Cross posted at http://www.peaceisactive.com
We are entering our fifth year of the War in Iraq.
From the research I have done, this is what seems to be happening in Iraq and throughout the Middle East:
History
In order to understand the War in Iraq, we need to understand some history.
We have been involved in the Middle East for a long time. Our primary goal over the decades has been access to oil. We have supported dictatorships in Sunni countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. The leaders of these countries have grown rich and powerful by selling oil to Americans while limiting the rights of their populations.
Many people in these countries are not happy with the US supported dictatorships. One area where the dictatorships have less control is religion. This has made religion a place for dissent in the Middle East.
In the 1980's, the United States supported a plan to train religious dissidents from these Sunni countries to fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. With the help of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, religious fundamentalists were trained to fight and were supplied with lots of money and weapons. One of the leaders of the religious fundamentalists was Osama bin Laden.
When the war in Afghanistan was over, the religious fundamentalists turned their attention back to overthrowing the US supported dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. The attacks of 9/11 was a part of this plan as Osama bin Laden thought it was necessary to strike at the supporters of the Sunni dictatorships.
The United States attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11. Al Qaeda was still using some of the stinger missiles and mountain bases that were supplied in part by US tax money. Al Qaeda retreated to the tribal areas of Pakistan where the United States has had difficulty pursuing them.
Al Qaeda still has a goal of replacing US supported dictatorships with their own religious dictatorships.
With the war against Al Qaeda at a stalemate, the Bush Administration decided to attack Iraq.
More History
In 1953, The United States organized the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. http://en.wikipedia....
The basic reason for the overthrow was that the Iranian government had nationalized their oil resources and didn't allow western companies to access their oil. The United States and Britain installed a new dictator who opened the Iranian oil fields to western companies.
After many years of the US supported dictator in Iran, the religious fundamentalists revolted and took over the Iranian government in 1979. This was when the US embassy was ransacked and some of the embassy workers were held hostage. The new religious government of Iran nationalized the oil and kicked out the American and British oil companies.
In order to counter the new religious government in Iran, the United States supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Saddam started a war with Iran that caused many deaths. The United States and other western countires supported Saddam with intelligence and weapons because we wanted Saddam to overthrow the religious government in Iran. http://en.wikipedia....
During Saddam's war against Iran, chemical weapons were used by both sides. It has been reported that western countries such as the United States, France, and Britain helped Saddam get the materials he needed to make chemical weapons. This was done in order to give Iraq a better chance to overthrow the religious government of Iran. During one battle on the border in the northern Kurdish region, chemical weapons were used and many people in Halabja were killed. This is the incident where people say Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people.
When Saddam's war against Iran failed, the United States and other countries stopped supporting Saddam Hussein. When Saddam attacked Kuwait (with an Iraqi Army we once supported) the United States and other countires went to war to expel the Iraqi forces from Kuwait.
At the end of the first Gulf War, the United States needed to decide if they wanted to just expel Saddam's forces from Kuwait or if the war should be expanded to remove Saddam from power. The decision was made to ask the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq to rise up and try to overthrow Saddam. When the people rose up against Saddam, we didn't support them as we implied we would and Saddam was able to brutally put down the revolt as American troops stood by and watched with orders not to intervene.
Iraq and Iran both remained a problem as both countires had governments that were not allied with the United States.
In the days before 9/11, we didn't have access to oil in Iran or Iraq (except for the corrupt oil for food program in Iraq). We had access to oil from the US supported dictatorships in countries such as Saudi Arabia, but there was a growing revolt by religious fundamentalists in those countries led by groups like Al Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia....) and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (http://en.wikipedia....).
After 9/11, we attacked Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan. We drove them out of Afghanistan and soon found ourselves in a stalemate with Al Qaeda as they hide and plan more attacks in the tribal regions of Pakistan and elsewhere throughout the world.
War in Iraq
At this point, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and others saw the opportunity to use the fear and patriotism generated by 9/11 to get access to the oil in Iraq and Iran.
There was no immediate threat from Iraq, so the Bush administration used unfounded threats of chemical weapons and images of mushroom clouds to scare the American people into supporting their war to occupy Iraq and install a new government. Saddam Hussein had no connections to Al Qaeda, yet the administration continued to confuse and connect the issues of Iraq and 9/11. At the start of the War in Iraq, 67% of Americans mistakenly thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. This was a failure of our democracy, our president, and our monopoly controlled media.
