Former Iraq Generals arguing to be reinstated

There is currently an issue in Iraq between the former army commanders and the new operating government. When the rule of Saddam Hussein came to an end, the new government put into law that previous armed forces members were stripped of their military position and forbidden to work in public and government posts again.
The former military men are now demanding that the “debaathification” law be lifted so former members of the Arab Baath party would be allowed to work. This group contains the majority of previous senior army commanders. These individuals are also asking for restitution.
I think there are a couple things to consider in this case:
1. Would the re-admission of these veteran soldiers increase the stability within the new armed forces? Experienced former military men are generally valuable within its states. We all know a strong Iraq military is necessary for long-term stability in the region. Can the past be forgotten to benefit the future?
2. Can these generals be trusted? One argument to be against allowing them to retain their post would be the actions of a few since they were dismembered. Some of these men have been targeted and accused of using unnecessary force and harm against American troops, as well as innocent civilians supporting the movement. Because these men worked for and probably admired Saddam, would they put their bias aside if allowed back in the Army?
If they are allowed back in, there would be nothing more counter-productive than to have conflict from within or a military without consensus and a common purpose. It’s important that the military is set up to promote Iraq and the changes being made, not clash with government and civilian movements.

Syria has recently asked for help from other Arab nations regarding the influx and presence of more than 1 million Iraqi refugees. Given the recent economic trends worldwide, and more specifically in Syria, the Syrian officials claim they are “economically strapped for resources” for these refugees.

Up to this point, Syria has been spending approximately $2 Billion per year on Iraqi’s. Unlike Sweden and other states, Syria does not extradite Iraqi refugees. Sweden has been in the news recently for stopping incoming refugees, arresting them, and sending them off to be deported back to Iraq.
The article I found in an Azzaman publication states:
“The U.S. and U.K, whose troops invaded Iraq and devasted it’s towns and cities with their ongoing bombing and invasions have shamfully shrugged their responsibilities.”
Syria is known for being tolerant when it comes to refugees. The cost to provide social and public amenities is supported through the UN refugee organization, UNHCR, although the article states those budgets are “highly limited.”

I thought the quote was interesting and showed an obvious discontent for the US and its mission. Although I feel aware of the destruction done in Iraq since the war started, I have a hard time imagining America turning their back on reconstructing the area, providing resources for the citizens and encouraging or promoting human rights. If the US had no commitment to restabilizing the region and establishing democratic peace with human rights, then we would have withdrawn troops the moment Saddam had been overthrown. With that said, I believe that we cannot be content with the current state of Iraqi’s and must find a way to give them something of hope, similar to what we are searching for here in the states.

The U.N. and Iraq

I would like to take a look at the U.N.'s current perspective on Iraq.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently said, "Security has improved and Iraq has asserted its sovereignty; but with more sovereignty comes more responsibility. With more responsibility should come less impunity and a greater feeling on the part of the Iraqi people that there are steps towards rule of law, with increased confidence in the state institutions. Only then can real and lasting security be achieved (UN. org)"

These words are both encouraging and challenging. This words encourage the Iraqi people for overcoming their differences and making it this far, through what has hopefully been the hardest part of a time of extreme transition. The Secretary General called the recent election in Iraq a "important turning point.” It was the United Nation's Assistance Mission for Iraq program that provided support for the recent elections in Iraq.

Yet, Ban Ki-Moon also offers a challenge to the Iraqi government to continue to take courageous steps that will inspire the people of Iraq to believe in their government. He encouraged "constructive politcal dialogue. (UN. com)" I am assuming that he is hoping to avoid more instances of uncompromising and selfish struggle between the members of the Iraqi parlement, who struggle with division in religion, ethnicity, and past violence, as well as political viewpoints.

Ban Ki-Moon has also called upon the international community to build upon the positive momentum in Iraq and the success of the recent election. He praised Iran for taking the initiative, setting aside past grievances and opening dialogue with Iraq.

Republican Support in Iraq

Change in the United States is not encouraging thought for many in Iraq, according to, We Are All Republicans Now, an article released by the New York Times. Iraqi sentiment towards Obama is mixed. This surprises me because I thought that because Obama was extremely popular in the international community, he would be extremely popular in Iraq. However, according to the article, many Iraqi leaders about what direction Obama is going to take the United States.

