The Iraq War and the American New World Order - Essay Example

? The Iraq War and the American New World Order Introduction The latest intervention of the United s of America in Iraq has its roots in the first Gulf War. In 1991, the Unites States of America, with the help of coalition forces, attacked Iraq. The declared objective of the first Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. The war weakened the Saddam Hussein’s regime and his influence in the Persian Gulf was also thwarted. Even though the United States of America could not topple Saddam Hussein from power, George H.W. Bush administration succeeded in restoring monarchy in Kuwait. The survival of Saddam Hussein, who was seen as a challenge for the hegemony of the United States of America in the Persian Gulf, directly counterposed as a threat to American and regional security. To finish the unfinished task of 1991, the United States of America‘s invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003. America’s Consolidation of New World Order in Iraq The War on Iraq had nothing to do with America’s professed objectives of human rights protection and removal of a dangerous dictator from power. On the other hand, America’s strategic interests in an emerging new world order and the rise of unilateralism and unipolarity after the collapse of Soviet Union had contributed much to bringing the US into the gulf war. Two American wars against Iraq were very different in nature, both in objectives and outcomes. The objective of 1991 war was to overturn the notorious act of aggression and restore normalcy in the region, wherein the United Nations preserves its hegemony. The first Gulf War, which was called as Operation Desert Storm, had the sanction of United Nations Organization and a grand global coalition forces fought it. It was seen as a legitimate war fought for Kuwait’s liberation. The Operation Desert Storm restored status quo in the region. In contrast, the second Iraq war was a preventive war. It was fought for preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. George W. Bush administration was of the view that if Saddam Hussein gets nuclear weapons, he could not be deterred from aggressive actions in the region. Even though old allies of the United States of America and United Nations Organisation opposed it, the United States of America attacked Iraq in 2003. The first said priority of second Iraq war was to oust Saddam Hussein and take away weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. It was a pre-emptive war not only to Iraq but also to demonstrate to other so-called rouge states, who were trying to seek weapons of mass destructions against the will of the United States of America, the consequences of mending with American strategic interests in the new world order. Neoconservatives in the United States of the America also provided intellectual support for the war and engaged in fierce ideological battles to change the American opinion in favour of war. They were professing to build a model democracy in Iraq as the presence of a democratic Iraq in the Middle East would have undermined the influence of the other dictatorships in the Arab world and ensured more security for Israel, the staunch American ally. Peter W. Galbraith has correctly summarized real motives behind the second Iraq war. Galbraith considers the Iraq War “was intended to transform Iraq from brutal dictatorship into the Arab world's first real democracy. President Bush fully expected a democratic Iraq would be both a role model for other Middle Eastern countries and a subversive force against the region's authoritarian rulers. Envisioning a replay of the 1989 Eastern European revolutions, where elections in Poland set in motion a process that swept away the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union, the Iraq War's neoconservative architects imagined the quick collapse of Syria's Baathist regime, the growing strength of Prodemocracy forces in Iran, and ultimately the replacement of pro-American autocrats in Saudi Arabia and Egypt with pro-American democrats” (2008, p. 6, 7). It certainly clarifies the American position as interventionist, aimed at creating a new world after its image. Relations between the United States of America and Saudi Arabia became tense after September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda’s terrorist attack on United States. Most of the attackers were of Saudi Arabian origin. After 9/11’s attack the United States wanted a reliable ally in the Arab region. Therefore, they were looking at Iraq as a substitute client state for the United States in the region. New strategic relationships would have taken place in the region to benefit the United States’ reliable ally in the region, Israel. George W Bush even equated Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden. His administration tried to project Saddam Husain’s regime as a threat for the security of the United States. Kenneth Katzman observes that “the Bush Administration characterized the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a grave potential threat to the United States and to peace and security in Middle East region. The administration maintained that the Iraqi regime harbored active weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program that could be used to attain Saddam Hussein's long-term goal of dominating the Middle East. These weapons, according to the administration, could be used directly against the United States, or they could be transferred to terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda” (2003, p. 10). The Bush administration marked Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an axis of evil countries. America’s War on terrorism included fight against non-state actors and some of the rogue states in the world. Iraq was seen by George W. Bush administration as a fertile ground of terror activities and terrorist. Preceding administration had different approach towards Saddam Hussein’s regime. George Bush senior wanted to expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. His successor, Bill Clinton was not interested in a military adventure in the country. Nevertheless, George W. Bush administration had different approaches vis-a-vis Iraq. “The present Bush administration, in contrast, has”, according to Jeffrey Record, “adopted regime change as