When the excuses of chemical weapons and ties to Al Qaeda were shown to be faulty, the President said the real reason for going to War in Iraq was to install a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Most people agree with this goal, but don't agree with the strategy of using military force to achieve the goal. This is why the administration needed to lie to the American public in order to go to war.
No matter what the excuse was for going to war, the administration had specific goals for the war. First, we would get access to Iraq's oil and that would be very good for western consumers and also for western oil companies and investors as they would get very rich off the profits of extracting, shipping, and selling Iraqi oil. Second, Iraq would set an example of a democratic country in the Middle East. It was hoped that this would have a domino effect and spread throughout the Middle East. Third, the idea also was that once we had access to Iraq's oil, we would be in a better position to start reforms in the US supported dictatorships of Egypt and Saudi Arabia. By not being so dependent on oil from Saudi Arabia, we could push for reforms that might reduce the anger of the religious fundamentalists who want to overthrow the US supported dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The Bush Administration also thought a democratic Iraq would encourage moderates in Iran to overthrow their religious government.
What Is Happening Now In Iraq
After misleading the American public into a war of choice in Iraq, the Bush Administration failed to achieve victory and stability in Iraq. This was a huge problem because victory and stability in Iraq was the primary objective in the overall strategy as described above. This was largely due to the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush Administration. They sent too few troops and had little understanding of Iraq's society.
We invaded Iraq and decided to turn it from a Sunni dictatorship into a democracy that would be led by the Shiites who make up about 60% of Iraq's population. This is why I cringe when Democrats say we should get out because we are not there to referee a civil war in Iraq. Actually, that is exactly why we are there. The President started the civil war on purpose with his invasion and policies. He just thought we could win the civil war quickly while installing Shiite leaders who would support his goals.
Needless to say, the American troops were not greeted as liberators in the Sunni areas of Iraq. In the Kurdish and Shiite areas, the people were happy to see Saddam out of power, but they had their own ideas of how they wanted to live. The Kurds generally want to be on their own and the Shiites generally want to live according to their religious leaders who are supported by Iran.
Iraq did have elections, but they did not go so well for the United States. The Sunnis largely boycotted the elections while the Shiites voted in large numbers because their religious leaders told them it was their duty to put them into power. So while Americans were told to be proud of the purple fingers, the Administration was freaking out because our favored candidates were defeated by Shiite religous parties supported by Iran.
There now is a continuing battle for power in Iraq. The Sunnis continue their insurgency because they don't want Iraq to be led by religious Shiites who will persecute them and not give them any oil money. The Sunnis in Iraq now have around 70% unemployment in some areas causing many people to fight against the new government of Iraq.
The Americans are supporting the new Shiite government in Iraq, but we don't trust them because they are also supported by Iran. In order to protect the new religious government from the Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias such as the Mahdi Army (led by Muqtada al Sadr) and the Badr Brigades have been arming and training themselves (often with weapons from Iran) to fight against the Sunni insurgents. Shiite militia members have also been signing up for the new Iraq army to get American training and weapons.
The Kurds have largely been organizing their power in northern Iraq to create their own country. They fly their own flag and want to stay out of the battle between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. Their main issues are that they want to control the northern Iraq oil fields and also the oil rich city of Kirkuk. The neighboring country of Turkey has said they will go to war to stop the creation of a Kurdish country because the Kurdish population in Turkey will also want their own independence.
Al Qaeda has been very happy to see the United States having trouble in Iraq. They have entered Iraq to create more chaos and to try to increase the civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. They don't want a democracy to be developed in Iraq because they want to establish religious dictatorships throughout the region.
Now What?
The reality is that our troops are in the middle of a civil war that we started. There is no clear military strategy to win the civil war because Iraq's leaders must come to a political settlement. The political settlement will be difficult because some of the political settlements are not in the best interest of the United States. The question now is do we respect the decisions made by Iraqis or do we contnue to use violence to get the results we want no matter what the Iraqi people want? It also is wrong to say "the Iraqi people" because they are so diverse and at odds with each other.
The other issue is do the American people trust this President to lead our troops and our overall strategy in the Middle East? For example, I want more resources to be sent to the areas that were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina, but I don't trust the President to do it. He would probably just hire a bunch of his cronies who would steal or misuse the money while the people of the American gulf coast continue to suffer.
