Since the time the United States cemented itself into a nation, it has claimed to be the shining paragon of justice and equality. For maybe a century, this lovely, idealistic claim might actually have been true. At some point after the end of the nineteenth century, however, the bright colors of American justice and equality began to fade. For over a hundred years, the US government has allowed itself to be controlled not so much by the people it represents, but mainly by the large corporations who paid them. In other words, the rich often decided who made the choices in office. Today it is well known that many politicians can be 'bought', and after the Watergate scandal and much CIA information de-classified by President Clinton, many people believe that dishonesty in politics and politicians is something to take for granted. In spite of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary, we still behave as though we are fit to call ourselves just. In the last fifty years alone, we have taken the affairs of other countries into our own hands—often at no public request for aid or succor on their part—in fact, more than any other nation, all the while using these forays to portray ourselves as the arbiters of peace and democracy. Sometimes we accomplish our goal, as in South Korea. However, sometimes we make matters much, much worse than their previous state. Take for instance our involvement in the Vietnam War. Americans asked themselves then, as they often do not now ask concerning the war in Iraq: What is our real goal? Why did America become involved in the war? Is America really capable not only of eliminating the corruptive forces in the area, but also transitioning the people into an effective form of representative government? In Viet Nam, we prolonged a very devastating, costly war, and when we abandoned that effort, the Vietnamese were left to settle their issues just as though we had never intervened. It seems to me that a similar tragedy is occurring in Iraq.
Before America ever declared war on Iraq, we sent our troops to Afghanistan soon after the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. President Bush had taken decisive action in retaliation. He went through all the motions needed to satisfy the angry and hurt American people as he acted to capture the man suspected of responsibility for the horrifying attack: Osama Bin Laden, leader of the guerrilla force known as the Taliban. We bombed the caves in the Afghani mountains, but after a period of only a few months, gave up our search in Afghanistan, although the Taliban was believed to be hidden there still.
Soon, President Bush began shouting loudly and brandishing our big stick, decrying Sadaam Hussein as an evil despot who was actively involved in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction. All the old American fears of nuclear warfare came rushing back, very similar to our fears of the advance of Communism during the Viet Nam era, and America declared war on Iraq. "American missiles hit targets in Baghdad in the early hours of March 20, 2003, marking the start of the campaign to remove the Iraqi leader."
Among the common people of America, Osama Bin Laden was all but forgotten. In an amazing propaganda coup, The World Trade Center and the Two Towers began to evoke only further rage towards the Iraqi people, who did not have anything to do with the devastating event. Suddenly the common person was blaming everything on Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government. We declared war not only on Iraq, but, according to President Bush, on Terror. Publicly, we begin to hold Iraq responsible for our own terror resulting from the Twin Towers' bombing. Why?
The most available answer is that President Bush wanted to act to stop terrorism; to take a stand against the unjust practices of Saddam Hussein in Iraq; to free the Iraqi people from an often-lethal dictatorship and to help them, not force them, to install a democratic government. It is undoubtedly true that Sadaam Hussein was an extremely evil dictator. However, what gave us the right to enter this country and pursue this course of action? Just as in the Viet Nam War era, America stands behind its old assertion that we will tolerate no hostile country to harbor nuclear warfare, and the cold war with the Soviet Union left many with that assertion still held firmly in their hearts. However, "Saddam's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) had formed the main justification for the action, though inspectors later concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles." In fact, it is now common knowledge among Americans that Iraq held no weapons of mass destruction.
Some Americans believe that the United Arab Emirates and the United States joined to ensure that the politics and economics in the Middle East would turn in a favorable direction for the civilized countries of the world. Sadaam did have the goal of controlling the oil in the Mideast, as he expressed when he entered Kuwait. He was a loose cannon, an uncontrollable despot. He would not work with his Arab brothers. Were he ever to be successful in his bid to control the Mideastern oil flow, he would be able to exercise considerable impact on the economies of Europe and Japan. Is it plausible that the United Stated and its economic allies used this opportunity to take control of Iraq because of its willful dictator? As an unstable and easily manipulated new democracy, would it not be more amenable to the United States, Europe, and the United Arab Emirates? According to this view, we are effectively behaving as the United Arab Emirates' economic bulldog, guarding their main income source from volatile possibilities such as Saddam Hussein, while in turn being assured of our own cut of the gain.
It is impossible to expect honest answers to this question from our politicians in America. There has been so much duplicitous behavior shown by all our trusted officials that it is impossible to say for sure our true motives. Many Americans remember Vietnam, and wonder if perhaps the same situation—albeit with more success and less expenditure on our part—is taking place. More still feel that it is our duty to enforce
democracy in those countries where Communism and dictatorships still hold firmly.
