U.S. War on Iraq for Oil - Coursework Example

U.S. War on Iraq for Oil Introduction: The history of human civilization provides explicit evidence in support of the observation that quest for power and obsession to achieve increasing amount of material possession are main reasons that have led human beings to engage in brutal, merciless and naked aggression against their fellow people in different times. Starting from the ancient, to the medieval, to era of Reformation till the modern times, in forms of two consecutive and devastating World Wars, the Cold War and the Gulf Wars are burning examples that asserted truth behind the observation. Aftermath the Great War II, when the Allies emerged as triumphant, America clearly established itself as a superpower in the global scenario; however, with the progressive course of time, it also realized that in order to retain its position of supremacy in global politics, it is necessary to dominate over other nations and also attain a strong hold over their natural resources so that the global economy can be governed according to its own wish. Since commencement of globalization, especially during the post Second World War onwards, it gradually, was becoming clear that industrialization is an important factor to attain success both from economic and political perspective and sooner or later there would be crisis in the stock of natural resources. Thus, nations that will be able to secure maximum amount of such resources, automatically, they will be able to receive special attention from their competitors in the arena of asserting supremacy. The trend of economic imperialism that took a new dynamic form through US foreign policy, also received an explicit manifestation through its war on Iraq, as it regarded this nation as an effective avenue to dominate over Middle Eastern crude oil production sectors. Despite the fact that receiving a complete control over natural oil resources in the Middle East was main reason of the US government, however, such purpose was attempted to be covered tactfully by US diplomacy with the reasons of ending anarchy or fighting against terrorism, of which this part of the world considered as one of the most fertile grounds. Thus, the consecutive Gulf Wars acted as effective instruments in the hands of US to receive hold of the natural oil, elaborately, as tools to dominate over future of mankind. The Problem: The Dilemma whether US war against Iraq is Imperialistic or Humanist in nature The US war over Iraq comprises within its scope a twofold problem: namely, on one hand, there is no denial of the fact that due to socio-religious and cultural orthodoxy, life of common people in several countries of the Middle East was surely miserable. Iraq was definitely one of the perfect manifestations of such orthodox social ruling. In addition to this factor, the tyrannical governance of Saddam Hussein was another very crucial factor that remained a great obstacle in the path of globalization from social, cultural and economic perspective. As Saddam believed that granting liberty to common people might lead to flourish of democracy and consequently, to the lessoning of his power, he discouraged and on frequent occasions, strictly condemned all such approaches that encouraged rise of democratic government in Iraq. Moreover, as ruler of Iraq, Saddam also created quite powerful armed force; consequently, also intended to expand his dominance over oil resource of other Middle Eastern nations even at the cost of invading those. It was quite evident that Saddam Hussein wanted to spread the traits of his autocratic rule to a great part of the Middle East. At the same time, his anti-globalization mentality also conflicted with interest of common people. Thus, military invasion of US can be regarded as a positive and benevolent approach that could have provided sufficient scope to Iraq citizens to pave the path towards democracy. However, the US diplomacy though has repeatedly emphasized over this argument, a more critical observation of the entire situation would surely reveal the politics of attaining global supremacy by controlling one of the major energy resources from US perspective. The US governance started realizing the importance of obtaining control over crude oil resources since 1960s onwards as its dependence over “offshore oil supplies” increased to a radical extent mainly due to increasing military activism across the globe. By the year 1975, throughout the nation, rate of energy consumption was almost double, compared to previous times. In addition to these facts, US engagement in the Cold War with Soviet Union also played an important part; as the US diplomacy witnessed that the Soviet Union has made considerable progress in the field of oil production, it also become equally for US to provide an equal completion so that in the arena of global supremacy it can retain its position (Randall, 2005, p. 269-270). However, in this context, Saddam Hussein’s anti-US mentality, his desperate military aggression over Kuwait “to incorporate the small oil-rich kingdom into Iraq” (Lewis, 2007, p. 318), emerged as a clear barrier against US policy and consequently it also became important to find a positive, strong reason to curtail the power of Iraq. Iraq’s engagement in war proved to be a major setback against its financial prosperity and by occupying Kuwait, Saddam Hussein was actually looking forward to compensate the huge amount of debt over the nation. However, while Kuwait refused all sorts of assistance to Iraq, Saddam actually was left with no other options than to expose his military aggression. During the period of 1980-88, Iraq, every year, purchased weapons worth almost $6 billion from France and Soviet Russia (Lewis, 2007, p. 319). This waging of war against Kuwait, quite obviously, provided scope to the US to wage war against Iraq in name of supporting Kuwait and at the same time, receiving access to the huge resource of crude oil in the two nations. Thus, no matter how much US