Obama hopes to reverse Bush's preoccupation with Iraq and focus on fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. During his campaign he promised to initiate quick withdrawal from Iraq. A promise which encouraged many Americans, but brought fear to those Iraqis who are cooperating with the United States.

I am not surprised that Iraqi citizens who are against the United States presence in Iraq are encouraged by Obama's election, but I had never considered that those who are cooperating with American would be concerned by suggestions that we withdraw immediately. It seem that they would feel betrayed if we withdrew and their government, that we set up and they now rely upon, collapsed.

I suppose that a realist would give little thought to what the Iraqi leaders hoped are government would do. A realist would say that the United States should try to strengthen ties with Iraq if it increases our power, otherwise, we should leave.

On the other hand, from a liberal perspective, it seems important to closely cooperate with Iraqi leaders. If Obama wants to strengthen the United States standing among other nations, I think that it is important that he follows up upon our nation's obligations and promises, even if those promises were made by a former president he disagrees with. If Obama withdraws to quickly, I think the world will perceive the United States as indecisive and untrustworthy.

In the New York Times article, Iraqi leaders voiced concern over the change in American government because they felt like they were comfortable working with republican leaders. “Before Obama was elected, we had eight years of dealing with Republicans, and we trusted them a lot,” Sheik Moyad said. “Even when a new government comes, we remember this history.”

The Iraqis interviewed for the article voiced the opinion that this is a very critical time for the future in Iraq. What they want is consistency and continued support from the United States, support they claim is still essential to the security and foundational structure of their society.

General Petraeus's War

General Petraeus has lead the Iraqi Coalition forces and authored the recent strategy in Iraq. From January 26 2007 until September 16 2008, Petraeus served as the commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq. He now serves as the Central Command which means that he directs all U.S. forces in the Middle East.

Perpective
Petraeus defines the struggle in Iraq this way, ""This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan. (BBC News)" Petraeus says the he is pursuing "an Iraq that is at peace with itself, at peace with its neighbors, that has a government that is representative of — and responsive to — its citizenry and is a contributing member of the global community. (NPR News)"

Qualification
Petraeus literally has written the book on counter insurgency and modern combat. In 2004 his book "Lessons of the Iraq War and Its Aftermath" was published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In 2006, his work "Learning Counterinsurgency: Observations from Soldiering in Iraq," was published.

Fame
Petraeus is a very popular public figure. He is often credited with turning the war in Iraq around.
He was recently chosen as one of the world's most influential contemporary leaders by Foreign Policy, Time magazine, The Daily Telegraph, Der Spiegel, GQ Magazine, U.S. News and World Report.

Controversy
The Washington Post has released an article, The Generals' Insurgency, which takes a very critical view of Petraeus's actions in Iraq. The article states that Petraeus has been able to achieve what he calls a victory because he has waterdown America's definition of success in Iraq. Rather than trying to achieve Bush's dream of establishing a thriving democracy, Petraeus aims for peace and stability. The article argues that this, and not any of is actual achievements, is why he is viewed as a success.

According the article, Petraeus consistently bypassed his superiors and dealt directly with the President Bush. By doing this he was able to push his own plan for the war unhindered by military critique and revision. The article blames Petraeus for what it calls the failure of the surge and the prolonged occupation.

My Opinion

President Bush was the Commander and Chief of the military, so Bush allowed Petraeus to bypass senior officers and deal directly with him, that was Bush's decision and responsibility. I think that Petraeus was trying to obey his commander and just doing what any general should. I am sure that he believed in his strategies ability to accomplish the President's objectives. If Petraeus has failed, the ultimate responsibility lies upon the President who picked him to lead the occupation.

Iraq and the UN

Given the recent topics in class, I thought that it would be appropriate to look at the involvement of Iraq within the United Nations. To be honest, when I first thought about whether Iraq was a member of the United Nations, I could not say for certain that they were or were not. With all the attention being drawn to the things Iraq has done in spite of the UN, it was hard to imagine they were still active members. But they are...Iraq is one of 192 current members, and were part of the first group of states to be recognized as members of the United Nations. It seems that for the most part, Iraq as a state spent much of its first 50 years as a member in compliance of UN standards. When Saddam took over control of Iraq, the conflict between the UN and Iraq began.

