Geographies of War, Occupation, Resistance, and Terrorism - Essay Example

? Geographies of war, occupation, resistance, and terrorism Introduction In the light of enormous casualty and lossinflicted on the US following its US led invasion of Iraq, many questions have been asked. One of the main questions is the reason why the US invaded Iraq because some of the controversial issues ten years back are now crystal clear (Buchanan, 2003). The real cause of this seemingly unending conflict in the Middle East can be traced back way to the Israel Palestine Conflict which began way back in 1968. This conflict has divided the major global power house on either side of the Israel or Palestinian. It goes without saying that most the Arab World has thrown their weight behind Palestine while the US and its Western allies are behind Israel. In June 7, 1981, Israel had attacked and crippled a nuclear reactor before it became operational in a town near Baghdad. Although it claimed self defense, it came under intense criticism even from US their main allies. Much later, the same strategy was used by US to lead a foreign invasion on Iraq under the guise of different reasons (Kramer & Michalowski, 2005). This paper then will try to answer the question why the US invaded Iraq under Bush administration. Plausible Explanation for the Invasion There are many official justifications that were offered by the Bush administration for its invasion of Iraq. The three main ones were that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, had strong ties with al-Qaeda which all turned to be false after the invasion. The third one was that the sectarian US government was trying to bring democracy in Baghdad. However, unofficially, there are other plausible explanations include control of oil fields and business and for strategic interests. Another explanation that has been overtly explored in the recent past is the assertion that the Israel government and its key supporters in US government caused the Iraq Invasion (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006). Israel has been over the recent past been dominated by right wing governments and their policies have been supported by their US supporters and have led increased tensions in the Arab world and needless human suffering. However, the idea of invading Iraq is not one of their agendas because it had no value to Israel and if anything it only increased hostility towards Israel in the region (Robert, 2002). It is true that this invasion was supported by many Israel sympathizers and a majority of US Congress members of Jewish origin voted in favor of war resolution together with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Indeed, AIPAC had long been touted as an ardent lobbying and supporter of US invasion of Iraq. Although AIPAC had enormous influence on the matters pertaining to the Israel-Palestinian conflict when it came to congressional voting, it had no role in lobbying for the invasion of Iraq. This was largely due to the knowledge that there was an enormous bipartisan support within the US government to invade oil rich Iraq. There were more powerful interests by the US government than the interests of AIPAC in this country like the arms industry, oil deals among other special interests. As such, these interests from the US government and other lobbyist far outweighed the interests of the Zionist lobby groups (Stephen, 2013). Many people and political analysts have tried to point to Israel as the prime suspect for the invasion by quoting many American Zionists and Israeli officials. However, those who are quoted in support of the invasion had expressed their sentiments after the decision to invade Iraq had been arrived at in 2002. The invasion intended back then was a two thronged attack which later would be extended to Iran later. What this means is that the Israel lobby groups and the Israeli government was willing to procure public support for an invasion campaign which the Bush led US government had independently determined to undertake. In addition, the Bush administration was an ardent supporter of Israel course of actions in its conflict with the Palestine and therefore they were merely returning a favor. Actually, during the Gulf war in 1991, the authorization for the use of force was voted against by majority of Congress members of Jewish Origin. This cannot be said about their counterparts in the congress who voted overwhelmingly for the use of force. However, come 2002 on a similar vote, the tables were overturned with a majority of the Jewish members of US congress voting for the authorization of the use of force (Buzan, 2006). On the one hand it is a fact that a disproportionate large clique of neoconservatives Jews were involved in the push for Iraq invasion. On the other hand, a similar disproportionate large clique of neoconservatives Jews were also present in Congress’ liberal Democrats and leftist scholars who were opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The opposition to the regime of Saddam Hussein by neoconservatives regardless of whether they Jews or not was based the challenge of US hegemony in the gulf region by the regime of Saddam. For example, the 2000 PNAC report explicitly laid bare the neoconservative agenda. Their agenda was to advance their superiority in terms of lacking a global rival. This advantage would then be extrapolated into the future by preserving it