The Results of the US Involvement in Iraq - Research Paper Example

THE RESULTS OF THE US INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ Outline The news of America invading Iraq in the year 2003 did not shock the world. This was so because Iraq had earlier on made attempts to conquer its neighboring states and have control of the world’s biggest oil reserves. Having control over such oil reserves would have made Iraq a very powerful state in the world. At this time of the century, the cold war was still on and an attempt of Iraq to make itself an influential state of the world was not taken lightly by the world super powers. Such acts could have directly affected the major economies of the world. Nevertheless, the US invasion on Iraq has been considered as one of the most momentous and controversial foreign policy decisions that have ever been made by the American government. Different scholars and political analysts of the world have been divided over the explanation of the American war on Iraq. With a group of them agreeing that it was necessary to maintain world peace by silencing Iraq while the other group finds it unnecessary and a war that had a different motive than just maintaining the world peace. Today, effects of American presence in this country and the impacts of the invasion are still evident. It would be observed that the leadership in Iraq was transformed from dictatorship to democracy a government where the Iraqi citizens had more influence on policies of the government. Also, the presence of America in Middle East helped contain the major militant gangs of the world; Taliban and Al-Qaida; a great step towards uplifting the lives of the different citizens of Iraq and Middle East. But did this solve the Iraqi problem of leadership? Was the government established Democratic? Did this end terror in the region? Iraqi together with several other nations of Middle East today is perceived to be home to the most brutal and dangerous militia group in the world-ISIS. This brutal group has continued to violate the universality of the human rights as stipulated under the UN Human Right Convention of 1948. Now, do we blame America for going in Iraq or do we blame the extremists in Iraq? These are few of the questions that linger in the minds of many individuals today. The truth is that America has had a stake in what is happening in Iraq and the presence of America in Iraq is what has resulted to both the emergence of al-Maliki system of governance and the rise of militia groups in Iraq. This research paper seeks to establish the effects of America presence in Iraq and its influence on the emergence of al-Maliki governance and militia groups in Iraq. Introduction In the past two years, different scholars of the world have highly linked the presence of US in Middle East with the rise of the ISIS terror group in the region that has claimed lives of thousands of civilian in this part of the world. US began its operations in Iraq in the year 2003 and ended the operations in the year 2011 after being satisfied that the Iraq had a stable government that never needed any support and could run on its own1. The main objective of the American operation in Iraq was to neutralize a major threat to national security. It is believed that the Iraqi president of the time Saddam Hussein had severally threatened to use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the US and other states of the world if they stood on his way. To protect its citizens as well as other nations of the world, the US government had to neutralize this threat. It did so by capturing the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein who was later executed by an international court for crimes against humanity in the year 20062. Saddam was captured when he was still the president of Iraq but his execution was delayed until 2006 when Iraq had a new leader-al Maliki who signed for the execution of Hussein. Amongst other things, Saddam was highly associated with the terrorist groups Al-Qaida and Taliban that had for long dominated Middle East and orchestrated a bomb attack on US soil in the year 2001 and also involved in several other bombing of US embassies in other parts of the world especially in Africa3. America went in Iraq believing that by capturing and eliminating Saddam’s regime in the country and would bring peace to people of Iraq and other parts of Middle East since Saddam was perceived to be one of the greatest sympathizers of the Al-Qaida and Talliban groups4. It is even believed that Hussein had allowed Al-Qaida leaders to operate from Northern part of Iraq. But did America really bring peace to Iraq or did this make Iraq even more vulnerable to crimes against humanity? Not long ago after America exited Iraq in 2011, another major terrorist group resurfaced. A terror group that has been perceived to be even more dangerous than the popular Talliban and Al-Qaida were. Within no time, ISIS has made its presence felt by the world5. It has brutally executed citizens loyal to the Iraqi government and brought a lot of bloodshed to the neighboring countries. Such major crime against humanity is what has once again caught the attention of the international community. In this present day, America under Obama’s presidency has declared war on the militant group-ISIS and sworn to fight alongside the Iraqi and Syrian government in putting an end to these inhuman acts and its dominance in the region. The fall of the Reign of Saddam Hussein People of Iraq consider the reign of Saddam Hussein as what shaped the country’s military and economic dominance in the region in the 1980s and 1990s6. Even though many agree that he was not perfect as a leader and his system of governance was dictatorial, during his reign there were no civil wars Iraq. Iraq had good relations with other countries of the world and even the US. At one time, the US government backed Saddam Hussein’s war on Iran in 1980. However, different scholars of the world argue that the US had backed Iraqi’s war on Iran in 1980 only because they perceived Iran as a threat to the world peace. The Iraqis on the other hand felt that Iran was creating dominance in the region. At this time therefore, America and Iran had as common