diplomacy argue over the fact that war against Iraq is not about oil, but in reality, it actually attempted to serve both purposes, however, finally it did not receive complete success in fulfilling such aspiration. Futility of US Claim: Fight for Democracy or Supporting Imperialism The United States Constitution is considered as one of the earliest pioneers that conferred the principles of democracy and also attracted a great deal of admiration from advocates of democracy across the globe (Ostrogorski, 1974). It also is considered that the way fundamental issues of democratic rights are celebrated in the United States- perhaps there are very few examples in the global context. However, actions of the United States presidential government structure does not always keep parity with principles of democratic observation and history of the nation contains several such examples that clearly show on several occasions democratic rights of citizens as well as people of other nations have been violated due to arbitrary actions of the United States government. The history of United States, since the post Great War II period, incorporates several instances that clearly indicates affinity of the government to rely on its military power to solve issues both at the national or international level. The presidential tenures of J.F Kenney, Nixon and George Bush (Senior and Junior) are explicit evidences in support of the observation that despite its federal-democratic governmental structure, the presidential power of the United States has always relied more on the policy of domination or occupation, and in this activism, military aggression has always remained one of the strongest weapons in hands of the American government. US engagement in the Vietnam War and the kind of arbitrariness that that government showed in contemporary times definitely left a deep, dark patch over United States’ impression as supporter of democracy. However, Saddam Hussein’s imperialist aggression against Kuwait was of such magnitude that the actual reason behind engagement of US in Persian Gulf War in 1991 remained unobserved by most of the common people and in this manner, US also recovered a great deal of “reputation that had been badly tarnished in Vietnam” (Lewis, 2007, p. 317). During the mid-80s (1883-84), while Iraq and United States were enjoying quite a flexible diplomatic relationship, within a gap of almost 5 years, such a sharp decline in such relationship definitely evoke a great deal of interest. A critical comparison between these two periods would reveal the fact that US interest to establish an oil pipeline connection from Iraq to Aqaba (a major port of Jordon) was the main reason that US diplomacy took immediate initiative to improve the relationship between these two nations (McNaugher, 1985, p. 178). The very moment Iraq shifted towards receiving aids from Soviet Union and also showed its special interest to emerge as a noticeable power among Middle Eastern nations by enhancing its military power as well as with the intention to take hold of oil resources, conflict with US became inevitable and finally leading to the Persian Gulf War. The Gulf War II that was waged in name of punishing Iraq as the source of terrorism and with the aim to disarmament of Saddam Hussein, reported of having huge stock of mass destructive weapons, can also be regarded as a tricky attempt of the United States, more specifically of the Bush (Junior) Administration so that complete control over oil resources can be ensured. However, the futility of Bush Administration to ensure such goal has clearly been laid down by Paul Roberts in following words: “Ironically, even if the United States had hoped that a post-Saddam Iraq could be a new source of oil and a solution to America’s growing oil anxieties, such hope have proven false. The inability of the U.S. occupation forces to keep oil pipelines from being blown up, to protect civilian workers from being killed or kidnapped, or to maintain anything resembling civil order have undercut efforts to restore Iraq’s oil exports, much less raise them. If anything, the war has actually made American energy security worse …” (Roberts, 2005, p. 337). The Vicious Trap: True nature of the US governance Exposed Such observation makes it quite clear that when it comes to US policy towards other nations, the government is more interested in finding out the points of its interest, rather than fighting for certain noble purpose, such as enhancing the scope for democracy. US policy towards Iraq is confusion and unclear on one hand and on the other, previous has always been interested in constructing or deconstructing its relation with the latter by focusing over the fact that whether certain amount of interest can be secured and ensuing such interests also should have been associated with retaining its superior position, compared to other competing nations within the scope of broader global economical sphere. Continuous shift of the US policy towards Iraq can be cited since the later part of the Cold War period and Iraq, always has remained one of the major factors in the US security policy making process: “Since the end of the Cold War, US security policy in the Persian Gulf has been dominated by the issue of Iraq. During the waning days of the superpower conflict, Iraq was a pawn in the great bipolar struggle for influence in the region” (Pauly, and Lansford, 2005, p. 1). Purpose of the United States did not become very successful as Iraq was more interested in keeping a close proximity with the Soviet Union and due to this reason in 1967 United States severed all sorts of diplomatic relationship with Iraq. Later on, during mid-80s, again due to its self interest to export crude oil easily from Jordon port, attempts were made to resume the relationship. Saddam’s attack over Kuwait in 1990 was another incident that clearly went against the interests of the United States; however, on this occasion, the Bush (Senior) Administration was capable of forming coalition