It is so tragic to realize that just about all the dire predictions I made in 2002 and early 2003 about the consequences of a US invasion of Iraq have been fulfilled– and then some. So many of us worked so hard to try to avert that quite foreseeable and indeed foreseen disaster.
The harmful effects of this war on the peoples of Iraq and the Middle East are still continuing, day after day after day. And they will continue so long as the US military continues to stay there, continually sowing its seeds of divide-and-rule and distrust, and continually pumping into the country both military tools and a militarized mindset. The moment a US President states clearly that he or she intends to pull the US troops out of Iraq completely, defines the timetable within which s/he will achieve that, and calls on the UN to convene the negotiating processes– at the intra-Iraqi level, and at the regional level– required for this to happen in a calm and orderly way, then the dynamic in the country and in the region will change.
It is quite unrealistic (and therefore quite dishonest) for any US leader or official to claim at this point that the US on its own can “control” the modalities of its own exit. But exit there must be– primarily for the good of the Iraqis, whose sufferings over the past five years have been vast; but also for the good of the US and for many other actors.
If this whole, grisly tragedy has had a “silver lining”– and I hesitate even to raise the idea this might be so– then that is that surely it has amply demonstrated to the US citizenry and the world, once again, that military power on its own, however technically “awesome” (and shocking), is in the modern world quite insufficient as a means to securing strategic goals of any significance.
I had hoped that US citizens might have learned this from the war they waged on Vietnam in earklier decades? Or from the outcome of Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon? But no. The curve of learning of actual, useful strategic lessons– as opposed to those that are handily “packaged” in Power Point slideshows by the arms manufacturers and their armies of well-paid cheerleaders in the think-tanks and academe– seems notably flat, or perhaps even downward-trending over time.
That is tragic. But let’s try to make sure that this time around, the “Lessons from the failure of US military power in Iraq” are properly learned and properly (and irreversably) integrated into the practice and planning of the US government. That is: we need a drastic redirection of resources from military hardware, military “preparedness”, and global power-projection capabilities into supporting all the many tools of diplomacy and international cooperation that already exist, and some new ones that we should now work with the rest of the world to build from scratch.
We Americans certainly need to have a big and ongoing national conversation about these matters in the months ahead. My book, Re-engage! America and the World After Bush addresses them, and will be published on May 15. (The website associated with the book, which has order forms for it and a lot of associated information, will be published within the next couple of days… Watch this space for the announcement.)
But as our Black Iraqiversary approaches again this year, I think we should all make an effort to showcase and engage with what Iraq’s citizens themselves feel about the occasion, and about their current situation.
Here is a short, tautly ironic commentary from “Correspondent Laith” oin McClatchy’s “Inside Iraq” blog today. It starts off thus:
- In the few coming days, we will say good bye to the fifth year since freedom and liberation visited Iraq . For this great anniversary, I want to count some great democratic changes that happened during the five years of freedom and democracy.
1- The most important change is killing and displacing more than three million Iraqis. I think the record of Saddam had been broken long time ago. Now we have Iraqis all over the world even in some places that I never heard about till this moment…
Here is how the International Committee of the Red Cross describes the humanitarian crisis that Iraq is experiencing:
- Five years after the outbreak of the war in Iraq, the humanitarian situation in most of the country remains among the most critical in the world. Because of the conflict, millions of Iraqis have insufficient access to clean water, sanitation and health care. The current crisis is exacerbated by the lasting effects of previous armed conflicts and years of economic sanctions.
Despite limited improvements in security in some areas, armed violence is still having a disastrous impact. Civilians continue to be killed in the hostilities. The injured often do not receive adequate medical care. Millions of people have been forced to rely on insufficient supplies of poor-quality water as water and sewage systems suffer from a lack of maintenance and a shortage of engineers.
The ICRC website also has many other useful resources on the humanitarian situation inside Iraq. Among them is this short recollection by Roland Huguenin, who was spokesman for the ICRC delegation in Baghdad in March 2003.
