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.