an explicit policy objective with respect to rogue states. Indeed, it was emphasizing regime change even before 9/11. In its September 2001, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, the main text of which was written and approved before the terrorist attacks, the Rumsfeld Defense Department declared that possible instances of failed deterrence in the future mandated a capacity to "decisively defeat any adversary” (2004, p. 37). The Iraq War more about destroying the war capabilities of countries which are considered to be threats. Iraq War was the beginning of the end of the American cold war time foreign policy. Jeffrey Record further argues that Bush doctrine has changed the course American security policy. It has been suggested by many commentators that Bush administration’s overt attempts for the “embrace of regime change as a principle of American security policy towards rogue states is an implicit rejection of the unpopular limited conflicts of the Cold War, Gulf War, and the Bosnian and Kosovo military interventions. It is a return to the tradition of Appomattox Court House, the Reims schoolhouse, and the deck of the Missouri in Tokyo Bay” (Record, 2004, p. 66). It was for the first time, in the new millennium, the notion of regime change was incorporated into the American foreign policy and thus developed the discourses on just war and humanitarian interventions. The United States’ claim that war against Iraq was to prevent the country from acquiring weapons of mass destruction has been exposed. The United States could not find any trace of weapons of mass destruction in that country. So the question arises why the United States has attacked Iraq? A widely shared belief outside the western world is that the war was for something else. The United States wanted to gain control of oil reserves in Iraq and redefine geo-politics of Middle East. Through the war the United States wanted to maintain its economic and political dominance over the region and in the new world order. Tariq Ali has given one of the fiercest critiques of American war efforts in the Iraq and he sees it as essentially an attempt to recolonialise the Middle East in general and the Iraq in particular. Tariq Ali asserts that “the “aims [of war] are simple: to impose privatisation and pro western regime in Iraq. But, its ability to do so permanently is circumscribed by the history and consciousness of the Iraqi people” (2004, p.4). Here, the ability of Iraqi people is considered as paramount as against other commentaries. Was the war waged for protecting the human Rights of Iraqi people as it was propagated by the Bush administration? Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq from 16 July 1979 to 9 April 2003. His twenty-four year rule was full of atrocities and repression. Saddam Hussein killed so many political dissidents and rivals. Especially, majority Shi’a people and minority Kurdish people were at the receiving end of his rule. He crushed Shi’a and Kurdish people’s political movements for autonomy and democratic rights. In 1988, chemical weapons were used against rebellious Kurdish people in northern Iraq. Raphael Israeli has revealed atrocities committed by Hussein’s regime against Kurdish and Shi’ite people. Israeli portrays the pain living under Saddam’s infamous dictatorship vividly and narrates that “the Kurds lived under the trauma of the previous war when they rebelled against Saddam-his response was to make two million of them homeless. Only later, after the no-fly zone was established and enforced by the Allies, could the Kurds, unlike their more unfortunate Shi'ite counterparts in the south, build their virtual areas of security and autonomy” (2004, p.37). Strategic analysts believe that oil was driving force behind Bush administration’s strategic moves in Iraq. It means control over oil fields and oil market were the major driving forces behind the second Iraq war. Once the invasion is complete, reconstruction of Iraq has become a big profitable business for the American companies. American Government’s two main contractors, Halliburton and Bechtel who are working for reconstruction of Iraq have requested financial help from the U.S. Export-Import Bank in exchange the bank will get share of Iraqi oil revenue in the future. Thus, threat of weapons of mass destruction and threat for the United States security from the Iraq have belied by the developments. It has become clear that the second Iraq war was for ‘something else’ which could only be defined in terms of changing American strategic and corporate interests in the Post Cold War world. Conclusion The American president George W Bush tried to sympathise with Iraqi people but in the wrong means. He tried to mobilise support for fighting against the human right violation in Iraq. Bush administration showed that human right violation in Iraq is structural. Hence, to protect rights of Iraqi people it is necessary to oust the authoritarian regime from the Iraq. Neoconservatives in the United States sought a democratic government in Iraq, which will be very much sensitive towards the human rights of the Iraqi people. Therefore, one could say that one of the reasons for the military intervention in Iraq could be the protection of human rights of Iraqi people. However, it is matter of fact that American war efforts were also overdetermined by the strategic interests in the Middle East and the corporate interests of American oil companies. The Iraqi people are not passive observers of history; they are very much capable of making their own history as like American, French or Germans. The American War on Iraq in a way portrays the Iraqi population as infantile people who need to be patronised and deny their political agency. References Ali, T 2004,  Bush in Babylon: The recolonisation of Iraq, Verso, New York. Galbraith, PW 2008, Unintended consequences: how war in Iraq strengthened America's enemies, Simon & Schuster, New York. Israeli, R 2004, The Iraq War: the regional impact on Shi'ites, Kurds, and Sunnis and Arabs, hidden agenda and Babylonian intrigue’, Sussex Academic Press, Oregon. Katzman, K 2003, ‘U.S. Policy’, in R W Copson ‘(ed), The Iraq War: background and issues, Novinka Books, New York. Record, J 2004, Dark victory: America's second war against Iraq, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD. Read More