The problem is not finding the best ways to secure US strategic goals but the goals themselves. The US seeks global political, military and economic hegemony. It does not seek to achieve peace, brotherhood and progress in compliance with the United Nations Charter.
If any of us terrorized our neighborhood they way the US terrorizes the world we would rightfully be arrested, and claiming that we were only trying to achieve our personal goals would hardly be accepted. The good of the community would be paramount.
It’s quite popular for politicians to promote American Exceptionalism. We are not going to allow foreigners to determine what’s best for the United States, particularly after we were attacked on 9/11. The US is threatened by Islamic Radicals, that’s obvious, and by golly we’re going to enlarge the military, expand the Pentagon budget, and show them who’s boss in the world (and make some money doing it). It’s a win-win, and preaching about lessons-learned (unfortunately) isn’t needed.
A lot of Americans are moving to Mexico. Who needs the stress?
Helena,
Re-engage! America and the World After Bush
Dear Helena we appreciate your motivations about Iraq with all what you did and doing.
Although GWB most of us if not all criticism him for all things went wrong from day one but I still have personal believe GWB was misled by people who went in Iraq from Paul Bremer to some high military commander and intelligence personal for some reason I don’t know, what we saw all blams to GWB for all what went wrong.
As for “We Americans certainly need to have a big and ongoing national conversation” the stake is high and I believe there are no much we can expected from Americans without GWB and whoever come to WH.
Andrew Sullivan in his blog tell us what he heard from close guys in Wessington DC:
So if we take US position about Cuba despite what Cuba regime is for Nine US administration none of them changing US position against a country and regime, although the regime had good things and bad things but US still holding unbelievably its position for so long.
So back to Iraq after five years of chaos most of Americans get to believe that the surge make big difference in US war and in Iraq and here you got one presidential candidates prizing the surge, but do you know what the reality really is inside Iraq after the surge?
Here we got some of the reality by Damien McElroy in Baghdad
And This by Patrick Cockburn:
.
Furthermore Vice President Dick Cheney in ME tour to push for more diplomatic ties with Iraq proxy government, in same time the Iraq proxy government top guys Nouri Maliki he can not move in his city two miles with this disastrous life again with Patrick Cockburn:Iraq is a country no more. Like much else, that was not the plan
Contrast Huguenin’s observations about the suffering in Baghdad on March 19, 2003, with this recent NYT puff piece by John Burns: “On that hotel roof were experienced Western foreign correspondents, men and women for whom impartiality was their coda.. . .But from that first impact, among many on the roof, the mood was scarcely one of cool detachment, or at least not as cautioned as it might have been by the longer-term implications of what we were seeing. Part of it, no doubt, was the air show — the sheer, astonishing, overwhelming demonstration of power, more like an act of God than man, unleashing in those watching from the roof something approaching awe.”
Most of America is “on the hotel roof” isolated from the suffering caused with their money and in their name by criminals who, Nurnberg-style, should be hanged. Call it an act of God and even experienced correspondents might be awed.
It is clear to me that everyone is tired in this conflict in Iraq. Five years, you can’t continue for ever. Everyone is tired, the US troops, as the Iraqis. I have no doubt that Stiglitz’s analysis ($3 trillion) will lead to new thoughts in Washington, perhaps not before the inauguration in January 2009.
This war reminds me of the Thirty Years war in the 17th century. Both sides were exhausted, a catastrophe for both sides. A decision was finally made (not the case in Iraq), and Germany was wrecked for two centuries.
The next US president will cut back in Iraq, whatever McCain may say, and the Iraqis will agree to a symbolic continued US presence, but not a real one. More a figleaf.
That’s the basis on which I’m planning my future research in Iraq, which I suspect will not be more than a couple of years away.
I wish I can do to ask each single one of Iraqis who was in that big day what they think now after five years?
