Iraq

The Past

Saddam’s Gentle Rule

In the Beginning there was Saddam. And he was not good.

There was a long a viscous war between Iraq and Iran in which the west offered considerable aid to Saddam in order to counter Iran which they considered a threat. Saddam desired WOMD and through this war even acquired a lot of resources for it from western governments and businesses including the US. I think one of the reasons for Western hate and fear in the Middle East generally is the degree of meddling in the area due ultimately to oil. Oil for WW2 and beyond.

The ruling 15% or so of people under Saddam, nominally Sunni, were looked after and the rest whose ideas were incompatible were brutally suppressed. Chemical weapons, torture, murder, discrimination and other forms of suppression were used on them.

The Iraq-Iran war along with the crummy economics of Saddam’s regime sapped Iraq’s economy greatly. Saddam decided the invasion of small oil rich Kuwait was a good idea to help the economics and that relates to his own survival. After that successful invasion most nations including the US understandably didn’t like it so after some UN wrangling and warnings liberated Kuwait and made a partial invasion of Iraq. The WOMD capabilities were destroyed as much as possible and some strong restrictions were placed on Iraq. Mainly no fly zones and inspections.

But that was not the end of it of course. Saddam chaffed at his restrictions and did not follow them as much as he thought he could get away with it. This led to a load of UN sanctions and requests to comply and Saddam trying to cut deals esp in Europe. These corruption deals even reached us here with our monopoly wheat board.

And then the US was terrorised.

War on Terror

The world trade centre attack of Sept 11 triggered an expectable desire for revenge and resistance to more such attacks. The US ramped up self defence and anti terrorist efforts and declared a hit them before they hit me doctrine.

This simplistic concept is pro war and violates the basic rule of sovereignty. Which is to say a nation is not subject to another nations rules. The US appointed itself the moral high ground of deciding what was ok and what wasn’t for all nations. To put it bluntly our crippled democracy of the UN was replaced with a new despot/leader. It doesn’t actually matter if the US has the moral groundwork or not. What matters is that it can make it happen.

Al Qaeda, a terrorist Muslim group, was declared the cause of Sept 11 and while I thought the process lacked transparency the declaration would have to do. Hence ‘War on Terror’ was born. It sounds good for motivating people but I don’t like the title myself. Why? Because Terrorism is not going to end. It’s gone on for a very very long time. It’s arrogant to think defeat of Al Qaeda will end it. Terrorism has many faces and causes and not all of them target the US. Opposing terrorism is great and indeed governments all over the world have been working on that issue well before Sept 11 and more effort is good especially after it’s clear the terrorists had some success. However, wars are meant to be won and I’m pretty sure US citizens think that even more than I do. But you can’t win a war on something that doesn’t end.

The initial efforts and reactions were good. I don’t know the ins and outs of these things but it appeared to me they did well at anti terrorism on the money side of things. The US didn’t pop off their WOMD and Muslims in the US were treated better than I expected.

Afghanistan

What was hardly surprising nor heavily opposed was the invasion of Afghanistan ruled by the fanatical Muslim Taliban who were harbouring Al Qaeda. Not that the Taliban was in any position to push them out.

It’s a bit sad but Afghanistan is now barely reported and largely neglected by the US and media alike. The capital seems to be doing ok but the rest would appear to be a mess.

The Axis Of Evil

But terrorism has many faces and Al Qeada is but one. Combining this with the hit em first doctrine Bush declared ‘Axis of Evil’ nations (Iraq Iran and North Korea) with all the style of a TV Evangelist.

The Switcheroo

For whatever reason; strategic position, oil, past grievances, those endless empty UN do-as-we-says Iraq was selected by Bush as the one to deal with first.

I wish I really *knew* why. My pet theory is to control oil. Not so much to take the oil but to make sure when oil goes belly up as it soon will that the US gets the best deal and primary access putting it in a much better economic position than other oil dependant nations. Not only that, I think the US hoped to get a non-fanatic and successful nation there. This would show the frustrated people in the ME that the US wasn’t quite so evil and there was a better way than terrorism to improve their lot which would really hurt terrorism in the region. Bush has to be involved here and his reasons will have been political.

And so we shifted from War on Terror to War on Iraq. Here is a concern. Iraq, Iran and North Korea might well have the potential to be nation level terrorists but there are plenty of terrorists out there today which were neglected. Which are neglected. And so we lost focus on the war on Terrorism.

My Way or the Highway

Bush went into Europe and the World and really pulled his weight around. It was all about attitude. ‘You are with us or against us’. He expected nations to not only do what he wanted but wanted it to be done on his terms. I am hardly surprised many countries turned their backs, particularly those which weren’t thrilled with the US in the first place or had their fingers in Saddam’s pie.

The US is the leading world power with WOMD and the will to use them and we were seeing a bully. I think it’s far to say Australians are quite friendly to the US but the US and Bush in particular lost a lot of our faith in that short time.

