Iraq: Five Years Later

Five years ago, the United States invaded Iraq. I remember living in Japan and witnessing the beginnings of a war that I knew would be tragic. I prayed that we would not start a preemptive war against a nation that was no direct threat to our own. My prayers were not answered and the bloodshed and destruction began. I watched President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney full of bluster talk about how we would be greeted as liberators. I knew that things would be bad and unfortunately I was right. Of course living overseas, I had the uncomfortable experience of the anti-American backlash in the face of our naked aggression. "Why did the U.S. invade Iraq?" people would ask me. I would feebly explain that the U.S. government believed that they had weapons of mass destruction. Some Japanese would then ask if it wasn't true that we had been keeping Iraq bottled up with strict sanctions and no-fly zones. I would answer that it was true. They asked me if I believed there were weapons of mass destruction. "Maybe", I answered, but I knew there couldn't be many. Inspectors had searched and searched the country and we had destroyed the few remnants after the Gulf War. But the hardest questions came from my students. "Why does America like war so much?" they would ask. My answers to them were unconvincing. "Why does America want to kill all the Muslims?" they would ask. I told them that it wasn’t true but they did not all believe me. A few even voiced some sympathy with Al-Qaeda. It was a difficult position for an American charged with putting a positive face on America, the English-speaking, and in a broader sense, the Western world and its culture. I did what I could and talked about how I disagreed with the actions of my government. But in a democracy, I told them, that is ok. In fact it is a duty to oppose the government when you disagree with its policies. I tried hard to convey this to a simple rural people who like many people everywhere tend to think that all the people in a country support it's government and all its actions.
I knew many people in the U.S. who strongly supported the war and were ready to "Kick Sadam's ass." But I knew enough of the history and culture of the region (which I had studied quite extensively in college and on my own) to know that things were going to become a mess. The British faced a committed insurgency in the 1920s and had to withdraw. The county was a patchwork of Kurd, Shia, and Sunni with some other groups thrown in for even more complication. The Kurds had enjoyed defacto independence - why would they want to be part of an Arab Shia led nation that might only drag them down and steel some of their wealth? What of Kurdish irredentism? There are a lot of Kurds who live in Turkey. Would Turkey get involved to fight against Kurdish terrorists/freedom-fighters (depending on one's view)? As it turned out they did and they probably will again. The Shia are the majority and would naturally gravitate toward friendly relations with Iran (which has happened). The U.S. would not approve and have to fight that. The Sunnis who are a minority in Iraq were favored and ruled the nation through Sadam's brutal regime. They would want to fight to remain in control. Of course the Shia would fight them back. Let's not forge the Shia who rose up against Sadam following the Gulf War with the strong encouragement and promise of support by President George H. W. Bush and were crushed by Sadam's forces. They weren't going to be happy with the U.S. Let us not forget that in the 1980's the Regan administration sold weapons to Iran (who was at war with Iraq) while selling intelligence to Sadam in (what seemed to be) an obvious effort to keep the two nations fighting each other so that Iran would be occupied and Iraq wouldn't attack Israel. Why would anyone in that country trust Americans? Then what did we find out once we invaded - there were no weapons of mass destruction. So the stated purpose of the war was changed. We were there to stop Iraq's connection with Al-Qaeda. A ridiculous claim. A secularist megalomaniac like Sadam had no use for religious extremist terrorists inside his own county, especially when they were regularly making statements denouncing his surprisingly tolerant religious freedom policies. (For example he gave money to some Christian churches.) So the purpose of the war was changed to spreading democracy in the Middle East. That didn’t work so well. Sure elections were held, but is the government functioning? It is divided along ethnic and religious lines and is not working together. So then one of many terrorist groups operating in Iraq decided to become an Al-Qaeda franchise. By pledging loyalty to Osama Bin Ladin. These were not the people who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001; these were other Arabs who wanted the immoral support of the top Al Qaeda extremist. The purpose of the war, then stated by the White House to stamp out Al Qaeda in Iraq - an organization that existed only because the U.S. invaded Iraq! Eventually, they were on the run - in the so called "Sunni awakening" in Al Anbar province in western Iraq. Why were the Sunni fighting fellow Sunni, in this case local tribes vs. Al Qaeda in Iraq? Ostensibly because they were tired of all the collateral damage and the U.S. counter attacks. But of course they had been fighting the U.S. too - but money talks and it talked them into opposing Al Qaeda in Iraq. They were happy to take money and weapons from the U.S. government. At the same time we were and are supplying money and weapons to the Shia government in Baghdad. I cannot stress this enough. We have supplied weapons and arms to the local Sunnis in Al Anbar. At the same time we gave money and weapons to their main opposition the Shia dominated central government in Baghdad. You think Iraq is a civil war now - wait until this one plays itself out. Not to mention the Kurds and the Kurdistan Worker's Party which carries out terrorist attacks in Turkey. This war is a mess and there is nothing to do but walk away. There are no good options. The U.S must cut its losses and have "victory with honor" or "Iraqization of the war", "strategic withdrawal" whatever euphuism once wants to use. Whatever we call it, the U.S needs to get out of Iraq. Five bloody, destructive and costly years later, the situation is a mess and I fear there is worse to come no matter what we do. I suggest we get out of the way before we get caught in the middle of a real full-scale civil war and before we become entangled in the spillover into Iran and Turkey.
My wife and I are currently watching "Vietnam: A Television History" the excellent PBS documentary from PBS. I am struck by the parallels to that conflict and the one we are involved in Iraq. That conflict was a mess to start with - we leaned no lessons from the French defeats, tried to impose a domino theory of global communism on a conflict that many there saw as an anti-colonial fight, and were drawn into spill over conflict in Laos and Cambodia. It was a mess, millions died as a result and America's image and potential to do good in the world was diminished. We should see the parallels for what they are and end this current conflict as quickly and carefully as possible.
At the same time, I honor the service of the American soldiers, sailors and marines who have had to endure the very worst in life. They are doing what they see as their patriotic duty and their service is exemplary. It is because of their dedication to America that makes their sacrifice to a vain cause all the more tragic. I wish them all the best and keep them in my thoughts and prayers as I also do with the people of Iraq.