Never mind its been known for now that Iraqis they murdered brutally King Faisal II with most his family members also same Iraq who killed first President Colonel Abdul Karim Qassim showed him on TV some those standing in front of his dead body spiting on his face, finally those who dancing under Saddam whiled he hanged,
” Qassim’s Last Moments:
Abdul Kareem Qassim was brought to the Broadcast Building on February 8, 1963 by ten of his opponents. He was not awarded fair trial in the same manner it was exercised when he took power in 1958. Qassim was executed at noon on February 9th, 1963.
The names and fate of the Iraqis who ruthlessly murdered Adbul Kareem Qassim are as follows:
1. Abdus~Sattar Abdullateef, died in early 2005 in Spain.
2. Abdus~Salam Aref, president of Iraq after the assassination of Qassim and who died in 1966 in an airplane crash believed to be orchestrated on purpose.
3. Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr, president of Iraq from 1968 to 1979, who was, believed to be, killed by orders from Saddam Hussein.
4. Hardan At~Tikreeti, Minister of Defense who was killed by the Baathist secret intelligence in Kuwait.
5. Ali Salih As~Saadi, Deputy Prime Minister, died of sickness with rumors of being poisoned.
6. Hazim Jawad, lived in the UAE and currently living in London. His memoirs have been published in al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper.
7. Talib Hussein Shabeeb, was a Foreign Minister & Iraqi Ambassador, then joined the Iraqi opposition against Saddam Hussein. He died in 2004.
8. Hani al-***aiky, Baath member and worked in commerce, later joined the Iraqi opposition against Saddam. He died of cancer in 2000.
9. Saleh Mahdi Ammash, Baath member, whose last post was Iraq’s
ambassador in Sweden. He was, believed to be, poisoned in Sweden by orders from Saddam Hussein.”
In all these death scenarios Iraqis were regretted their acts, they wishing they not done it, but no return.
When we look to Iraq and the political problems its clear that Iraq neighbours were the motive and fiddling with prospect stable Iraq, during King Faisal II Syria joined with Nasser’s Egypt formed the United Arab Republic two weekend later the king killed.
As before Abdul Kareem Qassim faced trebles from Nasser’s Egypt and later Kuwaiti when he tried to take Kuwaiti.
Finally Saddam make all neighbors united to bring Iraq to its knees off course with the Big Brother
The distraction chaos and instability looks the Iraq and Iraqis gift in this world.
Where are they now? The faces of the Iraq war five years on
The Iraq war has done all it was meant to do, it was just one element in the plan to bring down America as part of the globalization process, and doing so just happened to serve another purpose and let us get a large force in the region and control the oil.
In order to to officially Globalize us, America had to be discredited globally and at home, by shattering the illusion that we are a benevolent superpower who was the global policeman protecting freedom, justice and human rights. Good job. Our living standards also had to be lowered, which free trade and the financial 9/11 underway have done and is doing, so we could be comfortably merged with the rest of the world.
Go back and research the quotes from those Trilateral Commiss*on members from the 1970’s about our future standard of living, the dollar, globalization, etc. Volcker, Kissinger, Brzezinski, etc.
Globalization = One World Government, and the US has to give up it’s sovereignty and wealth for this to happen. The nations in the EU are already having it forced on them and they will also suffer a reduction in living standards after they stamp out their social welfare system.
Thats why all the police state preparations since 2001 in Europe and the US, it’s not about the terrorists over there they worry about, it’s about what Americans and Europeans will do when they figure things out, if they ever do. We are their terrorists. Kissinger was reported to have said in the 2007 Bild*rberger meeting that “in America we consider those who are against globalization to be the terrorists”. Months later the Homegrown Terrorism Act was introduced.
After the coming financial collapse, maybe during it, there will be a call for a global central bank that controls a global currency to replace the dollar. Once they have that, it’s all over, and over time we will be merged into one world government, not a Democracy, but some form of fasc*st republic of regional unions.