enemy. America therefore supported Iraq in all means possible; weapons, financial resources and even intelligence7. Iraq fought Iran in a war that lasted for eight years and perceived as the longest conventional war in the history of the 20th century8. Nevertheless, the war ended in 1988 after UN intervened on the matter and both sides signed and agreed on terms to cease fire. The war had a direct impact on Iran and as expected, it was weakened. Threat neutralized. Iraq on the other hand took this as an achievement and even craved for more power in the region. After silencing Iran, Saddam further moved on to preoccupy Kuwait which by then was among the largest producer of oil in the world since Iran and Iraq were so much into war than production of oil. Saddam reason for invading Kuwait was that Kuwait was stealing Iraqis oil through underground shafts9. These claims were disputed by many and perceived as practically impossible. It is believed that Saddam invaded Kuwait since Kuwait at this time highly influenced the world’s prices on oil. Further, his government owed Kuwait a debt that he was not willing to pay back10. With Saddam in control of Kuwait, he was in control of all the oil reserves in the country. He was practically sitting over the largest oil reserves in the world. The international community was concerned of Saddam’s whereabouts in Kuwait and what he really intended to do with the oil reserves. Hussein had already revealed his hunger for power and having control of such oil reserves could have made him even more powerful than the west11. America could not wait to see his real intentions with his new proclaimed power. They moved quickly to contain him. The UN troops led by the US soldiers directly fought the Iraq soldiers in what is referred to as the Gulf War in the history of the world. Six hundred Kuwait oil reserves were set ablaze by the Iraqi soldiers during this particular war12. This mission was successful. The UN troops led by the American soldiers rescued Kuwait from the hands of Hussein and restored the autonomy of this state. After this invasion, America felt the need to contain Iraq and closely observed its operations. The international community was also for the idea since the actions of Saddam Hussein at this time were highly questionable. Also, there was fear that if Saddam was not punished for his actions against Kuwait, he would strike again. It was feared that Saddam’s next targets were Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations in Middle East. It was therefore perceived that Saddam was seeking control the oil producing countries so that he will be able to control the western economies. America invasion on Iraq after the Kuwait saga marked the beginning of US war on Iraq13. However, US did not immediately make a move on Iraq since there was still no reason to do so. After the Gulf War, the US troops were never evacuated from Kuwait. Somebody had to keep an eye on Saddam and his troops. For more than eight years, America never found a reason to invade Saddam and make him pay for his actions both in Kuwait and in his own country. However, after the September attack on the American soil that was linked to the terror groups- Al-Qaida and Taliban which were highly linked to Saddam, America found that reason why Saddam was supposed be silenced once and for all. The US government believed that Iraq was financing the terrorist groups that directly threatened the national peace America and greatly violated the universality of the human rights14. Also, America accused the Iraq government for reviving its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs what was perceived against the United Nations formalities. Further, the US was concerned that the Iraq government had used these WMD against its own people-the Kurds and against its neighbors-Iran15. To them, this was enough evidence that Iraq would not hesitate to use these weapons against America or any other nation of the world that stood on its way. The US therefore declared that there was need to terminate such states and the militia groups such as Al-Qaida and Talliban for the well being of America as a nation and the people of the world. However, these reasons that led to US invasion on Iraq have in the past been criticized by different scholars of the world for being baseless and mere lies. Scholars and political analyst lead the discussion on this particular issue and have accused America for having no basis to attack Iraq with some feeling that America had a different agenda on this matter. It is absolutely against the international laws and a complete violation of the human rights when a country launches attacks on another sovereign state for suspecting its involvement in terrorist activities on its soil. Justification of such actions requires substantial evidence not just hearsay and rumors. Closely analyzing the reasons America gave for the need to end the regime of Saddam Hussein; one will find adequate traces of malice. If at all Saddam had the access to the weapons of mass destruction (WMD), why then did he not use them against the American troops in the Gulf War of 1991? And if he really used these weapons on his people and against Iran, why have there been no cases of massive deaths in Iraq or Iran? Some other countries of the world under the United Nations; China, Russia Germany and France really opposed the military action against Iraq. These countries argued that if at all Iraq was in possession of the said weapons; it was just a single country that could be peacefully disarmed and contained without any military action what would result in damage to the country and its citizens16. May be Saddam was in possession of the WMDs and maybe he was not in possession of the weapons. The US and its close allies anyway rallied and matched their troops to Iraq in the year 2003. Approximately 380, 000 troops were sent to Iraq. These troops were sent to Iraq with only one goal and mission to complete; to hunt down Saddam Hussein, his sons and his followers17. Some Iraq soldiers and allied groups to Saddam tried to put up resistance but the US and the Britain forces were practically too strong for them. In just less than one year, the resisting groups were crushed