There were many reasons to oppose the American invasion of Iraq; the patent dishonesty in the way it was marketed to the American people (and to that less important secondary audience, the world), the horrible precedent established by the “Bush Doctrine” (a phrase that ennobles international thuggery to the dignified level of policy), and the frightening lack of understanding shown in the administration’s dismissal of the need for reconstruction planning.
But to me the strongest objection was always a simple, pragmatic one. The most likely outcome of the American invasion, as we discussed here many moons ago, was the creation of a new state hostile to American interests. And that appears to be happening, without much notice or commentary in the American press: having painted itself into a predicable, and predicted, corner, the US is now left with no possible positive long-term outcome for itself.
The stated intention of the US was to overthrow Saddam Hussein and install a democratic government. The notion was realizable, I suppose, if the US had been prepared to make a generational commitment…say a half century or so…to reconstruction under Iraqi direction, to developing authentic, community based institutions with a democratic foundation, and to fostering the growth of an appropriate indigenous governance structure reflective of Iraq’s deep cultural, linguistic, religious and political divisions.
That was clearly not the plan, or the commitment, even prior to the invasion. The sales pitch required assurances to the American people the US would be in and out quick like a bunny: Iraqis would instantly understand and grasp the priniciple of representative democracy, quickly come together and create a “constitution”, and bingo…a happy, cheerful and grateful free, secular state would spring into being.
This nonsense would have been understandable if it were simply part of the marketing strategy for the war: the scary part is, the administration actually seemed to believe it. Dissenters who suggested that the hostile, fragmented religious and political landscape of Iraq did not, in fact, represent a “nation” that would join together under a “democratic” government were scornfully dismissed, with many a lengthy sermon of praise to the “heroic Iraqi people” who were just waiting for this moment to join, arm in arm, and democratize.
The most likely outcome of any real democratization was, of course, the creation of an Islamist government. Saddam’s horrific regime had been secular and “socialist”, and the new invaders, who, like any conqueror, seized control and assets of the state corporations, represented secular governance as well. In a country with an overwhelming and devout Muslim majority, suffering from years of tyranny by one secular regime and occupation by another, neighbouring on one of the world’s strongest Islamist countries…how would YOU read the odds?
Initially Wolfowitz et al. were quite adamant about the need to ensure that an Iraqi government would NOT be Islamist…and our blogging friends on the right asserted loftily and incessantly that the US and the aforementioned “heroic Iraqi people” would not let that happen. However, with the elimination of Baath party dominance and the military dictatorship, the last indigenous leadership class is the religious leadership: and they ARE leading, to the point that any discussion about Iraqi national politics consists of comparing the views and allegiances of various religious groupings of Muslims.
So instead of a country that is united under a vicious dictator, we seem to be heading towards a country marginally and temporarily “united” under Islamic law, in which Islamic principles are “the” source of law.
Such a country would, of course, no longer be under the UN sanctions or restrictions that prevented Saddam from re-arming.
It would no longer be subject to inspections for CBN weaponry, as a non-signatory to any treaties (rather like its patron, the US.)
It will no longer have half the country under aerial surveillance by the US and British.
It will no longer be a pariah state amid other Arab countries, as Iraq was following its invasions of Kuwait and Iran.
Saddam viewed Islamic terrorists as a danger to his own secular regime and despised Al Qaeda (and the feeling was evidently mutual). Under an Islamist government, of course, that would no longer be the case.
And its government will be selected by a population with fresher memories of the American occupation and seizure of assets than of the Hussein dictatorship that preceded it.
Mission accomplished…
This assessment is pretty much on the button. I do, however, think that you’ve missed part of the motivation for invasion…. I see it going something like this.
1) Our “friends” in Saudi Arabia are/were supporting terrorists in third countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. We cannot confront them, because we have no credible alternative sources of oil. Must secure alternative before we confront them…. Venezuela has/had averted a coup sponsored by the US and we couldn’t build a credible case against them on the terrorist front. Kuwait and the rest of the Middle-east bunch were pumping as fast as they could… Besides, they don’t have the deposits that Iran & Iraq have. Oil rich areas in the former Soviet Union were under Putin’s control, and not available to us grab….
2) This leaves only Iran and Iraq as countries that we could paint as “terrorist” states and invade to secure more oil. As pointed out in the John Perkins book, we do this by enslaving them to the world bank with debt.
3) The Neocon’s biggest fear right now is that the constitution in Iraq will not be ratified, that their government may disolve, leaving all those bills/contracts for rebuilding from Halliburton, Brown-Root, etc. null and void!… Iraq’s obligation to pay these bills is contingent on the continued existence of some governing body there. Remember that we voided Saddam’s debt with France, Germany and Russia when we invaded, partly as a penalty to them for not supporting us. If the people in Iraq do not consent to the current government (i.e. it dissolves), it could be argued (I think successfully) that there is therefore no obligation to be bound to the CPA’s contracts with any outside company. The Neo-con’s need somebody in Iraq that’s willing to stamp/sign the bills when they come in! Without this, there is no acceptance of debt, (debt and usury is against Islamic law by the way)
Look for some continued puppet government that is willing to accept the debt. No matter how much the people in Iraq might not want this, this is what will happen. We will hold the nads of whoever is currently willing to sign the bills for as long as they are willing. Should the Iraqis want to form a country more looking like a federated republic, expect our government to step in again with another CPA and take over the bills/contracts once again. This is about keeping the country unstable and in debt to us, not about forming a “Democracy.”
Also look forward to new action in Venezuela!.. We can’t allow our #3 oil producer to start giving money to the poor, talking with it’s neighbors about getting off the dollar and charging the oil companies realistic prices… Expect an invasion or another coup any day, Rumsfeld just traveled there, I saw the stories in the NYT this morning about “leftists” there….Rummy must mean “Democrats” when he’s saying that….
P.S.: Keep up the good fight…. The President is in his Crawford “Fuhrer-Bunker” looking for an “exit strategy” from his vacation…. Things are starting to look up.