U.S. Policy Concerning Iraq War

U.S. policy concerning Iraq war

The war in Iraq is one of the most debated subjects on the international scene for more than four years now. It represents one of the most challenging affairs of the international community due to the fact that controversy has been widely spread concerning the conditions in which this was conducted, the level of trust of the American forces, the degree in which the justifications of the foreign intervention in Iraq was legitimate, as well as issues related to elements of international law that are to a certain extent considered to be inconsistent with the rule of law practiced at the UN.

There are several aspects that must be taken into account in order to have a better image of the war in Iraq and the current situation on the ground. In this sense, it is important to consider the policy of the main actor involved, the United States; also, its place insider the wider framework of the policy towards the Middle East; in addition to these general aspects, an important issue is the precise reasons for the American presence on the ground, to the extent in which these reasons are made available to the public; the status of the objectives stated in the beginning of the operations must also be assessed, as well as the degree in which the direction of the policies is adequate for achieving these goals. Finally, an important segment for describing the wider situation of the war in Iraq and the U.S.'s attitude towards it is the assessment of the costs and benefits of the operations.

Stated Policy of the U.S. In Iraq

There have been serious concerns regarding the policy that the U.S. would engage in following the 9/11 attacks on the American soil. In this sense, there were opinions that argued for a diplomatic response to the events and limit the intervention possibilities in the Middle East to only the ones that were actually agreed upon by the international community (Nye, 2005). On the other hand, there was a majority of opinions that argued for the engagement in a war against terrorism and authoritarian rule around the world in order to put an end to what precisely is the global terrorist threat. In any circumstances, the general idea about the stated policy concerning Iraq was that "Current U.S.-UN policy regarding Iraq has failed and has largely lost credibility. It is widely viewed internationally as reflecting U.S. (and, to a lesser degree, British) insistence on maintaining a punitive sanctions based approach regardless of the humanitarian impact and it is increasingly regarded as having failed to bring about either democratic changes in Iraq or security for the Persian Gulf region" (Bennis et al., n.d.). Therefore, it can be said that the policy of the U.S. concerning the intervention in Iraq was more a unilateral choice rather than a consensual one.

The issue of unilateralism or consensus is yet another interesting issue that could shed light on the precise instruments the United States used to justify the war in Iraq. Firstly, it must be taken into account the fact that the intervention was not the result of the Security Council decision. Even more, the Iraqi file was not even subject to the vote in the Security Council because the U.S. administration was aware of the feeling of opposition of the P5 club regarding this matter, more precisely the reluctance of France, Russia, or China to authorize the armed intervention in Iraq. In this sense, it is considered that the war waged in Iraq by the Coalition of the willing was not in fact officially approved by the UN. However, the fact that the United Nations did not intervene in terms of diplomatic pressures can be viewed as a tacit agreement of the solution, yet without actually submitting the UN to unnecessary critique from the international scene.

The policy followed by the U.S. was largely influenced by the 9/11 events and by the desire of the U.S. administration to eventually force the regime of Saddam Hussein away from power in Bagdad. He was considered one of the few dictators left and the Middle East was largely influenced by his presence. The American administration suggested that his regime in fact encouraged terrorism and totalitarian rule which is a hurdle in the road to democracy.

Another part of the explanation provided by the U.S. Administration in the months preceding the 2003 war in Iraq there were additional reasons which subscribe to the policy towards Iraq. In this sense, "The United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations claim that Iraq poses an imminent threat to international security because it has weapons of mass destruction and operational connections to the Al Qaeda terrorist network. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell asserted in his presentation to the Security Council on 5 February that Iraq has made no effort to disarm and is concealing efforts to redevelop weapons of mass destruction" (Cortright et al., 2003). Therefore, the need for security in the region as well as in the world was invoked in relation to the justification for the policy conducted towards Iraq. However, as later research would eventually conclude, there was little if any evidence found concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

Another element that was widely considered to be part of the U.S. policy towards Iraq was the mentioning of the humanitarian aspect as part of the reasons for which the U.S. went to war in Iraq. However, this was not seen as a major element in the war. Thus, "if you believed the Bush administration, the war was about Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's alleged links with international terrorism, or perhaps about creating a model for democracy in the Middle East. Human rights were occasionally mentioned only as an after-thought, part of an effort to tar the enemy, to show that Saddam was the worst of the worst" (Roth, 2004). However, this inclusion of the idea of the protection of human rights in Iraq can be seen, from the perspective of the arguments involved, as being part of the policy towards Iraq. In this sense, the word "genocide" was often used to justify the U.S. policy towards Saddam in particular. The dictator was accused, without a proper proof framework of being responsible for genocide. However, there was little evidence to suggest that at that particular time he was conducting genocide related activities (Roth, 2004). Nonetheless the accusation of genocide was considered to be a viable aspect of the policy towards Iraq.

Objectives in Iraq and the Middle East

The war in Iraq pointed out several issues that must be taken into account in order to have a clear view on the situation. First and foremost, it included a series of actions aimed at the environment taken as a whole and not particularly one country. In this sense, the stated policy towards the Middle East in general is the promotion of democracy as a new environment for peace and cooperation. More precisely, this is seen as an important and appropriate approach of the situation and "part of the changed U.S. geostrategic outlook arising from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States" (Carothers, 2003). The rise of democracy in a Muslim country is rather hard to attain because it implies addressing certain values which are not compatible with the Western view. One such issue is the human rights aspect on which the two sides do not share a common stand. Aware of this difference of perception, the strategy of the West includes a gradual approach in terms of economic and political connections. In this sense, the activities in the Middle East area start from economic cooperation and incentives towards eventual political changes.

Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a rather difficult endeavor taking into account the violent means used by the United States to oust the Hussein regime. In this sense, it can be said that the main reason for the presence of western powers in the area is to try to seek a possible solution for the improvement of the political, economic, but most importantly, social aspects of life. However, this has not been an easy task due to the reluctance of countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia in embracing the democratic rule. At one extreme, the Iranian rule is considered to be one of the least if not the least democratic state in the region and of the world. This is due to the authoritarian rule of its president as well as the precarious situation of its political system. Moreover, the constant discussions about the Iranian nuclear program are relevant to point out the volatility of the area and the difficulty to achieve any type of compromise or middle ground. At the other end however, the issue of Saudi Arabia represents a clear example that modernization is indeed possible. The change that the Royal House is determined to promote especially in the Saudi society is proof of the possibility to adapt to the changing attitudes of the world and the improvement in the democratic perspective of the country. However, this change has been a progressive process and largely set on economic premises and cooperation between the Saudi state and western ones. Nonetheless, it represents an important example of progress in the Middle East.

At the moment the opinions regarding the current situation in the Middle East are rather mixed. On the one hand, there are those who see the Iranian case as being eloquent for the despise and opposing attitude of the majority in the Middle East; on the other hand, there are those who take Saudi Arabia as reference point for the possible success of future strategies concerning the democratization process and the way in which a totally Muslim country can change and improve its standards. From this point-of-view, the situation in Saudi Arabia, the progress it made in areas such as social activities, political participation, education, and other levels at which the population can express itself have been remarkable especially if one takes into account the fact that Saudi Arabia represents one of the most religious states in the world and the heart of the Muslim faith.

Another element of the Middle East American policy is related to the Middle East peace process. In this sense, the Annapolis summit pointed out the commitment of the American presidency for the resolution of the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians. In this sense, President Bush's view on the situation is optimistic "I'm going to work hard to the finish... I'm going to sprint to the finish line" showing his determination and that of his administration to find the best solution for the situation on the ground (McKeeby, 2007).

The United States and its stated objectives

It is rather hard to determine the degree in which the United States managed to be successful in their fight for democracy in the Middle East. This assessment can be made solely on subjective sources which take into account either official sources or academic ones.

According to official opinions, the goals of the American intervention in the country are close to being reached. For instance, in order to ensure a proper security environment for the Iraqi population following the fall of the Hussein regime and to avoid a civil war between the rival factions of the society, the American side engaged in the process of training the Iraqi security forces to be able in the future to ensure the peace and stability in the country. Despite the hardships the international force has endured, it appears that progress has been made in this sense. Thus, there are numerous examples that would point out the change in attitude and mentality at the level of the army. For example, "one hundred and eighty-nine smiling Iraqi jundi (soldiers) received certificates for successfully completing a rigorous 10-week mechanics course December 30, 2007, knowing they will now play an integral role as engines for change powering their army" (Fisher-Thompson, 2008). Therefore, the opinion of the officials is that in fact the situation on the ground, although encountered several issues, is on the right path.

The different side of the story is presented by analysts and the media who argue that the number of casualties from the American side is relevant to point out the fact that the American policy in the Middle East cannot meet the challenges the situation on the ground impose. In this sense, according to some sources, there are almost 4000 U.S. soldiers who died in combat since the war began (Griffis, 2008). From this point-of-view, in the conditions in which the success of a war is seen through the causalities each of the sides suffer, it can be said that the price in human casualties is rather high for the American side.

Assessment of the policy towards Iraq

The policy towards Iraq revolved around the issue of the 2003 intervention. Considering the forces that were engaged at the time, it can be said that the military efforts are considered to be inferior to previous military endeavors. Thus, "U.S. forces were able to go all the way to Baghdad using only half the number of troops deployed in 1991 and only one-seventh as many (but far more precise) air-launched munitions, and without a 38-day bombing campaign (as in the first Gulf War)" (Tellis, 2004). However, the proper assessment of the war in Iraq and whether this has been a successful endeavor cannot be seen from the perspective of comparative studies, nor from the numerical quantities of the armies sent in battle. One of the most important aspects of this process is the practical view on the actual effects on the ground.

The American diplomacy has tried to use its entire means to promote the successful story of the war in Iraq; according to the official in Iraq, Ambassador Crocker pointed out that "much progress has been made, particularly in building an institutional framework where there was none before. But rather than being a period in which old animosities and suspicions were overcome, the past 18 months in particular have further strained Iraqi society" (U.S. Policy, 2007). Therefore at the level of the administrative framework, improvements have been made in the sense in which a social infrastructure has been achieved.

However, one must also take into account the fact that after the fall of the Saddam regime, the tensions between the rival groups of the Sunni and the *****s have led the country on the brick of civil war. This issue is considered however to be improving as "leaders from all communities openly acknowledge that a focus on sectarian gains has led to poor governance and served Iraqis badly. And many claim to be ready to make the sacrifices that will be needed to put government performance ahead of sectarian and ethnic concerns. Such ideas are no longer controversial, although their application will be" (U.S. Policy, 2007).

Considering the economic aspects of the situation regarding the Iraqi state, there are wide concerns related to the actual capacity of the state to recover from the decades of dictatorship and from years of sectarian conflicts and distress. However, the American administration considers that the change in regime has led to the automatic improvement in the economic environment. Despite the fact that the period of the war and the conflict situations that continue to affect the security environment in the state cannot be fully seen as a perfect working environment, from the point-of-view of the Administration, the influx of democratic practices and principles can only help the state to become a proper economic environment. Thus, "Iraq is starting to make some gains in the economy. Improving security is stimulating revival of markets, with the active participation of local communities. War damage is being cleared and buildings repaired, roads and sewers built and commerce energized" (U.S. Policy, 2007).