with any means possible. From this, it is very clear that the support of the US agendas by the Israeli and their lobby groups only extends to the point where their two interests merge (Stephen, 2013). The defense guidance plan (1992) which was rejected by Senior Bush due to being overtly extreme was adopted in part by the Junior Bush which underscores the fact that the goal of the neoconservatives was to advance Hegemony of US and not support the partisan interests of Israel. Under the right wing governments that have been in power in Israel, the state of Israel was a very important strategic partner in advancing the primacy of US within the Middle East although this was not the primary focus of US. The objective of US within the Southwest Asia and Middle East was to remain the dominant power from outside the region while at the same time preserve and establish access of oil from the region for itself and other Western allies. The evolution and development of PNAC is sorely based on the policy of Reagan revolving around moral clarity and military strength. All the statements published by this group (PNAC) revolve around the primacy of US and not Israel (Kramer & Michalowski, 2005). Many of the individual and special groups laying the blame on Israel for Iraq US invasion usually unanimously base their arguments on a paper written for a right wing Israel think tank. This paper was written by two US neoconservatives and encouraged the state of Israel to make a ‘clean break’. This ‘clean break’ was alluding to breaking support for the Oslo Peace Process and instead adopt force a means to advance its objectives within the region. This included the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein which would serve to show the power influence of neoconservatives support for the Zionist state. However, there seems to be some misconception of the fact that the ‘clean break’ alludes to something else. The paper was simply calling Israel to disengage itself from the peace process led by the US which was being undertaken by the Clinton administration (Robert, 2002). This did not mean that the US engages in risky initiatives at the prompt of the Zionist state. Moreover, this paper shows how it was the US neoconservatives were involved in pushing the Israelis to adopt more hard-line stances as opposed to the Israeli government and its sympathizers pressurizing the US government to invade Iraq. It is worth noting that many of the neoconservatives that served in Ronald Reagan’s administration were the same people who advocated for Cuba and Nicaragua invasion while and strike against the USSR. This then shows that they are spread on the board and as such, their interests are diversified not just cast on the Middle East debacle (Stephen, 2013). Conclusion In the light of enormous casualty and loss inflicted on the US following its US led invasion of Iraq, many questions have been asked. One of the main questions is the reason why the US invaded Iraq because some of the controversial issues ten years back are now crystal clear. Many reasons have been given for this invasion but the Israel lobby is the least of them all although it had some very minute influence. This proposition simply implies that that the invasion and war in Iraq has been beneficial to Israel which is not the case. Evidence shows that sometime in the buildup to the war, Iraq had ceased being a security threat to Israel had had significantly reduced its involvement with anti Israel terrorism activities. The twilight years of Saddam’s reign in power had very little concerns for the Israelis but after the scenario changed after the invasion. Due to the invasion, the resentment against US by the Arab world has surpassed that of the Israelis by the same people. To be more precise, the damage and death toll emanating from the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent rebuilding efforts is far more than that is experienced in the West Bank due to draconian Israeli policies. Like with other foreign powers that have in the past tried to impose their control in the Middle East, the US attempts to force its hegemony have resulted in extreme resistance. While the US is situated far away from the region of conflict, Israel is a sitting duck for the Moslem extremists who view it as an important ally of the US. It is befitting to exaggerate the role played by Israelis and their supporters in policy formulation towards the Middle East. But, it is also equally preposterous to blame the Jews on the aftermath of disastrous policies which has is becoming a historical trend. References Buchanan, P.J. (2003). Whose War?, The American Conservative, Retrieved 10th April 2013 from   http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html Buzan, B. (2006). Will the ‘global war on terrorism’be the new Cold War?. International Affairs, 82(6), 1101-1118. Kramer, R. C., & Michalowski, R. J. (2005). War, Aggression and State Crime A Criminological Analysis of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. British Journal of Criminology, 45(4), 446-469. Mearsheimer, J.J. & Walt, S.M. (2006). The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Robert, N. (2002). Sharon's War?, Column. Retrieved from http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/26/column.novak.opinion.sharon/ Stephen, Z. (2013). Don't Blame the Iraq Debacle on the Israel Lobby. Washington, DC: Foreign Policy in Focus Read More