Introduction
The Iraq war will dominate the historiography of Bush’s Presidency. It was the most controversial U.S. war since Vietnam, and has generated anger and resentment at home and abroad. But despite the importance of this event, I find that many individuals are either ignorant or forgetful of many of the events that surrounded this conflict. In this entry, I will spend a substantial amount of time discussing the history of the lead-up to the war in Iraq, before evaluating the ethics of Bush’s actions and offering a brief assessment of Iraq’s future. I do not contend that these facts constitute an indisputable rebuttal to the criticism that George W. Bush has received. It is perfectly feasible for one to acknowledge the information I am about to present and still disapprove of Bush and the 2003 Iraq war. Instead, this entry details information and arguments that I firmly believe must be addressed when examining this conflict.
Please also note, that I do not attempt to capture the entirety of the debate which surrounds the Iraq war in this entry. Though able, I simply cannot discuss every argument and counterargument in this post—it is already obscenely long. The paragraphs below are simply important pieces of the puzzle that I believe have been “knocked on the floor” over the passage of time.
U.S.–Iraq Relations from 1990-2003
Many individuals, including those within the media, portray the U.S. quest for regime change in Iraq as the ill-fated brainchild of George W. Bush. This is simply not correct. Although Bush unquestionably led the charge to invade Iraq in 2003, the prospect of another U.S. war with Iraq had been building all throughout the 1990s.
Following the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991, the U.N. passed Resolution 687 which called for the destruction or removal of all long range missiles, chemical and biological weapons, and any research and components related to weapons of mass destruction. It was no secret that Saddam was WMD “enthusiast.” He had used chemical weapons several times against his foreign and domestic enemies, and had pioneered one of the largest programs in the Middle East for developing and manufacturing such weapons. Consequently, no one believed Saddam would willing comply with Resolution. Indeed, throughout the entire decade, the UNSCOM inspectors and Saddam’s regime engaged in an endless game of cat and mouse. The anecdotes that detail these inspection efforts are colorful to say the least. UNSCOM inspectors were shot at, physically attacked, and on one occasion even had to run down Iraqi agents who were fleeing with secret documents in their briefcases. Inspectors were repeated denied access to facilities of interest and were forever being expelled from the country—usually after finding something that supposedly did not exist. More importantly, inspectors repeatedly found Iraqi disclosures regarding weapons stockpiles and research to be patently false.
(Those interested in a more detailed account of the UNSCOM inspections can review the summary provided by the Monterey Institute for Int’l Studies: [SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS])
Throughout this cat and mouse game of inspections, the United States carried out numerous military strikes against Iraq:
- January 1993: Cruise Missile strike against a Nuclear Fabrication facility in Baghdad
- June 1993: Cruise Missile strike against Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters
- December 1998: U.S. bombs Iraq for four days, destroying 100 targets in “Operation Desert Fox”
- April 2000: U.S. bombs four military sites in Iraq
- February 2001: U.S. and Britain carry out bombing raids against Iraq’s air defences
Neither H.W. Bush nor Bill Clinton arguably expected the UNSCOM inspections to succeed. The U.S. wanted Saddam Hussein removed from power, but during the Gulf War it was not willing to endure the carnage that would accompany a march to Baghdad. Instead, both Presidents clung to the hope that Iraq would eventually rid itself of Saddam, and sought to create an environment that was conducive to such an event.
Four days after Saddam invaded Kuwait, the U.N. Security Council imposed harsh sanctions on Iraq which prohibited foreign trade of all goods, with the exception of medicine and (eventually) food. Officially, the sanctions were in place to limit the power and resources of Saddam, and keep him from re-arming. However, as evidenced by the breadth restrictions imposed on Iraq, many countries on the Security Council also hoped that the harsh sanctions would weaken Saddam and eventually facilitate a coup d’état. Needless to say, this did not happen. Instead, from 1990-2003, the people of Iraq suffered immensely while Saddam and the rest of his regime continued their lives of luxury.
