Baker Was Right about Iraq
"President George Bush did not overthrow Saddam Hussein after the Gulf War because that would have caused a military occupation of indefinite duration, many more casualties, and more power for Iran."
James Baker, Former Secretary of State (1)
Back in 1991, after US and allied armed forces had easily defeated Saddam's army and driven it from Kuwait, I was among those who favored going on to Baghdad and ridding the world of the evil Baath dictatorship. The fact that Iraq had lobbed 39 Scud missiles into Israel during the War, despite the fact that Israel had not participated in it, was a factor in my attitude.
Only in retrospect, some 15 years later, is it clear that the earlier President Bush had really chosen the more prudent course-----contain Saddam, but do not topple him. Baker pointed out the real reason in the last words of the quote above: "more power for Iran."
By now it is well known that about 60% of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims, and so have an affinity for the ayatollah-dominated regime in Iran. Democracy in Iraq, the goal of today's President George W Bush, inevitably means that the government of Iraq will be led by Shiites, and Iran is bound to exert a powerful influence over it. Given the faith-based politics of the Middle-East, the only way to prevent the spread of Iranian influence to the west is to maintain Sunni rule in Iraq, by whatever means may be necessary. Although Saddam was certainly an enemy of the United States by 1991 (2), his brutal rule over both Kurds and Shiites in Iraq nevertheless served American interests by acting as a bulwark against Iran.
The policy of acting on the basis of national interests, as opposed to fighting for the human rights of oppressed people, is known as realpolitik, and was exemplified in recent years by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his President, Richard Nixon. Though callous and cynical, this turned out to be the appropriate attitude towards Iraq and its dictator.
Our current President is a disciple of President Woodrow Wilson, who said we were fighting in World War I "to make the world safe for democracy." Like Wilson, George W Bush wants to make the Arab world democratic, and is willing to use military force to do so. Our tragic experience in Iraq shows that this is no more than a pipe-dream, because the masses of Arabs (with the exception of the educated and middle-class types) do not embrace the basic tenets of democracy: the rule of law and acceptance of the decision of the majority.
Instead, those who cannot achieve their political objectives by winning elections are determined to win anyway by killing people on the other side until the latter give up or are wiped out. Miltias of every religious and ethnic faction are fighting it out every day in Iraq, most of them also blowing up Americans whenever they can. Nearly four years after the invasion, Iraq is even more miserable today than when under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein, and the prospects for a peaceful resolution of the conflict are not bright.
Some Americans, including members of Congress, have called for withdrawal of our armed forces from Iraq. President Bush's position is that things are going pretty well over there, and if we leave, they will get even worse. His supporters have correctly pointed out that President Roosevelt was not pressured into withdrawing from the battles of World War II, despite suffering far greater casualties. (3)
The crucial difference is that Americans understood that in World War II we were fighting an existential war against the worldwide forces of Fascism, both in Japan and Germany. The whole world was involved, and control of the world was at stake. The War required major sacrifices of all Americans: a draft, high taxes, and rationing.
Iraq, on the other hand, was never a danger to the United States. Saddam had no nuclear weapons, and had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. The burden of military service today is borne entirely by volunteers, while afflluent Americans enjoy a tax-cut, and the financial burden of the war is passed on to the next generation through massive deficits.
It may be possible for the US to win in Iraq, but not with the force-levels we have there now. Since our forces are stretched thin now, it may be necessary to draft a huge army to succesfully occupy and pacify Iraq, and the job could take decades. Instead of keeping the Bush tax-cuts, we might have to raise taxes-----even on the middle and upper classes------to pay for the war. If the American people believed that our national security really depended upon winning in Iraq, they would support these painful measures for as long it takes. They would "stay the course."
Instead the American people are starting to perceive Iraq as another Vietnam: a faraway place where people are fighting each other over issues we don't really understand or care about and will not ultimately affect us, no matter how the war comes out.
That is why we did not take Baghdad in 1991, and why we cannot win there now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Paraphrased from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of October 22, 2006, p. 3J.
(2) Before Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein had a good relationship with the United States, despite his threats to burn Israel and support of intifada terrorism.
(3) American participation in World War II (12/7/41---8/8/45) took less than four years. By comparison, the Korean War took less than three years, and we fought in Vietnam more than ten years (including the advisory period 1960-64).
James Baker, Former Secretary of State (1)
Back in 1991, after US and allied armed forces had easily defeated Saddam's army and driven it from Kuwait, I was among those who favored going on to Baghdad and ridding the world of the evil Baath dictatorship. The fact that Iraq had lobbed 39 Scud missiles into Israel during the War, despite the fact that Israel had not participated in it, was a factor in my attitude.
Only in retrospect, some 15 years later, is it clear that the earlier President Bush had really chosen the more prudent course-----contain Saddam, but do not topple him. Baker pointed out the real reason in the last words of the quote above: "more power for Iran."
By now it is well known that about 60% of Iraqis are Shiite Muslims, and so have an affinity for the ayatollah-dominated regime in Iran. Democracy in Iraq, the goal of today's President George W Bush, inevitably means that the government of Iraq will be led by Shiites, and Iran is bound to exert a powerful influence over it. Given the faith-based politics of the Middle-East, the only way to prevent the spread of Iranian influence to the west is to maintain Sunni rule in Iraq, by whatever means may be necessary. Although Saddam was certainly an enemy of the United States by 1991 (2), his brutal rule over both Kurds and Shiites in Iraq nevertheless served American interests by acting as a bulwark against Iran.
The policy of acting on the basis of national interests, as opposed to fighting for the human rights of oppressed people, is known as realpolitik, and was exemplified in recent years by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his President, Richard Nixon. Though callous and cynical, this turned out to be the appropriate attitude towards Iraq and its dictator.
Our current President is a disciple of President Woodrow Wilson, who said we were fighting in World War I "to make the world safe for democracy." Like Wilson, George W Bush wants to make the Arab world democratic, and is willing to use military force to do so. Our tragic experience in Iraq shows that this is no more than a pipe-dream, because the masses of Arabs (with the exception of the educated and middle-class types) do not embrace the basic tenets of democracy: the rule of law and acceptance of the decision of the majority.
Instead, those who cannot achieve their political objectives by winning elections are determined to win anyway by killing people on the other side until the latter give up or are wiped out. Miltias of every religious and ethnic faction are fighting it out every day in Iraq, most of them also blowing up Americans whenever they can. Nearly four years after the invasion, Iraq is even more miserable today than when under the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein, and the prospects for a peaceful resolution of the conflict are not bright.
Some Americans, including members of Congress, have called for withdrawal of our armed forces from Iraq. President Bush's position is that things are going pretty well over there, and if we leave, they will get even worse. His supporters have correctly pointed out that President Roosevelt was not pressured into withdrawing from the battles of World War II, despite suffering far greater casualties. (3)
The crucial difference is that Americans understood that in World War II we were fighting an existential war against the worldwide forces of Fascism, both in Japan and Germany. The whole world was involved, and control of the world was at stake. The War required major sacrifices of all Americans: a draft, high taxes, and rationing.
Iraq, on the other hand, was never a danger to the United States. Saddam had no nuclear weapons, and had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. The burden of military service today is borne entirely by volunteers, while afflluent Americans enjoy a tax-cut, and the financial burden of the war is passed on to the next generation through massive deficits.
It may be possible for the US to win in Iraq, but not with the force-levels we have there now. Since our forces are stretched thin now, it may be necessary to draft a huge army to succesfully occupy and pacify Iraq, and the job could take decades. Instead of keeping the Bush tax-cuts, we might have to raise taxes-----even on the middle and upper classes------to pay for the war. If the American people believed that our national security really depended upon winning in Iraq, they would support these painful measures for as long it takes. They would "stay the course."
Instead the American people are starting to perceive Iraq as another Vietnam: a faraway place where people are fighting each other over issues we don't really understand or care about and will not ultimately affect us, no matter how the war comes out.
That is why we did not take Baghdad in 1991, and why we cannot win there now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Paraphrased from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of October 22, 2006, p. 3J.
(2) Before Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Saddam Hussein had a good relationship with the United States, despite his threats to burn Israel and support of intifada terrorism.
(3) American participation in World War II (12/7/41---8/8/45) took less than four years. By comparison, the Korean War took less than three years, and we fought in Vietnam more than ten years (including the advisory period 1960-64).
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 3:41 PM
1 Comments:
Excellent analysis, although you could have put a little more blame on the 1400 year old Shiite vs Suni war that wages in many countries, especially Pakistan, in the Middle East and North Africa.
Post a Comment
<< Home