In 1990, the United Nations imposed sanctions against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. These sanctions restricted Iraq’s ability to trade and generate economic activity. Even after the military involvement and removal of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, the United Nations did not remove the sanctions. Specifically, the US, Britain, and France made it clear that they would veto any request for these sanctions to be lifted while Saddam was still in power. There are critics that suggest the sanctions on Iraq had human rights issues as the sanctions were felt throughout the nation by innocent civilians.
The sanctions remained through the 90’s and until after 2003...when the US invaded Iraq they were dropped. Once Saddam was overthrown and the US had control of the territory, the sanctions were removed to capitalize and free up the oil industry in the area.
An argument that might be heard from time to time is what the true power of the United Nations is, or does this organization truly make a difference? I think looking at this case, an argument could be made either way. While the UN Charter provides multiple states the platform to use soft power, it also can draw out an inevitable conclusion. In the case of Saddam, it seems no matter what sanctions or soft power or diplomacy was used, it would not be a factor in the end. A realist might argue that the UN can get in its own way…with these rules and norms the option to use force is not as easily accessible. A liberal perspective would argue that the UN is ideal, citing situations where diplomacy was successful and further conflict avoided. I think an identity perspective would also support the UN as it often uses its power in cases of human rights issues.
It will be interesting to see how the dealings between Iraq and the UN affect future issues…potentially w/ Iran, North Korea, or even China.

Corruption in Iraq

Corruption in the Military
The New York recently released an article discussing an investigation into the possible corruption in Iraq. The new postelection government is beginning to examine some of the cash flow that occurred during the last couple years. Col. Anthony B. Bell and Lt. Col. Ronald W. Hirtle were two officers who were in charge of much of the reconstruction of infrastructure in Iraq. The Government is investigating their actions during the reconstruction period because of evidence that there was widespread corruption in the operations which they were running.

The New York Times article gives an example of the corruption, the actions of the late Mr. Stoffel. Who is reported to have used cash drops and fake pizza deliveries to covertly transfer large amount of cash in unauthorized transactions, money that was supposed to be used to assists Iraqi citizens. Mr Stoffel was granted limited imunity in exchange for information about Col. Anthony B. Bell and Lt. Col. Ronald W. Hirtle.

Corruption among the Contractors

Brave New Films has recently released a new video, Iraq for Sale, which accuses the United States Government of supporting widespread corruption in Iraq by hiring private contracting companies. Some people claim that these companies, companies like Blackwater, Halliburton, Caci and Titan/L3, are sacrificing the lives of their people and the lives of those in Iraq in exchange for profit.

Iran Making Noise in Iraq

News in Iraq has been slower than normal lately, but I found something I thought was interesting. There are current talks between Iraq and Iran about how to improve the cross border trading agreements. In a recent article the Trade Minister from Iraq commented that the two states are engaging in discussions on how they can increase trade activity upwards of 50-75%. Among areas of expansions are tourism and commerce as well as “an increase in the presence of Iranian firms and entrepreneurs.” The growth would catupult trade from $3M to $5M or above.

It appears that this might already be happening. An Iranian firm was awarded one of the largest construction contracts at $1.5 Billion to rebuild part of the city Basra. The plans are to develop a modern town with amenities such as apartment flats, supermarkets, commercial shops and schools. It will provide approximately 5000 housing units ranging up to $250,000.

It is interesting to me that this appears to be going unnoticed by Iran’s opponent, the United States. One of the justifications of invading Iraq was the opportunity to influence the entire Gulf region, with Iran being in the center. It’s well known that Iran has emerged as a threat to democratic nations and these events could discourage what the US has been trying to accomplish in Iraq. Although this might be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, the precedence has been established and the road map has been drawn to provide Iraq with a neighboring ally that contradicts the liberation movement within the region.

Has Iraq Strengthened U.S. interests in the Middle East?

The New York Times recently released an article which discussed the effect of the war in Iraq on the United States political strength in the Middle East. The article takes the stand that the United States has damaged it's interests in the Middle East by engaging in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.


The Question is Has The Invasion of Iraq Strengthened U.S. interests in the Middle East?

Yes, the United States did overthrow one of its old enemies and a possible threat to our allies. Saddam did draw our armies to the Persian Gulf in previous years by threatening Saudi Arabia and invading Kuwait.

Yes, the United States has established what resembles a democracy in Iraq, a key Middle Eastern nation that was once a brutal dictatorship. Recently there was a very successful election in Iraq that had a surprisingly low amount of violence and coercion.