It is the same way in Iraq. I would like to see a world wide effort to stabalize Iraq, but this president won't let it happen because he wants to control Iraq and its resources. So the American public is stuck with paying all the costs of the war. Actually, a small number of troops and their families are paying the costs of this war while most Americans are told to go shopping or back to sleep. The Administration tries to hide the realities of the war as much as possible or they lash out at people who question their policies with attacks saying we don't support the troops or that we don't support the goal of defeating Al Qaeda.
The reality is that we all support our troops and the GOAL of defeating Al Qaeda. What we don't support is the STRATEGY being employed by this Administration and the INCOMPETENCE they show in conducting their strategy.
Other Things To Consider
Would we allow the Bush Administration to use military force to privatize social security in the United States? We used military force to privatize many of the governments and programs in South America and we can see what happened. We supported and used death squads throughout Latin and South America to support governments that would privatize their countries and open them to foreign investment. Many people died or were tortured during these terrible years. Once the countires were privatized, the rich got richer while the middle and lower classes fell on very hard times. Instead of the resources being used to build schools or infrastructure in the countires, most of the resources were extracted with the wealth going to Western companies, executives, and investors. Now there is a backlash in South America as people are rejecting the American programs while embracing nationalist leaders who want to kick the Americans, World Bank, and IMF out of their region.
Is this what we want to do again? Many of the people in the Bush Administration were present during the death squad years of South America. Some of the same people are now in Iraq giving support to Shiite death squads who attack and torture Sunni insurgents.
The Bush Administration supports war, torture, and death squads in Iraq because they think it is worth it to organized the region in a way where the people with the most money win. If money is the main value, then we will be able to purchase oil from governments we install while the people of the Middle East are threatened with death if they oppose what is happening.
I once heard a general refer to the uncontrolled areas of Iraq as "indian country" as if the war in Iraq is similar to when American forces were clearing the United States of the native people in order to expand the American nation. In a similar way, Americans were told that indians were savages who needed to be reformed and that they would kill us if we didn't get them under control. The indians were killed or pushed onto reservations so white Europeans could expand their empire and start using the land and resources. Huge capital buildings were built in "indian country" as a form of political architecture saying we're not going anywhere just as the huge embassy in Baghdad is meant to say the same thing.
So while the Administration says we need to fear everyone in the Middle East, their true intentions are the same as they were when American troops invaded and occupied the native "indian country" of the United States and it is also similar to when we supported the governments and death squads of South America. The goal is not democracy. The goal is to establish economic value as the main value throughout the world. The rich get richer while everyone else is told they don't have enough value to have basic human rights.
What Strategy?
There is another strategy available. Instead of using war and violence to impose the President's favorite value system on the world, we can use peace and diplomacy to achieve stability while we lead through example in the effort to create legitimate governments, fair markets, and healthy environments. We don't need to be fearful of Al Qaeda. Anyone can use violence to cause damage, but their ideas of religious dictatorship are not widely supported and are doomed to failure.
We can defeat both religious dictatorships and market dictatorships by being active citizens. We need to support people who understand that all of our values are required to succeed in this world. We see the success of this strategy all over the world. Millions of people who once brutalizerd each other are now living in peace.
Instead of spending $9 billion dollars a month on weapons and death squads, we could spend the money on peace projects such as clean water programs, open information systems, immunizations, etc... that have a far greater chance of success in convincing the people of the world that they should reject all forms of dictatorship.
When we faced a communist threat from the Soviet Union, we could have invaded and used nuclear weapons to impose our way of life as a strategy for achieving security. Millions of people would have died. Instead, we entered into a Cold War where blue jeans and rock and roll were effective weapons in defeating the communist ideology. The people in the Soviet Union wanted to be more like the example they saw in the western world.
The same can be true in the Middle East. If we continue to attack them, many people in the Middle East will join the religious fundamentalists to fight against us. If we lead through example and support peace projects at home and abroad, the people of the Middle East will laugh at Al Qaeda when bin Laden makes a statement that violence and religious dictatorships are the answer.
We can't abandon the people of the Middle East as we did after the first Gulf War, but we need a new strategy with peace instead of control as our goal. We need the help of people from all over the world to succeed in the Middle East. Most importantly, we need to be active in non-violent ways to set a positive example that will make both religious dictatorships and market dictatorships look rediculous as alternative options.