The effects of the sanctions on the people of Iraq during the 1990s were horrendous. The complete trade embargo obliterated Iraq’s economy, 50% of which consisted of oil exports. In fact, by 2003 the Iraq economy had shrunk to approximately half of its pre-war size, with 50% of the population unemployed or underemployed, and 30% of the workforce being employed by the government. In the early years of the sanctions, approximately 60% of the population depended on a government run free-food program that provided 1000 calories per day (40% of the usual requirement for an adult). Restrictions placed on chemicals like chlorine, resulted in unclear drinking water that led to diseases such as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid fever running rampant. As usual, those who were hit the hardest were children; reliable studies on the sanction-related deaths of Iraqi children estimate that between 227,000 and 567,000 children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease. This catastrophic situation prompted many nations and organizations to implore the Security Council to ease the sanctions on Iraq. Senator David Bonior, speaking on behalf of a group of politicians and advocacy groups, described the sanctions as "infanticide masquerading as policy," stating simply that “millions of children are suffering and we refuse to close our eyes to the slaughter of innocents.” But despite political pressure, the Clinton administration rejected the calls to ease the sanctions. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Madeline Albright stated the following:
Interviewer: “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?”
Albright: “I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.”
Albright later regretted the statement and characterized it as a slip-up, but notably she never disputed the facts presented by the interviewer. However, although her comments lacked tact, they accurately reflected the policy of the Clinton administration towards Iraq. The U.S. wanted Saddam gone, and was willing to impose great hardships on the Iraqi people to keep him in check and facilitate his removal.
By 1997, the Clinton administration began to publically express its belief that the U.S. needed to take immediate steps to remove the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. In February of 1998, in a speech to Pentagon staff, Clinton stated:
[Saddam Hussein’s] regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us […] The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons. […] Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. […] Saddam Hussein's Iraq reminds us of what we learned in the 20th century and warns us of what we must know about the 21st. In this century, we learned through harsh experience that the only answer to aggression and illegal behavior is firmness, determination, and when necessary action […] We still have, God willing, a chance to find a diplomatic resolution to this, and if not, God willing, the chance to do the right thing for our children and grandchildren.
[COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT]
(Notably, ten months later, after failing to find the stockpiles of WMDs that they firmly believed were still in Saddam’s possession, the UNSCOM inspectors were permanently expelled from Iraq. Hence though we still have not found a single chemical or biological weapon in Iraq to date, at the time of their expulsion in 1998, U.N. inspectors were confident Saddam was still in possession of such an arsenal.)
In the Fall of 1998, the U.S. Legislature and Bill Clinton passed into law, with near unanimous approval, the Iraq Liberation Act which explicitly declared that it should be “the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.” The Act explicitly authorized Clinton to assist insurgent groups in Iraq by providing them with radio/television broadcasting assistance, military assistance, and humanitarian aid.
[PAUSE]
This is where the escalation that occurred between Iraq and the U.S. in the 1990s essentially takes a reprieve. Although the United States by no means “forgot” about the threat posed by Iraq, several other issues dominated the attention of the American people between 1998 and 2002. In December of that year, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives—a fiasco carried on until his acquittal by the Senate in February of 1999. The ever colorful Bush vs. Gore election occurred in 2000, which was shortly followed by the terror attacks on 9/11 and the subsequent Afghan war. During all of these events, the issue of Iraq remained unresolved and the people of Iraq continued to endure the hardship of the U.N. sanctions. But by March of 2002, the Bush administration—eager to eliminate any post 9/11 threats to the U.S.—decided to pick up where the Clinton administration had left off in 1998 by fulfilling the objectives of the Iraq Liberation Act. Indeed, Bush was not alone in his desire to rid the Middle East of the troublesome dictator.
[UNPAUSE]
Although George W. Bush was undeniably the foremost advocate of the Iraq invasion, he received no shortage of support for the initiative. This brief video illustrates this fact far better than my prose ever could (please take the time to watch, it is not that long):
[VIDEO]
It is certainly amazing how quickly things change in politics. As Bush states in the video, the war in Iraq received strong bipartisan support in both the House of Representatives (296 to 133) and the Senate (77 to 23). Notably, the most of the outspoken Democrats who were in favor of the war, were those who sat on the Senate and House Intelligence committees and saw the same intelligence that landed on Bush’s desk each day. Moreover, most those who voted against the war believed that Saddam still possessed chemical and biological WMDs, but did not believe him to be an imminent threat that warranted pre-emptive action. As Nancy Pelosi (a Nay vote) stated in the video, there was “no question” that these weapons existed. After all, the U.N. inspectors firmly believed that such weapons still existed when they were expelled in 1998, and it seemed absurd to think that Saddam would have voluntarily disarmed himself without telling anybody—especially after spending almost a decade obstructing the work of U.N. inspectors!