and Saddam was apprehended in December 2003 and transferred to US where he was to face justice for his crimes18. He was convicted for several offences amongst them, killing of innocent civilians and was sentenced to be hanged together with his close associates. What caught the attention of the different political analyst and scholars of the world is the fact that Saddam was convicted for crimes against humanity; brutal killing of the Iraqi citizens but not by use of the WMDs. Also, after the American troops ransacked the entire Iraq, they found no traces of the WMDs as earlier on stipulated. Post-Saddam Iraq and the rise of al-Maliki After the end of Saddam’s regime, the American government had to set up an occupational structured government in Iraq to help the country heal from the brutality of the Saddam’s reign. Surprisingly, immediate sovereignty of Iraq was not realized in the country even after the fall of Saddam Hussein. America had to first partner with the local administration to continue running the affairs of the Iraqi government and mainly focused the attention of the new government to development projects19. First, the American government rallied a number of the local individuals with varying ethnicities and origins in the efforts towards establishing an interim government in the country. An Iraqi governing Council (IGC) was established in the year 2003 that was mandated to run the Iraqi ministries. The governing council was established in a way that it struck an ethnical balance between the main tribes of Iraq. Even though the council was dominated by the major Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs and the minority formed a subsequent section of this governing council20. The former regime’s military personnel in the reign of Saddam Hussein were never called back to service since this would have raised questions from the side which was never represented in the Saddam’s regime. This would have therefore created doubts of the new form of government. America wanted to develop a government where everyone in Iraq was well represented hence such acts had no room of incorporation. America had earlier on announced that the sovereignty of Iraq was to be handed back in the year 2004 upon establishing a new government and implementing a new constitution in the country21. However, following several hardships in establishing the new government, the US handed back the sovereignty of the state back to the Iraqi citizens but further stayed in Iraq and continued to support the government until the year 2011. A new constitution was developed and implemented in the country in the year 2004 and the first democratic election was held in the year 2005 where the Iraqi citizens exercised their freedom of selecting the leaders of their choice. Participation in free and fair elections further enhanced unity between the different tribes in the country. In the election that was held in the year 2005, a Transition National Assembly (TNA) was elected to office. Most of the Iraqis citizens participated in the election but the Sunni Arabs boycotted the elections for they were bitter of the fact that US had invaded their nation and was helping them establish a government22. This helped the Shiite Arabs in partnership with the Kurds dominate the seats in the national government. However, in the general elections held in December the same year, The Shiite- United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) won the elections but could not earn a two-third majority needed to establish a government as per the constitution. The minority groups unanimously agreed that Nuri al-Maliki to replace Jafari as the Prime Minister of country23. This led to the birth of al-Maliki governance in Iraq. Having fled a death sentence handed to him by the Saddam Hussein’s regime, al-Maliki had become quite popular in Iraq24. Following his rise to power in 2006, al-Maliki promised to crack a whip on the militant groups in Iraq that operated outside the law something that further boosted his support from the west. After a while, in several occasions, al-Maliki openly criticized the American and British forces in what he stated as ‘lack of respect for the native citizens’25. Slowly by slowly, Maliki was beginning to run away from the democracy he had promised to uphold in the country. In the 2006 for example, he imposed a ban on the Iraqi television channels that were showing images of bloodshed in the country26. This largely constrained the freedom of the media. He further looked reluctant on fighting Sunni militia in the country and even started criticizing the efforts of the Americans in fighting the militant groups. By the year 2008, Maliki had adequately stopped making efforts in the transparency of the government operations. He started even firing senior generals in the army and using the Iraqi armed forces to clear political opposition in the country27. In the year 2010, al-Maliki sought a second term in office. Following the political deals he had struck with various prominent political leaders in the country, he easily cruised to victory. He established a full government this time. He was facing less opposition too since he had managed to rally the different political leaders behind him. However, in the year 2011 following arrest of a Sunni politician who was also the vice president of the country-Tariq al-Hashemi who was accused by the Iraqi government for orchestrating bomb attacks on Shiite supporters28. The government of al-Maliki went on to support a move to sentence Hashemi to death even though he had earlier on fled the nation and sought refuge elsewhere. Following this incidence, the Sunni Muslims and Kurdish started criticizing al-Maliki for what they termed as monopolization of power. Awakening of the militias in Iraq Following the withdrawal of the American troops from Iraq in the year 2011, a state of insurgency within in Iraq adequately escalated. Different scholars of the world argue that this state of insurgency in Iraq was continuous ever since America invaded Iraq in the year 2003 only that America was powerful enough to contain it. Now that America had departed, the Sunni militant groups adequately stepped up their game in targeting the majority Shia’s