| The Effect of the Iraq War on Stability in the Middle East |
|
| Written by Aaron Sussman | |||||
| Friday, 25 November 2005 | |||||
|
A Debate Recently, with newspaper headlines showing evidence of increasing unrest and volatility in Iraq, we at Web Wire HQ began to wonder if the President’s claims that the war would bring stability to the Middle East are still credible. So, we turned to two budding talking heads, Ben Hackett and Aaron Sussman, for their opinions. Benjamin Hackett: The war in Iraq will serve as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. The establishment of a democratic Iraq, coupled with a newly democratic Afghanistan will pressure remaining dictatorial regimes into reform. The empowerment of a people that, for the first time, will have an ownership and investment in their destiny is not a force easily suppressed. The war in Iraq has not caused terrorism. Remember that the first World Trade Center Bombings, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, the United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and 9-11 all occurred before we were ever in Iraq. The truth is that the Middle East is the epicenter of a titanic battle. Knowing this, terror tactics are aimed at shaking the resolve of the West. The Islamic Fundamentalists attacked Spain for their involvement in Iraq. Following that, Great Britain was also attacked. The insurgency in Iraq kills fellow Muslims and Iraqi security forces. Why is this so? The reason foreign al Qaeda fighters make up the base of the insurgency is that the Islamic Fundamentalists understand the stakes. These terrorists understand the prospective reality that a democratic Middle East presents them. No longer would a region be stagnated economically, awash in poverty and misery. The breeding grounds for prospective Islamic Fundamentalist recruits would vanish. Aaron Sussman: Stability in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere in Middle East can easily be achieved through oppressive occupations, puppet regimes and draconian rule. Hussein gassed the Kurds in Halabja – with America’s implicit blessing – in the name of stability. Stability is a nebulous term and a meaningless one when you forego human rights, security, and international law. Is Iraq stable now? 50% of Iraqis have no access to clean water and electricity levels are at or below pre-war levels, despite lucrative contracts given to Bush buddies at Bechtel and Halliburton – companies that have only contributed to the massive unemployment by bringing in foreign workers. Less than half of the $18.4 billion allotted to the reconstruction of Iraq has been spent, and huge portions of it have disappeared and cannot be accounted for. The war in Iraq, in addition to American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, has invited unprecedented enmity on the United States and its allies. Revelations of systematic abuse and torture only stoke the flames of contempt and anti-American sentiment. In 2003, the number of significant terrorist attacks was the highest it has been in over two decades, according to State Department figures. Terrorists are being created and recruited at terrifying rates and nobody, anywhere, is safer. Statements by top al-Qaeda terrorists say that the war has given them a “golden and unique opportunity" for the global jihad – is this what Bush meant by calling himself a “uniter”? Even high-ranking government official like U.S. Vice Admiral Jacoby, Direct of the DIA, believe that “Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment." This illegal war and our global policies (as well as our domestic ones under the Patriot Act) have radicalized formerly moderate Muslims and have given ammunition to already deadly terrorist organizations. Most dangerous, perhaps, is the precedent set for flagrantly disregarding international law and opinion. Human rights, security, and international law have all been brazenly breached by this war, and that certainly does not equal stability. Next, we asked Ben and Aaron to respond to each other’s positions. Here are their comments. BH: The concept of an illegal war is quite misleading. There are no circumstances where invading another sovereign nation would be considered “legal.” In addition, the concept that our policies are “radicalizing” Muslims, is patently false. We have a military presence in foreign nation, and thus are prone to attack. Few would argue that our policies and the policies of say, the French, mirror one another. And yet, the French faced rioting from “radicalized” Muslim Youth in their own liberal-socialist nation. Returning to the topic at hand, recent successes in the Middle East are validation of the war in Iraq. Condi is back from an amazingly successful set of meetings in the Middle East. The Lebanese ouster of Syria, the elections in regional countries, and the reaction of the people of Jordan to the recent terrorist attacks would never have occurred without the US presence in Iraq. The table is set for a democratic Middle East. While the two sides may disagree on policy, they are bound to agree that a democratic Middle East presents the greatest hope for a quelling of global terrorism. Since rhetorical attacks are not viable alternatives, current policies carry the day. AS: The war in Iraq has crippled the country in countless ways and has emboldened Islamic extremists throughout the world -- this is not a sign of stability. It is startlingly clear that the Iraqi people have not been “empowered” nor been given the chance to own or control anything. The war, combined with the effects of U.S. backed sanctions, has ravaged Iraq’s economy, particularly its agriculture, depriving people of the ability to feed themselves and control food production. Since the invasion, the number children who are starving has increased, and over 25% of them are chronically undernourished, according to a recent UN report. Unemployment has skyrocketed directly because of the policies of the occupational authorities. In Iraq, the ability to determine one’s own fate is, like clean water and access to electricity, a completely foreign concept. Not only are current terrorist “breeding grounds” not subsiding in activity, but new ones are being created at frightening rates in previously secular areas. New crimes committed by the U.S. emerge each day, ranging from torture to secret prisons to the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah, an incendiary and toxic chemical that would be in violation of international weapons treaties. Islamist terrorism existed before the invasion, but the invasion is a continuation, in many ways a climax, of our disastrous policies in the Middle East. The Bush administration has constantly changed its justification for the war, employing whatever propaganda it felt would be most effective, with utter disregard for truth. Dick Cheney explicitly said that there was a direct link between al-Qaeda and Iraq, and now he accuses the massive and growing anti-war contingent of immoral “revisionism.” He, of course, also said that the insurgency was in its “last throes.” These comments, to say nothing of the litany of other lies, distortions, exaggerations, etc., starkly spell out this administration’s deceit and incompetence. Now the justification du jour for the war is this modern “domino theory,” that it will save the region from falling into the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Unfortunately, this is just another hawkish attempt to salvage a failed war campaign and a failed presidency. Judging by the numbers who still support the President and the war, the people see no bright vision of stability and democracy; this time, they’re not buying it.
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved. | |||||