The quagmire in Iraq in which the United States is now embroiled
has been met with alarm across the political spectrum. Both
conservatives and liberals view the renewed violence and futile
search for weapons that is taking place in that country with
considerable dismay.
Many fear the occupation will ultimately lead to a U.S. military
defeat or will cause more hatred for Americans in the Middle East;
others are troubled by the government’s inaccurate claims
concerning weapons of mass destruction and the loss of U.S.
international credibility. It is clear the United States must
permit a multilateral peacekeeping force to enter Iraq to cut
costs, search for weapons, and unify the international
community.
Perhaps the biggest reason the United States must allow an
international peacekeeping force is because the occupation is
costly, both in terms of money and American lives. American
taxpayers are currently subsidizing an occupation that costs almost
$1 billion per week, mainly in military expenditures.
This is a substantial amount of money, particularly at a time
when states are facing budget shortages that cost government jobs
and cause education funding to suffer. When expenditures for
rebuilding, education and other costs that the United States must
assume are counted, the occupation costs billions more.
As the economy shows no signs of recovering, this cost becomes
even more difficult to handle. It is difficult to argue, in good
faith, that assistance for Iraqis can be slashed. Thus, the only
way to cut military costs is to share the responsibilities that
come with the invasion of a foreign nation.
Yet another major reason for an international peacekeeping force
is to ensure that all nations affected by the events in Iraq can
play as big of a role in dealing with these occurrences as America
currently does. After all, further fighting or uprisings among
religious leaders can quickly spread to other nations and have
marked influence, especially within countries neighboring Iraq like
Jordan and Iran.
Also, the oil supply, which many view as one of the primary
reasons for President Bush’s decision to go to war, affects
the economies of all nations, including strong anti-war nations
like France. Therefore, permitting these nations to play an
important role in shaping the outcomes of these situations is
crucial.
Many have argued that these nations did not help the United
States to invade Iraq, and so should play no role in a postwar
Iraq. This argument is counterproductive. Unilateral military
action can still have an international effect and, as we do not
live in a vacuum, it is wise to let the international community
play a role in shaping the issues that affect them. To assume that
a country can only play a constructive international role when it
is supportive of American efforts undermines any foundation of
international peace and cooperation.
Also, if the international community is excluded, there will be
more resentment and further suspicion of U.S. motives, thus making
action in the future a much more costly proposition. American
credibility will be determined or at least shaped by the findings
of U.S. troops concerning terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction.
Currently, none of the weapons that were used as an excuse for
invading Iraq have been recovered, nor has there been any concrete
proof of Iraqi involvement in acts of terror, which has increased
criticism of hawks within the Bush administration who are accused
of misleading their own citizens and in a larger sense, the
international community. This in turn has created a high-stakes
political situation and a serious conflict of interest with regard
to the U.S. pursuit of weapons in Iraq. The only way to rectify
this situation is to bring in international observers and
peacekeepers to conduct the search for these weapons.
And perhaps most significant of all, this international
involvement within Iraq would help to bring about a greater respect
for international law, which is vital for facilitating peace in the
future. Such an understanding is crucial, for if the perception
that America plays by different rules for itself than it prescribes
for others is strengthened, the products of this resentment, like
terrorism, are only likely to be strengthened.
It is certainly possible that America will be chastened and
shown to have been wrong by the international community. While this
result may harm American diplomacy and credibility (and rightly so
if the United States engaged in deception), the strengthened
international understanding of conflict resolution that can be
brought about as a result of any multilateral effort is the
ultimate reason why America must ensure the rebuilding of Iraq and
the search for weapons becomes a multilateral effort. The United
States is already starting to involve other nations in the process
on a limited basis; however, these efforts must be expanded for
true peace to take root in Iraq.