Bush’s initiative also received considerable support internationally. Although the invasion of Iraq was undeniably controversial within the international community, to state that the U.S. acted “unilaterally” is simply wrong. More countries participated in the 2003 invasion of Iraq than in the 1991 Gulf War (40 vs. 34). Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Poland, along with many other countries provided troops for the coalition. In fact, the only major Western countries that participated in the first Gulf War but not the second, were France, Belgium, and Canada. As for the strong condemnations from China and Russia, both countries were selling arms and other goods to Iraq in violation of the U.N. embargo. Russia even had several profitable contracts with the Iraq government to drill for oil in the country when the embargo ended. Hence their objections were not without ulterior motives [SOURCE].
Just like the U.S., these countries wanted Saddam gone. The murderous dictator had long been a dangerous and destabilizing force in the region. Moreover, many countries in the West had genuine fears that Saddam might enact his vendetta by arming terrorists. This assertion was and still is hotly contested; but as with other issues that surround this war, a more comprehensive overview of all the puzzle pieces is needed.
It is true that no substantial link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda has been found, and certain people—namely Vice President Cheney—overstated the connection between these parties. It is also true that the Bush administration’s claims on this matter were disproportionate to the threat that actually existed, given what we now know of Saddam’s activities. But concerns of Saddam Hussein utilizing terrorists to enact revenge on the West were not devoid of merit.
Although Saddam was not affiliated specifically with the Al Qaeda organization, he had a long history of supporting terrorism. He sheltered and supported many terrorist groups within his borders, including the M.K.O., P.L.F., and Abu Nidal organizations. There was also the infamous standing bursary of $10,000 that he offered to the families of any Palestinian who successfully carry out a suicide attack against Israelis. He had also attempted to use terrorists as a means of revenge against the U.S. in 1993, by directing Iraqi Intelligence to sponsor a car bomb attack against former President H.W. Bush when he visited Kuwait (thankfully, the explosive-laden car was caught at the Kuwaiti border). Moreover, though the story received little coverage, in June of 2004 Vladimir Putin disclosed that after 9/11, Russian Intelligence had warned the U.S. that Iraq was planning acts of terror in the United States [SOURCE].
Hence, though it is certainly within the realm of reason to assert that a Saddam-sponsored terrorist attack was unlikely, to characterize the possibility of such an attack as a fabrication is an erroneous mischaracterization that overlooks the character of Saddam Hussein and his past actions.
Ethics of the Iraq War
Bush must bear responsibility for several failures of the Iraq war. Although Bush did not collect the intelligence himself, the U.S. information regarding Saddam’s WMDs and nuclear ambitions were incorrect. Much of the war was poorly managed from 2003 to 2006, and many Americans and Iraqis paid the price for this mismanagement with their lives. Moreover, what happened at Abu Ghraib was a utter disgrace to everything the American people stand for.
But whose efforts to oust Saddam were more ethical—George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? As previously stated, the sanctions that were held in place by the Clinton administration resulted in the deaths of between 227,000 and 567,000 Iraqi children, and caused great suffering amongst everyone in Iraq but those responsible—Saddam and his Baathist regime.
While this child had no food or clean water, Saddam continued to live his life of lavish luxury, apathetic to the suffering of those living in his dictatorship. Moreover, if that wasn’t enough, he defrauded 10.2 billion dollars (possibly much more) from the U.N. “Oil For Food” fund that was supposed to help feed those who were starving in his country. Despite the suffering of the Iraqi people, these grotesque injustices, and the failure of sanctions to yield compliance, Clinton chose to avert war and continue the brutal and ineffective attrition of Iraq.
Bush on the other hand, went straight for Saddam and the Iraqi leaders who were responsible for the actions of the country. He ousted a murderous war criminal that was responsible for the violent (often genocidal) deaths of over 600,000 Iraqi civilians, ended the sanctions, enabled the Iraqi people to build a democracy, and been steadfast in his commitment to rebuild the country.
Needless to say, this too resulted in a significant loss of life. During the initial invasion itself, it is estimated that between 3,200 and 7,269 Iraqi civilians were killed in the fighting. To date, the anti-war group Iraq Body Count estimates that between 90,442 and 98,731 Iraqi civilians have been killed by criminal/sectarian violence, insurgent terror attacks, and injury by coalition fire resulting from the conflict [SOURCE]. Not to mention, the over 4000 coalition troops that have lost their lives.
But while Bush’s invasion of Iraq cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, it always sought to targeted Iraq’s leaders and not its people. In sheer statistics, the number of Iraqis killed by Bush’s invasion of Iraq is a fraction (approx. 1/5) the number of Iraqis that died under the sanctions imposed by Clinton.