against Saddam Hussein and also received support of several international legal institutions, including the United Nations (Pauly, and Lansford, 2005, p. 3). One of the main reasons that formation of the coalition was successful due to clear exposure of Saddam’s tyrannical approach as well as complete declaration of war against Kuwait, which definitely, was against the peace keeping policy of several international covenants. If such an attempt would have left unnoticed or unaddressed, clearly, other nations would also have capitalized over their respective disputes and consequently received an encouragement to wage war that could have led to pervasive political unrest in the global arena. Thus, Saddam’s aggressive mentality clearly provided US with the scope to assert its supremacy over Middle East and also it received a great deal of scope to strengthen its position over oil resources. However, when it came to obtaining complete control over Iraq’s social and political system, unfortunately, United States did not receive sufficient scope mainly due to oppression from other parties in the coalition: “…many states resisted US efforts to develop a unified command and control structure” (Pauly, and Lansford, 2005, p. 6); however, under ruling of the new Bush governance, more strict and adamant approaches were taken in order to ensure a complete hold over the structure. The new Bush administration argued in favor of the 11/9 massacre by suggesting that Iraq acts as a major platform for developing coalition between Al Qaeda and Taliban and unless unified efforts can be made to destroy the “Axis of Evil”, which comprises Iran, Iraq and North Korea, the impeding danger of destruction would always hover around the peace seeking nations (Pauly, and Lansford, 2005, p. 6-8). The new Bush administration, compared to the earlier one, took more power in its hand irrespective of the support from international organizations and also received sanction to “pick and choose among its allies, fashioning the moral authority of an international coalition without having to deal with the problems of the whole alliance” (Pauly, and Lansford, 2005, p. 7). Such information makes it quite clear that no matter how much the new Bush Administration has attempted to nomenclature such waging of war as an effort of counterterrorism, in reality the naked and desperate aggression of United States to secure its global supremacy has become evident. Reflecting over the speech of one Ms. Kaptur before the Speaker in US parliament under the subject “Do Not Position USA As a Common Enemy” it becomes clear that even to common people of the nation how arbitrary action of the government became evident: “…my first advice tonight is please, Mr. President, do not position the United States as the common enemy that serves as a unifying force against which all the desperate malcontents and discontents of the Middle East and Central Asia can unite. … To achieve long-term stability, U.S policy toward the Arab and Islamic world must be shaped multilaterally and affirm our nation’s belief in democratic principles. The Bush Administration’s initiatives will lead to neither. Indeed, it is positioning the U.S. to be the common enemy in a volatile region where terrorism grows with each passing decade of war and remembrance” (Kaptur, 2002, p. 19009). Conclusion: Finally it can be said that the US war over Iraq has actually been waged with the purpose of attaining certain benefits, exclusively in terms of power, both social and political, and financial prosperity. Constitutionally, the United States can be one of the major sources of democracy and also elevating its principles before the whole world. However, there always is a huge difference between theory and practice; the activism of United States, compared to its constitutional status reasserts the truth behind such observation. The lust for power and retain the position of highest supremacy in global politico-economic scenario have driven the United States governance to such an extent that it does not hesitate to exercise all forms of possibilities to their complete extent, be it waging war or through application of ever changing diplomatic foreign policy towards a nation. During the Cold War period, the close relation of proximity that was severed between US and Iraq, with the active initiative of the US turned to an extremely cordial one during the mid-80s. Soon aftermath, the moment Saddam government’s approach defied the interest of US policy towards natural source of oil, the very moment the cordiality turned into extreme hostility between these two nations and interestingly United States took the first step to worsen the situation. Just the manner Saddam Hussein’s military aggression needs to be despised, perhaps, the deceiving US policy will require to be despised in the same or even a degree more because staying within the noble masquerade of democracy the United States, perhaps, has acted as the most fertile source of encouraging the evil of autocracy. References Kaptur, Ms. (October 3, 2002). “Do Not Position USA as a Common Enemy”. Congressional Record. Washington D.C: Government Printing Office. Lansford, T. and Pauly, R.J. (2005). Strategic preemption: U.S. foreign policy and the second Iraq war. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Lewis, Adrian R. (2007). The American culture of war: the history of U.S. military force from World War II to Operation Iraqi Freedom. London: CRC Press. McNaugher, Thomas L. (1985). Arms and oil: U.S. military strategy and the Persian Gulf. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press. Ostrogorski, M. (1974). Democracy and the party system in the United States. New Hamprshire: Ayer Publishing. Randall, S.J. (2005). United States foreign oil policy since World War I: for profits and security. (2nd Ed.). Montreal: McGill-Queens Press – MQUP. Roberts, Paul. (2005). The end of oil: on the edge of a perilous new world. Florida: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Read More