The War in Iraq Was Wrong on Many Fronts - Case Study Example

War in Iraq: A Misguided Mission That Must be Completed 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 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, such as Rhode Island Senator Joe Biden, a democrat, admit that leaving would be a catastrophic mistake that would plunge the entire region into chaos which would ultimately heighten the chance for another terrorist attack on the U.S. American interests should always be unambiguously defined. An understanding of both the potential and limits of military intervention must be clearly understood. If not, situations such as the current Iraq debacle and its peripheral consequences including an increase of global terrorism and the growing hatred of America will continue. A vast disparity exists between America’s perceived capacity to wage war and its actual capability to twist events in accordance with its ambitions. The potential military power and technological edge the U.S. has over all other nations is not in dispute, however, because it spends more for defense than nearly all of the other nations of the world combined. “An $11 trillion economy that facilitates enormous technological prowess and a defense budget that exceeds the combined total of the next 25 powers should leave no doubt about the potential of the United States.” (Olney, 1990 p.78) War produces change and if applied in an appropriate situation can prove to be effective, but if applied incorrectly will lead to disastrous consequences. The current Iraq War proves this point. (Ignatieff, 2000 p. 26). Although inflexible guidelines for engagement are impractical, political leaders must recognize that objectives must match the cost, whether counted by deaths, credibility or other peripheral circumstances. U.S. political leaders must also resolve to use military force only as a last resort or in self-defense and not simply because they have the ability. In short, they should follow the guidelines of the military itself. “Traditionally, the defense establishment has advocated military action only in cases where vital national interests are threatened and there is a clear, obtainable objective” (Ignatieff, 2000 p. 28). 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. 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 terrorist 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. “Everyone wants the troops home -- the Iraqis, the U.S., the world but no one wants a precipitous withdrawal that produces a civil war, a bloodbath, nor a wider war in an unstable Mideast” according to Vietnam veteran and CNN analyst Maj. Don Shepperd who also addresses America’s image to friends and foes alike. “We do not want a U.S that is perceived as having been badly defeated in the global war on terror or as an unreliable future ally or coalition partner” (“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. More than 3500 have been killed, 25,000 wounded, about half of those very seriously. Leaving the mission in Iraq undone would be patently unfair to the soldiers who will know that their country did not support them. It would remind some of a war fought on foreign grounds not so long ago that was abandoned without a positive resolution. “This is what we did in Vietnam and it is the reason why some veterans are still having a hard time dealing with our actions there. It is only fair to the soldiers who are fighting so hard, and those who died for a free Iraq, that we finish the job we started” (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 move into the southern part of 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). 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 borders 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. Any operation of this magnitude will require sacrifices in money and blood. US soldiers are doing a great job today and they should continue. 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. Works Cited Haas, Rebekah. “Why the United States Troops Should Not Leave Iraq.” Associated Content. (February 14, 2007). November 28, 2007 Ignatieff, Michael. Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan Books. (2000).   “No safe way for U.S. to leave Iraq, experts warn.” CNN. (May 3, 2007). November 27, 2007 Olney, Richard. “Growth of Our Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 85, N. 509, (March 1990) cited in Niall Ferguson Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: The Penguin Press, 2004. Sud, Hari. “Should US stay in Iraq and make it a role model ?” South Asia Analysis Group. (April 27, 2004). November 28, 2007 U.S. Code Collection. “Title 50 Chapter 33 § 1541: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002.” Cornell Law School. (2002). November 28, 2007 Read More