No, the United States has caused a tremendous amount of disturbance in the Middle East. This has angered Middle Easterners, hurt their economy, and negatively affected our access to oil.

No, Iran now feels more threatened by the Unites States powerful presence in its backyard. This has caused it to actively find ways to achieve a balance of power (nuclear weapons, WMD's) and a balance of terror.

No, before the war, Iraq was the hegemon on the Middle East, but Iraq was severely crippled by U.N. restrictions and the U.S.'s watchful eye. Now Iran has risen to become the leader of the U.S.'s opposition, and Iran is more dangerous than Iraq was.

When all is considered, I think the invasion has vastly increased the United State's strength in Iraq (this is obvious) yet weakened the United State's soft power in the Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/weekinreview/08myers.html?scp=6&sq=Iraq&st=cse

Post Iraq War...Economically speaking

Given that our discussions in class have revolved around the international economic system, I thought it would be relevant to ponder what Iraq's economic outlook is beyond the war. To start, it's safe to assume that Iraq's number one producer of jobs is in the business of oil. If there was ever a surplus of something in Iraq, that surplus is oil, or the refinement of oil. It seems that any success Iraq will have beyond the days of U.S. occupation will be directly related to how they handle the production, distribution, and exportation of their greatest resource. Looking into some of the other possible resources Iraq will be left with does not produce a long list. The country is not very rich in agricultural commodities, nor does it have much involvement in the technology industry. Crude oil makes up 95% of Iraq's GDP and exports.

With so much reliance on one resource, the effectiveness of Iraq as a global trading partner will be largely determined by their involvement and willingness to abide by the international trade agreements. It's not a secret that there is a lot of money to be made in the oil industry and by developing the resources available, Iraq could generate prosperity and create a job producing industry in the process. One thing that will be critical is for the citizens of such a young democracy to see the advantages right away. Economic growth and stability is an easy indicator and as long as jobs are created, the overall approval and outlook of the citizens should remain upbeat.

Relating this to the different perspectives there are multiple ways Iraq could approach their international economic positioning.

• Realists would argue the approach of Mercantilism and suggest that the oil supply be produced and exported as much as possible.
• Liberal perspective would emphasize the inclusion and cooperation with international organizations such as the WTO among others.
• Marxists believe that neither of these approaches will be sustainable and argue that the state should be self producing.

I think the answer to what approach Iraq should take is somewhere in between Realism and Liberal approach. There is such a high demand for oil in developed states that Iraq could strongly benefit from the distribution of their biggest resource. Regardless of whether they include themselves in international organizations, the important thing is providing encouraging results, and making sure it comes sooner than later.

Oil, and the cost of the war?

Was the war really for Oil?

This is a question a lot people have asked. I don't think it was. Some people say that we went to war because we wanted to secure more oil or because George Bush was an oil man and control over Iraq would help him. Saying that the United States would use its military might to gain an economic advantage is a realist argument and I believe that there are situations where this is true, but Iraq is not one of them.

First of all, the war in Iraq has been so expensive that any profits we make off of Iraqi oil are negated by the cost of funding the invasion and occupation. There are recent estimates that predict that the war in Iraq will cost the United States between two and four trillion dollars. According to this recent estimate, unless the Unites States makes between two and four billion dollars off of Iraqi oil, the war would not pay for itself.

Unfortunately, the United States is losing oil money, not making it, as a result of the war.

Market prices stay lower when the market is stable as opposed to times of turmoil. If we wanted to keep the price of oil low, invading a major oil producing country is not the proper strategy. Iraq's oil production went down after the invasion, not up. Linda J Bilmes and Joseph E. Stiglitz (PhD and Nobel Prize winning economist) predict that the U.S. will lose up to 800 billion dollars as a result of the wars effect upon the oil industry.

Finally, J. Robinson West, JD, Chairman and Founder of PFC Energy, stated in a Feb. 14, 2003 that George Bush passed an executive order to restrict U.S. companies from dealing with Iraqi oil companies during the occupation. If Bush's goal was to secure oil for the United States, then this order would make no sense.

Democracy working in Iraq???

With the United States celebrating a newly elected leader, Iraq is actively engaging in promoting their own democracy. For the first time since 2005, Iraq has opened voting booths for elections of public officials. The elections will put approximately 400 members into a council role throughout the different regions within Iraq. They will be responsible for budgetary items, security issues among other tasks. There are many that claim this election will indicate or provide an idea of what to expect when national parliamentary elections are held at the end of the year.