in a move to undermine the present government and proving to the citizens that the government was incapable of protecting its native citizens without the support of the American29. This particularly led to eruption of a civil war in the country. In the year 2012, thousands of Iraqis took to the streets to dispute the actions of al-Maliki against the vice-president al-Hashemi and other powerful Sunni leaders. The protesters accused the government of al-Maliki for marginalizing certain Arab communities in Iraq. In the year, 2013, a series of attacks and assassinations followed in Iraq with both sides fiercely attacking each other30. The conditions continued to worsen to a point where the Iraq soldiers could open fire on a crowd of civilians who were demonstrating in the streets. Series of more coordinated attacks followed in the major cities that resulted in massive loss of lives and destruction of property. The Iraqi soldiers were frequently ambushed buy heavily gunmen and killed instantly31. No one was safe in Iraq even the journalist in media offices in Baghdad were attacked and stabbed to death by some unknown assailant32. All that America had helped the Iraq nation build and restore was brought down to scatters within months. Following heavy confrontations between the Iraqi armed forces and the militia groups in the region, the country’s economic status continued to further deteriorate. Government officers and ministers have continued to resign. Hundreds of residents and security forces continued to lose their lives following the deadly bombing and shooting incidents in the different parts of the country33. This civil war that has hit Iraq from the year 2011 has been perceived as the deadliest in the history of Iraq. As per the year 2014, the death tolls in Iraq were estimated to be between 130,000 and 150, 000. These numbers are believed to continue rising following the eruption of the Syrian civil war. This has made the civil war in Iraq to no longer be perceived as a state of insurgency in Iraq but a regional war that not only involves Iraq, Iran and Syria fighting the extremist group-ISIS but also a large force of the Western forces that have intervened the situation34. The international community has largely accused the governments of Syria and Iraq, the ISIS and the opposing forces of serious crimes against humanity where the massacre has not only been orchestrated through bombing and shooting but also through use of chemical weapons35. Both the government of Syrian government and Iraq are accused for being responsible for a number of bombing that has claimed lives of dozens of civilians. Also, thousands of protestors in the two countries are believed to have imprisoned by the governments and severely tortured in state prisons. The Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) together with other terror groups such as Salafist-jihadist and Sunni nationalists have rallied the opposition against the al-Maliki government. Activists of the world argue that even with the removal of the ISIS, the al-Maliki government would not survive the brutality of the Iraqi Sunnis if their concerns continue to be neglected by the Iraqi government36. It I also believed that most of these anti-government groups in Iraq have been active following the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime and have just been lying low until al-Maliki government started to oppress the Sunni Arabs and practice sectarian command. Conclusion As America and its close allies fight down ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it is important that they keep in mind that fighting ISIS alone will never solve the problem in Iraq. Even with a complete demolition of the ISIS, it will only take a month or two to see yet another militant group emerge in Iraq to fill in the vacuum left and further steer the Sunni insurgency in the country. How then can a lifetime solution to the insurgency situation in Iraq be established? One thing to note is that when America first invaded Iraq in the year 2003 and ended the reign of Saddam Hussein, a void was created since Saddam was perceived to be a very influential Arab leader in the region. In creation of a void, there resulted in separate regrouping of different terror groups. These groups bought enough time to be ready to go to war with the government that was to be established by the US government in the region. Also, it is important to note the fact that al-Maliki reign seems to be punishing the Sunnis may be because they dominated power during the reign of Saddam Hussein. A permanent solution to such a problem will only be realized if first the Iraqi government addresses the political concerns of the Sunnis. This will help the government of Iraq win back the trust of the Sunnis and further remove the internal rebellion. This will further enable the Iraqi government and its international supporters to easily fight ISIS in the country and in the region. In a nutshell, the al-maliki system of governance and the presence of militias in the country can very well be linked to the US operations in Iraq and if only the US government did not intervene the reign of Saddam Hussein, al-Maliki would have never risen to power and the militias in Iraq would not be hunting him down. America therefore helped create a monster and that why they are helping to contain it. Bibliography Hale, William M. 2007. Turkey and Iraq: The Historical Background, 1918-80. In Turkey, the US and Iraq, 11-29. London: Saqi. Irish Examiner. 2014. The US involvement in Iraq: Did they make a difference? (Aug 29, 2014). http://search.proquest.com/docview/1561490916?accountid=15192 (Accessed February 26, 2015). Katzman, Kenneth.2009. Iraq Post-Saddam Governance and Security. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Lukitz, Liora. 1995. Iraq : The Search for National Indentity. Frank Cass Publishers. The Christian Science Monitor.1990. Effects of US involvement in iraq affair. (Sep 12, 1990).http://search.proquest.com/docview/291183424?accountid=15192 (Accessed February 26, 2015). Sanders, Katie. 2014. ALL ABOUT IRAQ, ISIS. Tampa Bay Times. (Jun 29, 2014). http://search.proquest.com/docview/1541538042?accountid=15192 (Accessed February 26, 2015). Read More