The Coalition of the Willing

Not that the US *wanted* to go it alone. So they petitioned for allies. They scraped the barrel pulling allies from some of the strangest places. Their best catch was the UK. A world power in itself with a strong modern military and a good economic base. My dear ol Upsidedownland is even in there but frankly speaking we’re no world power. It was a bad showing.

The Battle

Frankly I thought it was well done as much as I don’t like violence or war. Of course if the US had lost we’d all be in a lot of trouble. But let’s face it they were fast, efficient, caused less Iraqi military casualties than last time and very few civilian casualties and other collateral damage. The propaganda leaflet drop and accurate bombing helped things as well as the technology and modern trained and large military. This all likely helped later on.

The Occupation Plan

What plan? And herein lies one of my greatest objections. Where was the bloody plan of what to do when the country was taken? The consequences of invasion aren’t hopelessly unpredictable the bigger ones could have been dealt with much better.

Where was the policing to stop theft and crime? Where were the translators needed to communicate? Why disband a military into poverty when they still have their weapons? Where was the border control? And if the objective was the build a new democracy where were the plans for that? Each of these and others makes me wonder just how good the ‘brass’ in the military are.

Wot no Nukes?

Bush said via US and world intelligence that there were WOMD in Iraq. Iraq had WOMD at one point but a lot was destroyed in the first US-Iraq war. But they weren’t there. So the question is was it a lie or is the intelligence service that bad. Bush built the argument for war on those WOMD and links to terrorism. Neither proved true. We were left with a vague building a new nation argument and a highlighting of the removal of the brutal dictator.

Very recently several news sources though not many talked about WOMD actually finally after all these years being found in Iraq…. Kinda. Maybe.

Why the US

The US is not the best nation to have invaded Iraq for nation building etc. I would have vastly preferred another nation to do it. Iraqis have been exposed to a lot of US/Western bashing propaganda and suspicion and distrust run high. The US is still Christian and there’s the US support for Israel in the Israel/Palestine drama. We all know religions don’t get on that well with other religions and this would be much of the reason for such a long war. However the US is also the only country so easily able to project its power and wealth and it had the will and desire to do Iraq.

Abu Ghraib

US Torture by the military in this prison leaked out in graphic images. In my opinion it was dealt with reasonably by punishing the offenders. There is the question of how far up the chain it went and how widespread it is. Given the more recent US admissions of ‘approved’ torture (eg sleep deprivation, staged executions, isolation, religious desecration) in other places in Iraq, Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay I think we can see a pattern of psychological torture for selective enemies being a policy for the US. What I believe happened in Abu Ghraib is orders for psychological torture were given and it got out of hand.

I do not support torture including the ‘approved’ form. Torture is a form of individualised terrorism.

It sets an example and helps every person and every nation tempted to torture to a nice excuse for their own torture practices. It is not enough for the US to point out the torture and other immoral practices of these terrorists as an excuse for their own actions.

There’s also a lot of suggestion that torture doesn’t even work very well as an intelligence source suffering from the tell you what you want to hear problem.

Haditha

A strong rumour is some US soldiers massacred people in Iraq in response to a comrade’s death and was subsequently covered up.

After ‘exposure’ it’s now under investigation. Haditha occurred on Nov 19 2005. The report has dragged on and still we know nothing. It’s also internal making the results when it comes of far less value. The truth is lost whatever actually happened if anything and it will just blur into mistrust and conspiracy. I will probably take the report’s word for it (with salt) because I don’t have a better source.

There are other cases and recently an admitted one. But we need a reality check here. Most of these are claims with no real evidence or cases of military opening fire by mistake (usually the victims mistake too I might add) and they just aren’t big or widespread enough.

There was a recent case when the US military wiped out innocent yet stupid people in a speeding car. Stopping a car by shooting the car I have grave doubts will even work and shooting the driver isn’t much better but is as good as it gets when they are coming for you and you’re afraid of a bomb. Bullets aren’t designed to brake cars. There are ways to stop and slow cars and I wonder why these methods are not employed.

The military are dealing with a wily, honourless bunch that use torture, terror, civilian murder and follow no rules of warfare. Anger and the temptation to revel in terrorist blood is there and I hope they continue to hold on to their humanity.

The Present

The past is important and we can learn from it but we all deal with the Now. So what now in Iraq?

Progress

Bush’s recent Iraq speech talked about progress but didn’t give any good examples. That’s a bad sign. Progress is all about ‘hearts and minds’ which is how this war will be won or lost. Media has shown little to no progress. We see that the US is trying to train up the Iraqi police and military to replace them. We see nothing of power, schools and other infrastructure improvements. We see a new mostly powerless democratic government. We see no end to the terrorists. We don’t see Iraqis with rebuilding jobs.

Where is the progress and good news? Can’t find it in the media. Can’t go to Iraq to look for myself. Can’t even find good hard examples in the US military websites. Bush won’t talk about it.

