The Reason for the War in Iraq: Rated M17
Allen September 23rd, 2004
Mature adults only.
If you are a pie-eyed pacifist who thinks that all we really need to do is sit down with a full set of Joni Mitchell MP3s and discuss our differences, don’t go further.
If you are a wide-eyed liberal who thinks Iraq was not about the oil, but it was a mistake, you might want to read further. However, you must be willing to cast off some ideas that get in the way.
If you are a doe-eyed conservative who thinks this is all about bringing peace and prosperity to the beleaguered nation of Iraq, you too might want to go further. But again, be willing to shed some ideas.
If you have made it this far, then go read WHY WE ARE IN IRAQ : Military Bases Are A Requirement, Democracy is Merely an Elective. This is a clear-eyed (enough with the eye theme) assessment of why we are in Iraq and where we will be going.
As a note, I catch signals that Gerard Van der Leun is not a big fan of the Republican party. He has some thoughts that I may disagree with (and me a Democrat!), but these asides are not central to the essay.
I will excerpt passages of this excellent essay, with comments:
Of late, the largest dust cloud of lies cast into what passes for “public discourse” concerns two different ways of hinting towards the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Even when we know in our bones that we are in a long war, Americans of all political leanings still like to hear that it is going to be a short one. And both parties are happy to oblige our needs.
If we listen to the subtext of John Kerry we assume, from his statements, semaphores and metaphors, that the troops will be coming home “soon” after his election; i.e. within the year.
If we listen to the subtext being generated by the same mechanisms within President’s camp, we might think that the troops are coming home “later,” but certainly after just one more year.
In the first instance, we are being led to believe that our troops will be out of Iraq in 2005. In the second, we probably think they will be out in 2006, probably on the early side.
Both these signals are pure noise.
American forces will be in Iraq five years from now, more likely ten, probably 20, depending on how that part of the world shakes out and what sort of attacks it will be able to mount outside its core at targets in the Western nations. We will not remain in Iraq for “democracy” (Although we will spend treasure and lives to try and create one.), nor will we be there for the “benefit” of the Iraqi people (Although overall they will reap benefits in terms of treasure and improved lives.). We will remain in Iraq for one concrete reason alone: We need to have military bases there.
Given that we defeated Japan in the 1940s, you will note that we still have bases there. Why? Because it is of benefit to both us and Japan. I foresee a future where the same will be said of Iraq.
And a bonus of bases in Iraq is that this gets our bases out of Saudi Arabia. This is one of the (false) driving points behind bin Laden’s anger toward the US. We are “occupying holy land” — never mind that our bases are nowhere near Mecca and Medina.
This is a powder keg area of the world. And we need to be there in order to snuff the fuse before it reaches the main stores.
As a note, the ellipses below indicate supporting arguments left out. Go read the entire article for the full supporting reasons.
If assume a military cast of mind, ask yourself, “What must we do to prevail in a war that is global but centered in the Middle East, and can possibly last for 20 years?” One of the most immediate answers is that you need to control significant amounts of real estate at the core of the struggle. Given the nature of the war, nothing else will answer across a long struggle. It is close to a certainty that this answer first appeared in the minds of professional military men around noon on September 11, 2001.
To the question of which nation a military mind would choose to conquer in the Middle East, Iraq is the only one that answers. Following the capture of Afghanistan, the map together with tactical realities dictates that Iraq be conquered by, and remain under the control of, the United States into the indefinite future for five core reasons:
1) The conquest of Iraq could be easily achieved. …
2) Iraq is the “high ground” of the middle-east. …
3) Control of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran. …
4) Control of Iraq permits protection and control the Saudi oil fields without being “in” Saudi Arabia. …
5) Control of Iraq is not about the oil, it’s about the water. …
On point one: the conquest of Iraq was amazingly easy. The regular troops and vaunted Republican Guard melted away when faced with a fight against US forces. The pacification has been amazingly difficult. I’m not sure how anyone else could have done a better job. The disbanding of the police and army has been widely castigated, but not disbanding it would have been condemned as well.
On point five: it’s about the water. Interesting point brought up that I was not aware of.
What Iraq has that Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia do not is not oil, but fresh water. In fact, Iraq has almost all of the fresh water in the region.
I’m not sure what you could do to deny this resource without having water become a WMD — that is, withholding water from the region could be seen as a WMD-type event. But it is a strategic resource that needs to be secured. I would prefer that “our” side secure this resource.
- Current Affairs
- Comments(2)
Many thanks for that long and very thoughtful response.
A couple of points:
On “pacification” — I think, and I allude to, the fact that it is our style of warfare that makes the pacification difficult, and that this style is determined by political realities here in the United States in this part of the election cycle. I expect that to change. What sticks in my mind is a passing comment by a Marine commander during the first efforts in Fallujah. He was asked about the course of the fighting which, at that time was the most intense seen in Iraq, he remarked that with all the effort visible, “We’re just playing patty-cake with these guys.”
To an extent we still are. But this need not be, nor will it always be, the case.
On water: I don’t think I directly stated that water was a “weapon” per se (Others have keyed on this as well.), but that water was a key resource, perhaps “the” key resource in the Middle East, one that will gain in importance as our extended soujourn in the country continues. Could it be used as a “weapon”? I dare say it could much in the way we speak of the “oil weapon.” A financial tool before a military tool. In any case, having the greatest amount of water in a desert realm is always a source of wealth and prosperity.
The first civilizations did not, after all, arise in the Neva desert, but in the Tigris-Euphrates valley.
Again, many thanks for the response. I find it very valuable.
Tried to reply to this last night, but our ISP went toes up on me. Trying again…
I agree that pacification of Iraq is driven more by political considerations than military ones.
I did not mean to suggest that you were thinking of water as a weapon. Just wanted to note that it is a rather large weapon to use.
Will also correct the spelling of your name.