If action against Saddam was unnecessary, than neither Clinton’s sanctions nor Bush invasion were ethically justified. However, if—as both Presidents believed—action against Iraq was necessary, then I firmly believe that Bush’s approach was more ethical than that of the Clinton administration. Moreover, Bush’s policy actually succeeded in ousting Saddam.
In retrospect, Saddam should have been removed during the first Gulf War. Neither the sanctions nor the 2003 invasions should have ever happened. Ultimately, the West was not willing to allow Saddam to remain in power, and the situation would have been far better had they simply acknowledged this fact in 1991.
The Future of Iraq
Over the past five years, many groups have made repeated calls for the U.S. to immediately withdraw from Iraq. If one pays careful attention to the rhetoric of these groups, they will notice that the arguments for withdraw presented seldom make reference to the welfare of the Iraqi people. Instead, anti-war advocates usually argue that the war is “costing too much,” or that “too many Americans have been killed.” A perfect example of this mentality can be observed on the “why we need to leave Iraq” page of one of the largest anti-war groups in the United States—MoveOn.org:
When over 83% of civilian causalities in Iraq are being caused by the insurgent attacks and sectarian violence that coalition forces work tireless to prevent, it is hard to argue that Iraqi civilians would benefit from such a withdrawal. To this end, the democratically-elected Iraqi Parliament passed a security agreement this past November, that authorizes the presence and operation of U.S. forces in Iraq until 2011. This agreement was endorsed by all three of the major Iraqi political blocs—Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish. Make no mistake; the Iraqi parliament passionately wants U.S. forces out of their country. But they are nevertheless faced with the reality that, at present, great bloodshed would ensue without their presence.
While I respect the views of those who genuinely believe a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to be in the best interest of the Iraqi people, I am greatly disturbed by those who supported the invasion of Iraq, but are now demanding our immediate withdraw. These people need to realize that foreign intervention is not a B-rate western film: you cannot simply ride into town, shoot the villain, and ride off into the sunset. When we invaded Iraq, as ethical people, we automatically committed ourselves to rebuilding the country. Those who thought otherwise should read a history book. I am equally bothered by those who are seemingly content to let Iraqis suffer provided the story does not make the front page of their favorite newspaper. These people know very little about the situation on the ground, but are simply “self-conscious” of their country’s presence in Iraq and conceptualize the situations one would a blemish on his or her face.
If you believe the war against Iraq was a crime against the people of that country, the very least you can do is give their elected leaders the support they are asking for in order to rebuild. To simply walk away from Iraq right now is like hitting a child with your car, throwing them a twenty, and driving off. Even Vladimir Putin of all people has stated that a U.S. withdrawal prior to the establishment of a “united and sovereign” Iraq would be a “definite second mistake.” The moment they are no longer needed, U.S. troops need to come home. Everybody wants this to happen—Iraqi and American alike. But this moment has not yet arrived. The U.S. military is an all-volunteer force, and as this military’s strong support for John McCain in the 2008 election demonstrates, most of them want to finish the job in Iraq. To his credit, Bush remained committed to Iraq despite political pressure from both sides of the aisle.
Although a bumpy road lay ahead, there is great potential for Iraq’s future. Since the troop surge, violence in Iraq is down 80% and stability finally seems to be taking hold. Iraqis have tasted democracy, and the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish representatives they elected to government have, on several occasions, overcome their differences to resolve difficult issues. With its oil-rich deserts, there is no reason why Iraqi cannot build a strong economy for the future. The U.S. government, as well as its people, must do everything they can to support Iraq’s development to a democratic and prosperous nation. Following military conflict, the U.S. stabilized and rebuilt Japan, South Korea, and West Germany. When appropriate we went home—but left behind democracies, thriving economies, and close friends. There is no reason why Iraq cannot have a similar fate. Such is in the interest of Iraq, the United States, and the Middle East as a whole.
When Barrack Obama began his campaign he pledged the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq in just sixteen months. Like many others, I fear that this plan endangers the significant progress that has been over the past two years. Whether Obama’s campaign rhetoric matches verbatim his policy is yet to be seen. But what we learned all too well from 2003-2006, is that less U.S. troops on the ground does NOT mean less American and Iraqi casualties—but just the opposite. Ultimately, I think Obama will recognize this fact. Moreover, I hope (and pray) that he will prioritize the safety of the Iraqi people over an arbitrary timeline—they deserve this much.
No comments:
Post a Comment