They might need a war to get Russia and China on board if they resist. The trigger points will be Kosovo and/or Iran, and will likely be nuclear.
The one World government will of course be run by the same people in power today in Europe and the US, some in government, some not. Nationalism is dead to them, they are not content to control a single nation, they want the world.
So cry about Iraq, but it’s like crying about a tree that has been cut down when a forest fire is approaching. And yes, it is a conspiracy.
The next US president will cut back in Iraq, whatever McCain may say, and the Iraqis will agree to a symbolic continued US presence, but not a real one. More a figleaf.
I don’t think so. It seems to be taboo to mention it, but the reason the USA is in Iraq is “oil”. And “oil” is the reason they will stay in Iraq (in a real sense, not symbolically), whether the president is McCain, Obama or Clinton.
After all, power is based on economy, and economy is fuelled by oil, and any conceivable American administration is determined to keep the US the dominant power on earth. If you want to be the dominant power on earth (and all major candidates are dedicated to keeping the USA the dominant power on earth), you cannot afford to leave Iraq, because Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. Controlling these reserves today is even more important than it ever was before, because peak oil is nearing, and oil will become even more precious than it is now.
There’s not even a real debate in the USA about leaving Iraq. Some talk about “reducing” the number of “combat troops”, but of course that’s in the expectation that a reduced number of troops will be enough to control Iraq. And for the rest, almost all politicians in Washington agree: Iraq will be garrisoned, and American interests will be protected (though the main interest is never mentioned, because the “O” word is taboo).
“The next US president will cut back in Iraq, whatever McCain may say, and the Iraqis will agree to a symbolic continued US presence, but not a real one. More a figleaf.”
Not bloody likely! Clinton and Obama are hoping to reduce the military presence in Iraq to a degree that will take it off the radar for most Americans most of the time, byt symbolic? A fig leaf? Oh no! There will be tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, and their presence will be far more than symbolic.
One of staff in Washington said, that the war in Iraq will make more profit in USA. Although millions of people displaced as well as died and are dying the aim of washington is to milks both blood and oil from Iraq and any places that they can able to expand their empire.It is now for all leaders to watch for this evils empire from misslead their countries.
Five years of the US war in Iraq
war in Iraq will make more profit in USA.
Five Years Creates Factory of Death in Iraq, Industrial Style Factory
Not bloody likely!
I don’t often disagree with Shirin, but I do here, and with Menno Hert. I entirely agree it is US desire and policy, of all candidates, to stay in Iraq. I was talking about what they may be forced to do by the economic recession.
Of course, I am not an economist, so I am not well-placed to estimate honestly how far the recession may run. But I have the impression it will be very serious. And Stiglitz said that Iraq is the most expensive US war after WWII. I think a time will come when they are forced to cut back.
The problem in Iraq is that there is no halfway house. It is either full occupation by force – which implies a garrison of the present-day size – or you get out. The imaginings of the presidential candidates, all of them, of the “South Korean” scenario, 30,000 in a friendly environment, is pie-in-the-sky fantasy. It is the one solution that is impossible, and will never be possible.
That is why I say the best the US can hope for, to maintain the facade of success, is a figleaf, a small symbolic force, like the Brits in Basra, around whom Iraqi politics will swirl.
Of course, if all the optimistic official minimising of the economic crisis turns out to be the truth, and the economy re-expands strongly, then maybe the candidates will be free to do what they want. But I doubt it.
What I suspect will happen is that when the next president gets into office, and gets to see the books, the real state of affairs, he or she will be shocked to the core. And say, Whoa! we have to put a stop to this. Of course, a stop would not be done openly, or there might be another additional catastrophe, such as an attack on Iran, before then, to cover up a cut-back in Iraq. Lots of different ways it might happen.
What is wrong, is to suggest that US presidents are all-powerful. They are not.