U.S. and western nations. Iraq’s neighbor Iran and Al Qaeda are predominantly Sunni Muslims. If the U.S. were to leave, the entire country would be ‘up for grabs’ dividing into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish regions. Militant Sunni groups would control certain areas and would quickly establish training bases and encampments from which to launch terrorist’s actions worldwide. This is the core reason that no reasonable, knowledgeable elected official is suggesting an immediate withdrawal. Political analysts insist the U.S., no matter the party of the person in the White House in 2009, will ‘get out now’ as the signs of protestors of the war implore. (“No Safe Way”, 2007). Those who insist on withdrawing before at least some degree of stability can be achieved are disregarding the human factor in addition to the geopolitical realities. Withdrawing now would send the region into anarchical bloodbath and would send the clear message to troops that their effort was in vain. (Haas, 2007). The citizens of Iraq are suffering because of U.S. involvement in their country not only during this war but have been since the early ‘90’s. The U.S. backed embargo of Iraq in the ‘90’s was intended to persuade Saddam Hussein into conforming with international law but only acted to starve hundreds of thousands of children. Those many thousand Iraqi’s opposed to Hussein’s regime following the first gulf war believed President H.W. Bush’s promise that the U.S. would support a civil uprising but were slaughtered when that promise went unfulfilled. By all estimations, withdrawing from Iraq now would cause these beleaguered people even greater harm than has already been perpetrated by the U.S. over the past 15 years. The current war has claimed about a half million civilian lives. Though no one is suggesting the current war is winnable by conventional definitions, it is unquestionable that after an early withdrawal, those remaining will suffer to an even greater extent than have those the past 15 years. According to Staff Sgt. Matthew St. Pierre, “We are the buffer right now and when we pull out, the people who support us are going to feel the wrath and I think that’s unfortunate” (“No Safe Way”, 2007). The full-out civil war that would ensue immediately upon the departure of U.S. troops would envelope areas outside Iraq borders. Iran would accelerate its could move the southern part Iraq; Turkey is likely to resume an intense conflict in the northern region against the Kurds and in the west, Saudi Arabia would be inclined to initiate military actions to protect their interests in that region. One of Iran’s initial objectives after the U.S. vacates the region would be to take control of the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz which would severely slow the flow of oil leaving this oil-rich area of the world. “Oil prices would skyrocket, perhaps soaring from current prices of about $60 a barrel to more than $100 a barrel, with consequent rises at the gas pump” (“No Safe Way”, 2007). In addition, Iran would be ‘emboldened,’ a term borrowed from President Bush, and would hasten its nuclear aspirations. This would cause a modern-day ‘nuclear arms race’ among all countries in the Middle East, a daunting and dangerous scenario (“No Safe Way”, 2007). “The neoconservative vision failed to take account of Iraqi culture and society and underestimated the influence of Iran.” (Abootalebi, 2007. p.414) If politicians on both sides of the ideological aisle in Washington D.C. would fully commit to securing Iraq by staying until its police force and government are able to operate independent of outside assistance, Iraq will be a blueprint for democracy that the rest of the Arab regions will be compelled to follow because their respective citizens will be envious. As time passes, dictatorships will be replaced by democratic governments which will inevitably make the world a safer place. “Security in the world will improve, as democratically elected leaders will shun the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Sheikhdoms, monarchies, military dictators are out of tune with the present time. Their banishment from the Middle East should be the fringe benefit of the U.S. operation in Iraq” (Sud, 2004). What are now closed societies will open which will enhance European trade opportunities and oil will remain affordable. A free, stable Middle East would be economically advantageous for it and the bulk of the world’s nations. Israel will not be continually threatened at least to the same extent and the money saved by not having to quell future Middle Eastern disturbances could easily reach into the trillions of dollars. Pakistan and India, being in a more peaceful region, may strive to mend differences that have brought these two nations to the brink of war. “With this continued operation U.S. can assure peace at Israeli border and in the Indo-Pak context. These fringe benefits are worth having” (Sud, 2004). This, of course, is speculative yet a reasonable assumption given Iraq has become an example of democracy. Even the worst of all possible outcomes following the stabilization and democratization of Iraq is more desirable than what would occur if the current mission was abandoned. In conclusion, Iraq is in political and sectarian turmoil. U.S. troops are bogged-down in a bloody quagmire facing death, horrific bodily destruction and life-long mental issues. However, their sacrifice will not be in vain if they are allowed to accomplish the mission. To engage this war was wrong but with great patience and further sacrifice, the end-result could be viewed by future generations as well worth the terrible costs. The U.S. military is there and the only one in the world that is large enough and technologically advanced enough to effect positive changes, to bring freedom to this historically tumultuous region of the world. If not the U.S. who and if not now then likely never, which is the worst of all options. What is now an impalpable situation to those that would immediately withdraw would seem insignificant by comparison if they were to get what they think they want. References Abootalebi, Ali R. (2007) “What Went Wrong in Iraq?” In David W LE SCH (ed.) The Middle East and the United States. A Historical and Political Reassessment (Boulder: WE ST View Press). pp. 412-433 Retrieved March 10, 2009 from < http://www.academia-research.com/files/instr/279499_Abootalebi-%20What%20went%20wrong%20in%20Iraq.pdf> Haas, Rebekah. (February 14, 2007). “Why the United States Troops Should Not Leave Iraq.” Associated Content. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from “No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn.” (May 3, 2007). CNN. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from O’Brien, Kerry. (July 20, 2005). “US ‘Misread Motivation’ of Suicide Bombers.” The 7:30 Report. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from Read More