An interview with me about the Iraq war.
Q: Do you believe there should be an immediate withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq?
A: Yes.
Q: Will that result in chaos in Iraq?
A: Iraq is in chaos now. Iraq was a stable society before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Now it is a society in disarray. I don't understand the assumption that U.S. troops are somehow preventing the violent destruction of Iraqi society when the U.S. invasion is responsible for creating that very condition.
Q: Was Iraq better off under Saddam Hussein?
A: Well, that is a very general question. Certainly not for Shiite dissidents or the Kurds who fell victim to Hussein's attacks. However, for the majority of Iraqis, they are worse off now. Iraqis are now under the constant threat of violence. Food, water, and electricity are hard to come by. They are not free to move about in their own neighborhoods. Their blocks are littered with constant checkpoints and curfews are imposed on them. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq featured a burgeoning middle class. The U.S. invasion has destroyed it.
Q: You mentioned dissidents. Iraqis did not enjoy freedom of speech under Saddam Hussein.
A: That is true. Many people all over the world do not enjoy freedom of speech. That doesn't make it right, but that is the reality. People usually will sacrifice that freedom in exchange for necessities, such as food, water, and electricity. Under Hussein, Iraq was a stable country with an expanding middle class. The war has destroyed Iraqi society. Now every Iraqi lives under the fear of death.
Q: How much time should the withdrawal of U.S. troops take?
A: As quickly as possible. It should start immediately. However, I don't know much about military tactics. This is an area where the next president can confer with the generals in Iraq. With General Petraeus's Congressional hearings, there is an assumption that his word should somehow dictate policy. It shouldn't. The role of a general is to create a military strategy with the given policy. It is the job of the appropriate government officials to determine the country's foreign policy. General Petraeus' job should be to advise the president on how to withdraw the troops, not on whether to leave them in Iraq or not.
Q: Doesn't the United States need to ensure Iraqi democracy before fully withdrawing troops?
A: That is a noble thought. However, any government in Iraq will not be seen as legitimate by the Iraqis as long as there is an American presence in their country. It will be seen as a puppet government to American interests. Any true democratic government in Iraq will fundamentally be anti-American.
Q: So there can't be a democratically-elected pro-American government in Iraq?
A: Right. A large majority of Iraqis have a negative view of America and understandably so, given the destruction of the war. Thus, if the government is determined by the will of the people, it must be anti-American. The U.S. is going to have to accept this fact and do everything possible to help the Iraqis from afar. That is the only way to change public opinion.
Q: Why does American help have to be from afar?
A: Because the Iraqis are distrustful of America's intentions and understandably so. Remember, it was the U.S. invasion that destroyed their way of life. Now we wonder why the Iraqis are distrustful of America's intentions. It doesn't make sense.
Q: Hasn't America done some good things in Iraq?
A: Sure, but it has been on a very small level and certainly does not justify the invasion or maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq. On the big questions, even America's noblest intentions have managed to exacerbate the divisiveness in Iraq. In each election, most Iraqis have ended up voting based along ethno-sectarian lines. This has resulted in further separation between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. There are also divisions within each group.
America's attempts to train the new Iraqi military have had catastrophic results. At first, the Sunnis boycotted the military, so in essence, the U.S. was training and arming Shi'a death squads. Since then, the U.S. has also provided Sunnis with weapons, in order to fight against Al Qaeda. So both sects are well-armed and increasingly hostile towards one another.
Q: You mentioned Al Qaeda. Won't a full withdrawal of U.S. troops be a propaganda victory for Al Qaeda?
A: Invading Iraq was a far greater propaganda victory for Al Qaeda. But we are talking about the lives of our soldiers and those of Iraqis. Talk of propaganda victories should take a back seat.
Q: What if, after we leave, Al Qaeda takes control of Iraq?
A: That is not a likely scenario by any stretch of the imagination. There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda is seen as a foreign entity in Iraq. The presence of U.S. troops is the only thing keeping Al Qaeda relevant in Iraq. For some Iraqis, they must figure that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they tolerate Al Qaeda because they are willing to fight against the American occupiers.
Q: So Al Qaeda is not a significant force in Iraq?
A: Well, I wouldn't go that far. Any time you have a murderous group killing others, it's significant. What I'm saying is that Al Qaeda is not the all-powerful monster that the West perceives it to be. It should be particularly weak in Iraq. Iraq is 60% Shi'a and Al Qaeda is one of the most virulent anti-Shiite groups in the world. They see Shiites as unIslamic. The only reason for Al Qaeda to have any support in Iraq is the presence of U.S. troops. Once the Americans leave, most Iraqis will not support Al Qaeda and will do everything to eradicate this terrorist group from their country.