The preliminary results are that the voting turnout has been a success. Many assumed that violence would be widespread with some local groups showing resistance. Although there were reports that a few individuals running for positions had been killed during the week, overall the belief is that this process has been a success. Seems hard to believe that the process was a success when people were killed, but I guess it's all about perspective in this case. Some issues did arise, such as where people were to go to vote, voter's registration not being updated or accurate, and residents opportunity to get to voting centers. The hope was to get approximately 70% participation. Results should be known later this week.

The progress of Iraq seems to be encouraging to the United States and the success of this initial vote will probably help justify the withdrawal of American troops. The military presence throughout the region was mainly Iraqi with is also encouraging. Although it's not safe to say Iraq is self sustaining just yet, given that American troops helped with the voting process, but were not forceful is promising and shows progress in the liberation of Iraq. The real test will be at the end of the year, when voting takes place for parliamentary positions, including Prime Minister. There are plans to start the withdrawal process this June and if all goes well with the next voting procedure, the process could speed up.

A couple questions come to mind:

1. Can the U.S. make an assumption based on a relatively small gesture of democratic activity that our tasks have been accomplished?

2. Being such a young democracy, if you can call it that, is Iraq happy with the new direction of their government? Can it be sustained and trusted in the long run?

These are all questions that will have to be answered in time.

The "Threat" of WMD's in Iraq

George Bush's Claim
Before the United States invaded Iraq, George Bush argued that a war in Iraq would be legitimate because Iraq was a threat to the United States. He argued that Iraq was a threat largely because of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD's)he alleged Iraq had. The logic was, if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, than Iraq is a threat to the United States interests. Iraq is hostile to the United States and will use it's weapons if given the opportunity. Therefore, the United States should launch a preventive strike in order to destroy Iraq's WMD's before Iraq has a chance to use them. There is debate over whether or not a preventive war is a just war, but President Bush argues that it is

The Opposition's Claim
The opposition's claim is not that there were no WMD's in Iraq, a generally accepted fact, but that president Bush mislead the American public by exaggerating the evidence for WMD's. They claim that President Bush knew that his intelligence was shaky but decided to ignore that. They also claim that he cherry picked the evidence which he wanted to share with the public so that they would be mislead into concluding that Iraq possessed and was pursuing more WMD's. There were also members of the opposition who argue that even if Iraq did have WMD's, a preemptive war would not have been a just war.

In this post, I will try to address the arguments made by both sides through logical analysis and a comparison with the known facts.

First of all, whether or not there was WMD's in Iraq is not an issue when judging George Bush's representation of the known facts. If he was was honest and fair when presenting the issue to the public, then he was only making an legitimate mistake. If he was biased and deceptive, then what he did was wrong, even if there where WMD's in Iraq.
The issues are, did George Bush misrepresent the information available to him? and Is a preemptive war a just war?

George Bush's Representation of the Intelligence.
,While there are too many documents and quotes to discuss each one thoroughly in this post. My conclusion after reading many of them is that President Bush was not alone when he concluded that Iraq had WMD's. For example, Hillary Clinton told the Senate on October 10, 2002 quote "in the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program."

Georges Sada, a former Iraqi Airforce General told Fox News that (quote link), " we had weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our people"

In 2003, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission

While there were intelligence reports that did conclude that Iraq had, or likely had, WMD's, there were also reports which states that Iraq do not have these weapons. When George Bush told the United States that Iraq did have WMD's, I believe that he was choosing to believe one set of reports and disregard the latter. I believe that this was misleading of him. It is very possible that he truly believed that Iraq had WMD's, yet he discussed the issue as if there was no debate.

Personally, I do not feel that this was morally wrong of him. I place the real blame on the agencies which incorrectly concluded that Iraq possessed WMD's. However, I do feel that Bush acted foolishly and carelessly in regards to his representation of the intelligence available to him. concluded that Iraq had the potential to develop thousands of biological weapons, and possessed the weapons capable of delivering them.

The Legitimacy of a Preemptive War.
There are several commonly accepted Criteria for a Just War .
--The war is a last resort
--The war is waged by a legitimate authority.
--The war redresses a wrong suffered
--The extent of the war must be proportional to the wrong suffered
--The must have minimal collateral damage
--The purpose of the war is to bring about future, long lasting peace.

A preemptive war cannot meet any of these requirements except for that last one. Yet some theorists argue that in a post 9/11, these criteria must be reevaluated. They argue that a terrorist needs to only attack once in order to "win" and that unlike a sovereign nation, it is difficult to effectively retaliate against a terrorist strike (especially ones of a suicide nature).

It can also be argued that a preemptive war might be more successful than a war that is a response to an attack. Therefore, it is a way of preventing injustice and avoidable casualties.

I think that these are logical arguments, however, the danger is that it is impossible to predict the future and know whether a preemptive strike is really preemptive (it can only be called so if the enemy is really going to attack you). It is almost impossible to call a preemptive war a last resort. Therefore, I argue that the more certain a nation is that it is going to be attacked the more legitimate a preemptive strike is. In this case of Iraq, I do not think there was enough evidence to support that idea that Iraq was preparing to attack the U.S. or it's allies. Therefore, I do not feel that the preemptive war with Iraq can be legitimized as such (though the war may be legitimate for other reasons, such as human rights violations).

A New Comander and New Marching Orders - January 25th

It is no secret that Obama does not plan to continue with the course Bush set in Iraq. Obama promises to reduce troop levels in Iraq. He also hopes to deal with the conflict in a multilateral fashion, drawing upon the advice and strength of our allies rather than ignoring their concerns and fighting a unilateral war.

Why Obama Wants Change
Throughout his campaign, Obama promised to reevaluate President Bush's war in Iraq. According to Obama, the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from other legitimate security threats. Instead of fighting a war in Iraq, the United States could have focused on hunting down Al Qaeda, fighting global climate change, supporting nuclear nonproliferation, securing the homeland, and a host of other pressing needs that, according to Obama, our nation has proven unable to properly address while focusing on the conflict in Iraq. Obama feels that the price of our involvement in Iraq is too high a cost, both in terms of lives lost and money spent. He claims that the Iraqi Security Forces will prove adequately prepared to protect the peace and actively fight organized crime.

Where to?
Obama believes that Afghanistan, not Iraq, should be the United States focus in the war on terror. Al Qaeda and Taliban staged 9/11 out of Afghanistan, not Iraq. Recently, the Taliban has established control over sections of Afghanistan because the United States military presence there has not been strong enough to suppress them. Obama feels that our nation's war against terrorism should be fought in Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Source,
The information used to compile Obama's perspective on these subjects was found in his speech on the war which was published by the New York Times.

WMD's and the Reason for War

I thought this week I would post on a topic we are currently discussing in class and the connection it has with the war in Iraq. The justification to invade Iraq was primarily based on the assumption that Saddam Hussein was actively engaged/engaging in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction. After declaring war on any and all terrorist organizations and threats, President Bush urged the United Nations to search Iraq for any operations involving WMD's. US troops were already in Afghanistan at this point and Americans were still emotional about 9/11. These emotions might have made them more willing to support a war on anything that posed a threat, including Iraq. Whether an Iraq war was inevitable regardless of the outcome of their search is up for debate. Most seem to believe that we were heading for war either way. The justification to move forward proved to be this belief and information that there were indeed destructive weapons in Iraq and that those weapons posed serious threat to America.
The relationship between the United Stated and Iraq has historically been rocky at best. The dictatorship rule of Saddam had always been criticized by American presidents. In the 1980's it was known that Iraq used chemical and biological weapons against Iran and that same warfare killed many Iraqi civilians. I think this not only showed the world the weapons available for Iraq to use, but also indicated the level of comfort with which they showed in using them. Genocide and mass murder were analogies used when describing Iraq, and probably for good reason. Iraq has been a signed state of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty almost since the origination. Because of this, they agreed to allow UN inspectors to search for any wrong doing.
War was engaged after President Bush declared that the UN inspectors had indeed found WMD's. This proclamation has been the debate of many people and depending upon your source, can have many different theories and outcomes.
A lot of people believe Bush lied when he said WMD's were found. Some believe he was telling the truth. Some believe Iraq had them and moved them to Syria before UN inspectors could find them. I tend to wonder if the WMD's made a difference in the grand scheme of things. It seems like finding them would have provided that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that American safety was being jeopardized. It would then be justifiable by most standards to move forward. What about the additional threats Iraq posed against the US? Were we to continue to turn our heads away from the horrible things going on in that state? Our human rights ideals were being threatened there and it seemed we were destined to battle either way. Which leads me to wonder out loud...did finding or not finding WMD's really matter?

Jan 17th 2009 Realist, Liberal, and Identity perspectives on the war in Iraq.

In our class, we have studied three different perspectives used for examining international relations. The realist perspective , the liberal (or idealist) perspective , and the identity perspective (which focuses on the beliefs and ideas which create a nation's perception of its identity and role in the world).

Iraq War from a Realist Perspective
A realist would define the current state of international relations from a balance of power perspective. The United States has established itself as an unrivaled superpower. A realist would argue that this explains wars of preemption or preventive wars, such as the war in Iraq. From the realist perspective, reasons for the war in Iraq could include

1) Iraq ignored an authority structure the United States created and supports, the U.N.

2) Iraq posed a (possible) threat to the United States with its alleged weapons of mass destruction and though its connection to terrorists.

3) Iraq was a key component in a group of nations that were trying to counterbalance the United States power. These nations could include OPEC nations, Russia, China, and others.

Iraq War from a Liberal Perspective

From a Liberal Perspective, the war in Iraq is the result of a breakdown in international communication. George Bush encouraged America to adopt a unilateral approach. Instead of waiting for U.N. approval and utilizing international support to it's fullest potential. Bush ignored the sentiments of our allies and pursued war without giving diplomacy a chance to properly function
From a Liberal Perspective, the war could also be explained as an effort to advance Democracy. Idealists note that democracies have never fought a war between each other (Something realists cannot explain). President Bush hoped that by establishing a democratic government in Iraq, the United States could create a bastion of democracy in a region behind the rest of the world in respect to democratic development.

Iraq War from an Identity Perspective

The identity perspective could also propose spreading democracy as a reason for the United States to overthrow Iraq's dictatorship. The identity perspective might view the war in Iraq as a clash of civilizations, a war between Western thought and Middle Eastern thought. This could also be used to explain the challenges the United States has faced while trying to establish a democracy in Iraq.


Of course, whether or not these are legitimate reason for going to war is still debatable. My goal in this was to present possible perspectives or how different schools of thought could view the conflict.

Future Direction of Troops in Iraq??

With the upcoming changes in presidency on most everyone's mind, I thought I'd discuss a few things related to the direction our newly elected officials have shared regarding our troops in Iraq. Although a specific plan of action has not yet been declared, or possibly kept under wraps until Obama takes office, the players involved have shared a few comments that leads to some ideas about how Iraq will be handled. I'll point out again that my role on this blog is to focus on the opinions, beliefs, and ideals of Iraq and potentially other Middle Eastern States involved with the war in Iraq. For this particular topic though I feel it is important to point out what a few people have said.

• On January 13, Senator (and soon to be Secretary of State) Hilary Clinton spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She stated that the focus of our troops should shift towards Afghanistan and Pakistan safe-havens for al Qaeda terrorists. "We can lead at home...while enhancing economic production and security."
• al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden recently released a recording urging Islamic nations to continue their Jihad against "Crusader-Zionist coalitions." He also questioned whether America could continue their pursuit of democracy with force, claiming it was not likely.
• President elect Obama's opinion...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDhOxNeOj4U

It seems evident that we will be working on pulling troops out of Iraq ASAP. An agreement has been signed to reduce armed forces in Iraq by 2011. A philosophical shift is coming on the American side, but how will that effect Iraqi government and armed forces? The perception of American troops by residents of Iraq seems mixed. Although some have embraced what we've done, there is a large majority that refuse to accept the ideals we encourage.

Once Iraq is left to promote their own democracy, will they? Are they willing to stand up to organizations against democracy to promote their state? Is the infrastructure set to enable future success? These questions are posed not in search of concrete answers. Those answers lie in the ideals, norms, and beliefs of the nation in addition to the history or established direction of the state.

To tie this into our class studies, another question to pose is can a state that has historically been a realist nation with a dictatorship rule suddenly change their approach and mentality and promote democracy? A lot of people argue that this is too difficult, that religion plays too big a role, or there are other factors involved. Others claim that it has been done before on a different scale. Only time will tell.

Posted by Mark

Week #1 The Cost of the War and Arguments For and Against It.

My name is Christopher. My goal is to present the Unites State's perspective on the Iraq War. Presenting the United States opinion on this issue is challenging because American's have very different views of the war, the United States, and the role the United States should play in the Middle East. I will try to provide an unbiased evaluation of several different perspectives on each issue that I discuss.

Sources
While I hope to borrow from a broad array of American Media, my primary sources will be the New York Times, US - Iraq ProCon.org, and the Washington Post.

One of the most discussed aspects of the war has been the cost in terms of American lives. On January 9th, 2009, the United States reported 4,224 American Military deaths in Iraq. 3,403 of these are reported as direct result of "hostile action" (Washington Post, Associated Press). Indeed, the emotional stories of soldiers dying and leaving behind a wife and young family, parents and siblings, friends and fellow comrades make a compelling argument for immediate withdrawal (New York Times). Some American's argue that these cost are worth the ousting of Saddam and America's reconstruction of Iraq, many are skeptical of Iraq's future and argue that America has paved much too high of price, in American lives, for any results achieved by the war.

Some of the most popular arguments for the war in Iraq are,

1) Saddam's human rights violations.

Supporters of the war in Iraq state that because Saddam committed several human rights atrocities, the United States had a moral obligation to lead the world in a fight for his removal. Others, agree with Human Rights Watch which released a statement to the effect that Saddam's Human Rights violations were not severe enough to warrant the invasion of Iraq.

2) Ousting the Baath Party was a preventive war.

One way to justify the war in Iraq is to claim that Iraq posed a potential threat to the United States and its interests. If one accepts this and the morality of preventive war, then the war can be justified. If one rejects one of the above, then the argument fails.

3) The Possibility of Democracy in Iraq.

George Bush said that, "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Remarks at the 20th Anniversary of the
National Endowment of Democracy, Nov. 6, 2003)" Supporters of the war feel that the opportunity to create a democratic nation in the heart of the Arab subcontinent is worth the lives of U.S. troops. Those against the war may argue that U.S. has no obligation or right to impose its form of government on another country.

4) Iraq's violations of UN resolutions.

Some claim that the U.S. had a legal right to invade Iraq and enforce U.N. resolution UNSCR 1441 (John Bellinger, Legal Adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State, 2003). Others argue that the United States was never given permission by the UN to invade and, therefore, had no legal right to invade Iraq (David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation).

Sources

• New York Times, March 24, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/ref/us/20061228_3000FACES_TAB1.html

• The Associated Press, Sunday, January 11, 2009; 7:20 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/11/AR2009011101889.html

• US - Iraq ProCon.org "Top 10 Pros and Cons" http://usiraq.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=668
  

Week of 1/11/09 Post

I thought I'd start by giving a brief introduction of myself and the role I'll play on this blog. My name is Mark. I work full time as a financial advisor for a credit union in Olympia. I've decided to go back to school to further my education and expand my knowledge beyond my current scope. I will be actively monitoring the news in Iraq and from around that region looking for opinions or editorials discussing the war. Although I will be primarily focusing on the war in Iraq, I feel it is important to relay or discuss other issues that are relevant for the region and have a direct effect on the United States approach to liberating Iraq.

My first post I thought I'd discuss a couple thoughts. One of the first articles I read discussed the inauguration of a US Embassy in Baghdad. I found it interesting that the size and structure of the facilities were scrutinized. Apparently the building was built to withstand potential attacks/bombings/etc...which lead a few to criticize Americans for being scared and unwilling to come out from behind our armor and military. I personally think that at this point, regardless of what we do Americans will be perceived in a negative sentiment. It's ridiculous to expect a landmark such as an embassy to be built without security in mind. Bombings are as common in Baghdad as rain is in Seattle...why wouldn't the US take caution and build a structure to sustain an attack?

Another article I found interesting was an opinion article on the similarities of the war in Iraq and the conflict in Gaza. The writer had a very negative perception of Bush, the US and the military involvement in Iraq. Specifically he claims the wars are supported by catchy slogans and not about being a world mediator. He calls the US and other world powers onlookers. This is such a sensitive and touchy subject that it's hard to be in the right. If the US took an active approach we'd be criticized for having the wrong motives. If we don't get involved than we are enabling terrible things to happen. Like I stated above, at this point because of some of our past mistakes and current worldwide perception we don't have the ability to be do the right thing, regardless of what we do.