Maybe it just isn’t there. The US is spending a lot of money on Iraq but I suspect most of it is going to contracts and military expenses.

The Mood of the People

A core question which most of us don’t know the answer to is do the Iraqis themselves want us there. If they do it’s worth it and if they don’t we might as well pack up and go home. I wanted to know. The useless media is unclear. The bombings suggest we aren’t welcome. There’s a good source tho and it’s so simple.

Refugees. Nations around Iraq and humanitarian groups feared it. It didn’t happen and hasn’t yet happened. In fact several million refugees in the region from Saddam have packed up and gone home. That tells me enough.

I’m not saying that means it’s universal. Some sunnis are, after all, passively or actively harbouring terrorists.

The Mood of the Military

There’s been a lot of suggestion that the military has very low morale. I hummed and harred about it but decided the best way to find out was… to ask them.

So I asked a few of them serving in Iraq right now. I know the more conspiratorial will assume they have to say everything’s fine but it’s better to be real.

And they answered. Morale is good. There is some limited morale sapping from deaths and wobbly support from home and the West generally. So the military is not going to walk away unless ordered nor pressure the US government to let it go.

The Mood of the US

With an election not too far away this festering sore is boiling to the surface.

Support for Bush has slipped now and support for the war is also low. Republicans are locked in status quo mode of “stay the course” and frankly with the citizens not happy with the status quo they are looking to loose. Democrats are bashing the disaster viewpoint for all it’s worth and want to cut and run. Not necessarily quickly.

A lot of the lack of support relates to Bush loosing confidence in the public eye. The mistakes (lies if you take that view) eg WOMD are part of that. So too are the near constant negative media reports and flow of US military dead. There’s not much positivity coming out of Iraq at all.

The Democrats don’t appear to be likely to put up a strong fight. Kerry might do ok but some of the new ones are dumb enough to make Bush look sharp.

A key factor here is the strong support initially being basically linked to security fears. When the WOMD rug was pulled the people were looking at a different scenario and were less supportive of that new nationbuilding, insurgency fighting role. I guess it has to be said. Don’t start wars with the wrong pretext.

What about Downunda?

We joined the US in this war but our absolute and proportional military and financial outlay was lower. A lot of Aussies are pacific and the support derived more from the government than the people. Aussies were slightly unsupportive at the outset and even less thrilled about it now. However, we’re much more laid back and aren’t in control over there so the Iraq war is deemed of less relative importance than people in the US might give it.

Contractors

Thousands of them doing nasty jobs that have to be done. Unaccountable. Not good enough. They need to be accountable and serious questions should asked about why the US military can’t or won’t do dangerous jobs.

Stand Up

Iraqis broiled in religiously supported US/Western hate for years and fearing the return of Saddam have been slow to get on their feet and the reject the extremists in some cases. I think I’ve seen a few signs that they are now. Dobbing on terrorists is a good sign but it’s still a bit thin.

If the Iraqis ‘stand up’ the terrorists in the region are doomed and the US will have no reason to remain. And really that’s what is needed.

The Future

So where do I in my oh-so-humble world view think all of this is going?

1) The US election is fairly important. The democrats might win. What would that mean in Iraq? Probably a faster troop withdrawal. More risk the Iraqi government won’t be functional enough. If the Republicans win we have a risk of dragging the war too long with ambiguous goals.

2) The Iraqi government’s politics is competing with destabilisation more from civil disorder than insurgency issues IMO. When the US leaves, early or late, either the government and people will hold it together or Iraq will fall into civil war. Either way the Shiites are likely to wrest as much power as possible and are likely to succeed. A Shiite theocracy is could happen with low resistance to that idea from civilians. The terrorist elements will be unwelcome and having no clear enemy will likely refocus elsewhere. In win or loss in Iraq will impact global terrorism no doubt about it. It will not, however, win or loose the ‘War on Terrorism’

3) I think the US are building permanent military bases. Reports of it are too sketchy to make it a clear fact. It’s reasonable to say even if the Republicans lose that those bases and associated forces will remain for many years. These bases will be used to exert US influence in the region including Iraq.

5) There seems to have been a degree of unintended lessons. The invasion of Iraq showed many despots and other governments that the US did indeed have the military might to easily brush aside a conventional defense. The troops were afraid of WOMD and of city fighting. Now if you’re El Presidente the dictator you have just witnessed the uselessness of your military against it’s most likely enemy meaning it’s really only good for suppressing the plebs. You know the US fears WOMD so basically it’s what you need. Hence North Korea’s missiles and Iran’s nuclear generators. Instead of reducing their desire for WOMD they’ve increased it along with the paranoia of these governments. They’ve also shown that to annoy the US if they invade and maybe survive themselves they’ll need guerrilla tactics.

6) This has been an expensive war and focus on it has detracted from other issues. This could lead to economic/societal issues later which I find too hard to predict.