Q: Many Americans will be shocked and angry to here you say that Al Qaeda is not very powerful.
A: That stems from a lack of understanding about the wider world, particularly the Muslim world. Before the war began, many Americans believed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that is absurd. Hussein was a secular ruler who did not believe in Al Qaeda's fundamentalist version of Islam.
Even American leaders are ignorant about the Muslim world. John McCain has repeatedly made mistakes, saying that Al Qaeda is Shi'a. As I mentioned, Al Qaeda is violently anti-Shiite. It's as if McCain is saying that the Nazis were Jewish. It really should bring his capacity to be president into question. He has also claimed that Iran has trained Al Qaeda operatives. But that is also false and McCain was corrected by his advisers. Iran is predominantly Shi'a. It's worrisome, because it's further evidence that McCain will misrepresent the facts to build up support for a war with Iran.
Q: Is there a political solution to the violence in Iraq?
A: There is nothing that the United States can do politically. In the eyes of many Iraqis, America is the enemy. Many Iraqis view American motives with skepticism. Thus, any political plan that the United States devises won't have much credibility in the view of most Iraqis. That is a difficult realization for American politicians, who are expected to have a plan or at least "do something." The best thing the U.S. politicians can do is work to bring the troops home and refrain from interfering with Iraqi politics.
Q: So there is nothing the U.S. can do politically to help Iraq?
A: The U.S. invaded Iraq, destabilizing the country. Iraqis are distrustful of Americans and America's intentions. Senator Joe Biden has a plan to divide Iraq into three autonomous regions. He claims that at least he has a plan. But having a plan isn't helpful if it's a bad plan. Iraq's population is not divided into the three neat regions that Senator Biden suggests. The relocation effort of numerous Iraqis would most likely result in a grave tragedy, much like the partition of India. A million people died as Muslims traveled to live in Pakistan and Hindus crossed the new border into India. India and Pakistan have been bitter enemies ever since. But in Biden's plan, the three enemy regions would be part of the same country.
Q: Do you believe that the soldiers are doing a good job?
A: For the most part, I believe so. Scandals such as Abu Ghraib contradict that sentiment, but all cannot be judged on the actions of a few. I am far from a military expert, though. The debate over whether to withdraw troops or not relates to the mission, not the performance of the soldiers themselves.
Q: Is the surge working?
A: That is not a yes or no question. In the short term and in a narrow way, the answer is yes. There have been fewer American deaths since the implementation of the surge. However, the surge was a response to an unbelievable spike in violence in 2006. The level of violence has returned back to levels before the spike, which were considered to be intolerably high by most Americans, and of course by Iraqis as well. We must also realize that these levels of violence are determined on the number of American casualties, not on those of the Iraqis.
The violence in certain cities has been reduced by the method of America's control. The U.S. has instituted vehicle bans, which obviously lowers the number of car bombs and the like. Iraqis are stopped every couple of blocks and checked by military personnel. If an Iraqi is acting suspiciously, American soldiers have orders to shoot to kill. So, while these methods have lessened the violence in those cities, it comes at the expense of Iraqi freedom. We were told that this war was fought in part to grant Iraqis the freedom that Saddam Hussein had deprived them of.
Q: Do you support the troops?
A: In what capacity? Financially, I certainly do, through the taxes that I pay.
Q: Do you support the troops in any other capacity?
A: I certainly do not have a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on the back of my car, if that's what you are referring to. Those bumper stickers are extremely patronizing to the soldiers fighting the war. If someone truly supported the troops, they would sacrifice for them. If they were able to fight, they would join the troops, who they claim to support, on the front lines.
The discourse over the war has been dominated by clichés such as the one you asked me about. The belief that we must "support our troops" is a code for saying that we must support their mission. But their mission is not a moral one. It's certainly not the fault of the soldiers; they didn't decide to invade Iraq. When discussing the war in Iraq and America's future decisions, we need to move beyond clichés and look at the issue with some depth.
Q: Assuming withdrawing the troops from Iraq is the right thing to do, it will come at a price. What about all of the innocent Iraqis who have helped America during the war?
A: That is a noble sentiment. I think it represents part of the good side of America. I sincerely hope that the administration is not playing on the good side of Americans to keep the troops in Iraq in order to further their own interests there.
As far as those innocent Iraqis are concerned, the United States can provide them with asylum or perhaps pressure its Arab allies to provide them with asylum, if uplifting to a completely different culture is too daunting. But the U.S. can't trade the lives of American soldiers and perpetuate the violence in Iraq for the sake of saving a few lives. It's a sad reality that it comes to down to that type of choice. But the question itself is very telling. It implies that pro-American Iraqis would be in danger without America protecting them, which illustrates the level of hatred that many Iraqis feel towards the United States.