Most likely, we press this war for a combination of motives. We will definitely benefit economically from the goodwill of the United Arab Emirates, and perhaps in the future, Iraq will stabilize into a functional democracy. Undoubtedly, the whole region will be better off without Sadaam Hussein, and as a people, perhaps we can feel that we are taking action against terrorists.
It can certainly be said that we are bringing democracy to the country, although it could be argued that at this time we are not doing so successfully. "More than 2,000 coalition troops, and many thousands more Iraqi civilians, have been killed since the start of the military action." Iraq is close to civil war, and today, on NBC News, the bodies of eighty-five Sunnis and Shiites were discovered in Iraq.
Ultimately, only the political leaders of the US know the real reasons why we have pressed the war in Iraq so assiduously. Sadly, it is unlikely that we will ever hear that truth from their lips. The only thing that those of us not in power can do is speculate upon the reasons. Of course, the many combinations of factual analyses ensure that there will always be hundreds of conjectures as to why we continue this war. Perhaps more real information will come to light at some point in the future.
However, I must ask: How many American families have lost sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, or any loved one to the terrorism of Iraqi rebel groups? Whatever that toll, it is not as many as the Iraqi civilians have lost both to our attacks and to insurgent retaliation. Perhaps we shouldn't be asking why we pressed the war in Iraq so much as: Who or what gave us the authority to be there in the first place? It seems that for American and Iraqi citizens alike, the War on Terror is causing more terror than it is stopping. We must consider the idea that to some Iraqi citizens at least, we are the terrorist faction. How many lives are we responsible for destroying, and truly in the name of what? We say that we are fighting for their peace, for their freedom, and I know that many of us do mean that. However, morally, is it really up to us to enforce our ideas of "freedom" if a large number of Iraqis do not want us to do so?
The new leaders in Iraq now face an incredibly difficult challenge. "Though free from the yoke of its former president Saddam Hussein, pressing problems loom large for Iraq and its new leaders. Their paramount challenges include the restoration of civil order, reconstruction and the completion of a political transition." Not only must they attempt to maintain peace in a country already wracked with war, terrorism, rebellion, difference of religion, and overwhelming grief, but they must maintain it without breaking the new rules the US-led coalition has set for them.
The civilian death toll in Iraq has been steadily mounting since 2003. Some of the Iraqi people understand our purpose; some of them are so angry about what they surely see as our invasion of their country that they choose to join insurgent groups throughout the nation. The transition in Iraq from a dictatorship to a democracy has literally occurred. However, one must consider carefully the definition of success. Despite the fact that the U.N. officially recognizes Iraq as a democracy, the country is in a complete state of turmoil. Iraq has not known peace for over twenty years. Were we simply the next catalyst for yet another chapter of chaos in their history books? The Iraqi leaders must somehow miraculously provide for public services such as schools, utilities, and protection in the midst of almost constant warfare between the US-led coalition and the insurgent guerilla factions.
These insurgent forces lie behind the majority of Iraq's turmoil. "On the ground, the US-led coalition forces that ousted Saddam in 2003 have faced armed rebellions and guerrilla-style attacks. Insurgents have targeted civilians, Iraqi security forces and international agencies." Despite the obvious power of these rebels, however, the US-led coalition has done little to appease them. Do they forget, perhaps, that these people are Iraqis just as much as the civilians the coalition is attempting to form? The insurgents have made it perfectly clear that they want the US-led coalition forces out of their country. Granted, it would seem that there is much still to be repaired and reformed in Iraq in the aftermath of the war, but "no timetable has been set for the withdrawal of coalition forces." One would think that the coalition would be doing everything in their power to protect the peaceful civilians caught between the insurgents and the coalition forces. Would that not perhaps also include a parlay with the insurgent forces to assure them that we will leave as soon as we clean up the damage?
Arguably, a conference of that nature would not be so easy to call to order. There have been atrocities of torture and of murder committed by both sides of the war in Iraq, and both have raised their hackles to the other. It will take discovering the identities of all the people (on both sides) responsible for those crimes and putting them on trial. Both sides also feel that the other is morally in the wrong. The sad truth is, however, that there is no clear black and white answer to this. We are behaving in a way precisely befitting a country as young and arrogant as our own, and they are behaving in a way precisely befitting an ancient and proud nation. Each deserves respect from the other, yet neither is giving it.
In all ways but funding and firepower, the US-led coalition forces and the Iraqi insurgents are equal. One major difference remains: Iraq is their home, not ours. Our right to be there is dubious. Should we really escalate the situation by continuing to disrespect the Iraqi people in their homes and on their own soil?