Occupying Iraq is a complicated issue.
The Los Angeles Times recently announced that 200 Americans had
been killed in Iraq since the day American and British forces
launched the attack against the Persian Gulf nation. Those 200 dead
include 100 American and British troops who have been killed in
Iraq in the nearly two months since the end of major hostilities.
These developments, along with the unsuccessful search for weapons
of mass destruction, have called into question the United
States’ motives in going to war, as well as the United
States’ ability to fulfill its commitments to the people of
Iraq while occupying their nation.
President Bush’s claim that he was invading Iraq in order
to “liberate” the Iraqi people has always appeared
dubious at best.
After all, at one time, Bush claimed he was invading Iraq
because of its involvement with terrorism, including supposed ties
to the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington D.C. As this
terrorism claim came into question, however, Bush decided to
produce a new reason. He claimed Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction, and it would be “suicidal” for the United
States not to disarm Iraq. But as the international community began
to question whether an attack was necessary to accomplish this
goal, Bush realized that such reasoning might not be persuasive
enough. He decided to open his third line of argument: It was
America’s obligation to free the Iraqi people from Saddam
Hussein’s tyrannical regime, because Hussein was a ruthless
despot who had murdered thousands of his own people.
Of all the claims Bush made concerning Iraq, the only one that
appears to be indisputable today is that Saddam Hussein was a
tyrant who murdered thousands of his own people.
So now the citizens of Iraq are “free,” but the
future of Iraq is certainly in question. Along with the alarming
number of American soldiers killed in Iraq in recent months,
general lawlessness has overtaken Iraq. Several major attacks have
crippled power generation, looting has been rampant, and
shopkeepers are robbed frequently. Numerous Iraqi citizens have
questioned why American troops have been unable to bring order.
In northern Iraq, dominated by Sunni Muslims, it was assumed
that forces loyal to Saddam Hussein were orchestrating continuing
attacks against American soldiers. However, this has quickly become
a national, rather than a regional trend, after troops were killed
in the predominantly Shiite regions of southern Iraq. This came as
a shock, for it was assumed that Shia Muslims, having been targeted
for repression by Hussein’s regime, would not oppose the
United States so strongly.
These events appear to indicate that the United States has
entered a situation much more complicated than it initially seemed.
The withdrawal of American troops and the formation of a sovereign
Iraqi government, which administration officials had promised would
be swift, is as distant as ever.
None of this is to suggest that Hussein’s treatment of his
people was in any way justifiable. But if Bush’s goal was to
liberate the Iraqi people, he should have ensured that his plan was
really geared toward this end.
Instead, we have seen the Bush doctrine ““ which asserts
the United States’ right to make preventive strikes against
nations manufacturing weapons of mass destruction ““
destroying accepted international precedents, and causing conflict
with many allies.
Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq,
the world is left with a confusing situation. Apparently, the Bush
doctrine extends to nations that are merely suspected of WMD
programs. But if no weapons are ever found, the United
States’ already poor standing in the international community
will decline further. Harm will come to the United States not in
the form of physical attacks, but because of our lost political
capital.
Unfortunately, as Americans already know, the claim of WMDs in
Iraq really is only one in a series of questionable government
claims.
From the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution under Lyndon Johnson to the
Iran-Contra scandal under Ronald Reagan, Americans have faced a
difficult dilemma ““ should they question the
government’s actions, as the writings of the Founding Fathers
urge, or should they trust the government that has been entrusted
with preserving national security?
Government dishonesty weakens citizens’ trust, heightens
cynicism and lack of participation that hinders our government. The
issues of American dishonesty, as well as the wisdom of continuing
to occupy Iraq, are issues with which the American people will have
to deal. The occupation is costing the lives of American soldiers
and Iraqi civilians, and has no end in sight.
Only a full, thorough analysis of the reasons that the United
States went to war, and the costs of continuing occupation of the
Iraqi people, can resolve the issues behind the current quagmire
our nation faces.
The Bush administration should be honest with the American
people and the world. If WMDs do not exist in Iraq, the
administration should admit to the failure of the intelligence
agencies.
Bhaskar is a third-year political science student.