Q: If the United States leaves Iraq completely, who will control Iraq's oil wealth?
A: Good question. I have no idea. Obviously, we hope that the Iraqis can come up with a wealth-sharing solution on their own. There will be international pressure for them to figure out a solution. But the U.S. cannot control Iraq's oil reserves or profit from them. It will only serve to cement anti-American feeling around the world and strengthen the reserve and the appeal of the terrorists. Any U.S. plan would be considered illegitimate for the reasons I've discussed before.
Q: Could Al Qaeda or bandits take control of Iraq's oil wealth?
A: Al Qaeda could disrupt the business of oil distribution, but I don't believe they could take control of it because of Iraqi antipathy towards them. There is a potential that war lords could control particular regions in Iraq, as has been the case in Afghanistan for decades. Those war lords would most likely also disrupt the flow of oil, rather than profit from it. However, I don't believe Iraq's neighbors would let that happen. There is too much wealth at stake.
Q: Speaking of Iraq's neighbors, is Iran's involvement in Iraq cause for concern?
A: Iran is not a serious threat to the United States. But Iran has the potential to continue to be a pest to America's interests in the region. One of the significant consequences of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime is that it was a gift to Iran. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq and Iran were enemies. They fought a war throughout the 1980s. The United States actively backed Saddam Hussein, providing him with lethal weaponry.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq provided the country's Shiites a chance to grab power. Incidentally, Iran, which is also majority Shiite, was the first country in the region to recognize the new U.S.-propagated government in Iraq. Iran supports militants in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, and there is a real chance that Iraq could be influenced by Iran. But it's important to remember than Iraq is largely an Arab country and Iran is largely a Persian one. There is a disconnect between the two ethnicities. So Iran's influence in Iraq is a minor concern, but probably nothing more.
Q: What should be the role of the United Nations?
A: The U.N. and Iraq's neighbors need to take a leading role in stabilizing Iraq. However, they are reluctant to do so because it would legitimize America's invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, the U.N. and the surrounding countries in the region would rush to Iraq's aid. The neighboring countries don't want a failed state touching their border.
Q: Will granting Iraq's neighbors a role in stabilizing the country give them added clout in Iraq? Wouldn't that allow Iran and Syria more influence within Iraq?
A: Well, we've talked about Iran, but I understand your point. No matter which countries you name, there are the same negatives and positives in allowing Iraq's neighbors a greater role in Iraq. Fundamentally, we need to get away from the "Great Game" style of thinking. These are not spaces on a chessboard; these are nations with human beings residing within their borders. America's actions directly impact the lives of these people.
Q: What will be the positives and negatives of an increased role for Iraq's neighbors in stabilizing the situation?
A: The negatives include heightened influence for countries that the U.S. deems as enemies. Whether or not Iraq is allied with Iran or Syria does not constitute a significant threat to the U.S. unless America perceives it as one. For example, Iran is a poor country that does not possess a nuclear weapon. Even if Iran did, the military mite of the U.S. far exceeds that of Iran. The Iranian threat has, to a large degree, been manufactured by politicians and policy-makers. The very same ones who told us that Iraq was a grave and urgent threat to U.S. security.
But let's look at another country in the region that is an American ally. Turkey, with reluctant support from the U.S., has invaded northern Iraq to go after the PKK, a Kurdish group. Turkey has a history of brutal repression against their own Kurdish minority. We must realize that American allies are not always right and America's so-called enemies are not always wrong. Much of the anti-American feelings among average Muslims are due in part to America's support of corrupt and repressive regimes in the Muslim world.
Q: Can you conceive of a situation where U.S. troops would have to come back to Iraq after withdrawing?
A: No. Iraq is already in chaos. The sad fact is that there have been civil wars all over the world in recent years. For example, in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Angola, Liberia, Tajikistan, Sudan and others. America has either exacerbated these conflicts or ignored them. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, Iraq will not be peaceful. So, as much as we would like to think that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq will prevent deaths, the opposite has proved to be, and will continue to be, true. As I've mentioned, there is no impetus to negotiate for peace from outside forces because of antipathy towards the U.S. If peace only helps the Iraqis and does not legitimize America's invasion, the wider world will step in.
The U.S. must realize that its interests are not the most important entity at stake. The lives of the American soldiers and those of Iraqis are the most precious resource. Every action must be taken to limit the killing. The only logical thing to do is to cut off the source of the killings, which is America's presence in Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment