What Did The Iraq War Really Achieve?

Volleys of gunfire erupt from the insurgency-controlled area of Fallujah, only to be punctuated by the piercing sounds of American mortar barrage. Bodies of both Americans and insurgents litter the streets as two Iraqi women hurry by, faces lined with the expressions of fear and worry. Along the side of the street, lies the abandoned body of a dead baby toddler; his face blackened by mud, his body riddled with bullets.

This is the Iraq that exists today.

The Iraq War is a topic of frenzied debate and controversy in the global arena. Its repercussions are seen far and wide: From the social instability and violence in Iraq, as abovementioned, to the African and Asian countries where terrorist insurgencies still flourish, and to the Western countries who are so still sharply divided over the war in Iraq. Its impact should not be judged only on a military basis, as the war left an indelible scar upon international relations, economies and global politics.

To a certain extent, the Iraq War can be said to be a war of liberation. The American invasion effectively removed Saddam’s iron grip on the country, freeing Iraqis from his autocratic rule. On religious, economic and political fronts, Iraqis have been granted more freedom than they ever had before. Iraqis are now able to form political parties, express their opinions openly, and subscribe to different political ideologies. Over a hundred newspapers today are freely accessible by the Iraqi people; each one of them free from censorship. As compared with the less than ten government owned newspapers of the past, we can therefore observe an improvement in the social and political freedom awarded to Iraqis today.

With the passing of the recent Iraqi elections, the first democratic Iraqi government in more than 25 years has been erected. So far, signs have been encouraging, with a proportional representation in the Iraqi cabinet and the ongoing drafting of a constitution. The political atmosphere in the Middle East also offers room for optimism. From Saudi Arabia to Syria, louder voices are heard calling for a larger democracy, a healthy trend which according to some conservatives in Washington, is a direct consequence of the Iraq War. Whether the democratic institutions would be firmly entrenched in Iraq is subject to question. But even the most hard-line critics of the Iraq War admit that some good has come out of it. The people of Iraq have been liberated from a system of tyranny- a regime which arbitrarily killed and gassed its people, a regime which forced its people to be embroiled in constant war: The eight-year Iran-Iraq war due largely to Saddam Hussein’s makings; which sustained over one million Iraqi deaths in the span of less than a decade.

In addition, there appears to be a collective emancipation of women in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Women are free to lobby against discrimination. The most significant indicator of their success is the fact that they were granted a quota of 25% of parliamentary seats in the interim constitution. However, women’s basic rights to life remain vulnerable and unprotected. Since the fall of Saddam’s regime, many Iraqi women have worried about their safety after hearing news of rape and other heinous crimes committed against women. Others felt threatened by the unreasonable demands of religious fundamentalists, who demanded that the women cover themselves up and restrict their public movements.

But are the abovementioned really liberations? Many Iraqis today live in poor and shocking conditions. One of the major causes of aggravation are electrical shortages— the rate of the electrical shutoffs stands at the level of 50%, with 3 hours of electrical service followed by a 3-hour shutoff. Iraq is also beset with bombings on its oil facilities. Consequently, both the economy and the locals suffer. Gasoline, which is only available 50% of the time, has to be rationed based on odd and even license plates for odd and even days. It is common for gas lines in Iraq to be miles long. For the Iraqis who can afford it, the alternative is to purchase gasoline on the black market for prices that are four to five times more exorbitant. It is painfully ironic that a country that possesses the second largest oil reserves in the world has to have its gasoline rationed in such a stringent manner. For a country whose people live in conditions bordering on absolute poverty, can they even think about active political participation, or purchase the newspapers they are now so freely accessible to? The unstable social conditions in Iraq only serve to make things worse. How can the people actively participate in a democracy where insurgents threaten to kill all who participates in its elections? Why should the people care about proliferating one’s own political opinions and ideologies when they cannot even safeguard their own lives?

 For a democracy to exist, there must be stability. A democracy on an anarchy is nothing but a fallacy; an anarchy only serves to limit the powers and proliferation of democracy. The low 58% of voter turnout in the recent Iraqi elections is testament to this. The people must first have socially and financially stable lives before they can go on to pursue higher ideals such as democracy; after all, Man himself cares only for himself, before he even goes on to consider the collective welfare of the people. With more than half the population without electricity and gasoline, with furious street to street fighting and insurgent bombings daily, they only serve to be great obstacles towards the actualization of democracy. The freedom of expression does not mean anything, it is the utilization of such freedoms that does. The Iraqi people cannot afford their own basic necessities, let alone purchase televisions or newspapers or possess the ability to be exposed to such media. So can the creations of various freedoms and democracy in Iraq be really considered as liberalization? The abovementioned leaves plenty of room for much doubt.

The Iraq War could also be just a stepping stone in the proliferation of American imperialism. In his column The War Party’s Imperial Plans, Patrick J. Buchanan has highlighted an alarming shift in power in the Middle East region. Syria is now surrounded by hostile powers: Israel on the Golan, Turks and Kurds to the north, American forces to the west in Iraq and south in Jordan. On the other hand, Iran is surrounded by the Americans and Turks to the west, American forces in the Gulf and Arabian Sea to the south, in Afghanistan to the east and in the old Soviet republics to the north. With its forces occupying Iraq, America now has the leverage to impose its will on Syria and Iran, and has become the hegemonic power in the region.

Departing from the domestic consequences affecting Iraq, we can also identify several international and foreign repercussions. The invasion of Iraq marks a radical departure from the US foreign policy which prevailed since the end of the Cold War. Dubbed the Bush Doctrine, the principle entails the justifiability of pre-emptive attack on nations who may harbor malicious intentions or pose significant threat to the US. This doctrine is condemned by many as being presumptuous and domineering. There is also a real concern that other countries may use this precedent to act preemptively, thereby destabilizing the world order. Since the Iraq war represented such a turn in US foreign policy, the world is divided. France and Germany took the lead in opposing the US-led invasion in Iraq; this is on top of the fierce opposition to the war by many Muslim nations. They fear the regional balance of power may be upset, and that the US can exercise more influence should the Iraq war is fought. As a result of the deep division, ties between nations were strained. The US seems to be more radicalized than ever before, making sweeping statements like “if you are not with us, you are against us” (George Bush, after September 11 2001). This radicalism has rendered any multilateral efforts infeasible.

After the Sept 11 attacks, the US has been acting “recklessly” and has shown blatant disregard for the international community, exemplified by the invasion of Iraq without UN approval. As Susan Sontag observes, the US has “squandered its sympathy and goodwill with its reckless adventurism”. Foreign relations aside, the image of America has also been damaged, and it would take years, even decades, to reverse this impression. America’s credibility is also at stake, given the lack of concrete evidence to support the claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) before the war began. The largely unsubstantiated claim of connection between terrorist groups and Saddam Hussein’s regime has also dealt a huge blow to the credibility and integrity of the US intelligence. Given the total lack of evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a real and significant threat to the US, academics have contended that the US is acting out of self-interest motives. Whatever the case may be, the Iraq war has earned the US nothing more than labels like “radical conservatism”, “unilateralists”, “applying double standards” and the like, and certainly not respect. The Iraq War can thus be seen as a political and ethical tragedy in an American context, with it being a political and diplomatic fiasco in the false pretext of carrying out such a war to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. This in turn has greatly ruined America’s standing and image to the international arena.

Was the Iraq War really a war of liberation? Much remains to be seen. But what we do know is that while indeed, the seeds of democracy and freedom have been planted, it is the conditions for the growth and proliferation of such democracies and freedoms that are lacking. Hence the Iraq War, in a sense, was a war of limited liberation. Was it a tragedy? In many respects, yes. It has not only severely affected America’s credibility and standing to the world, but has also promoted a hegemonist American power and culture in the Middle East, as well as causing domestic anarchy and social chaos in Iraq.