Iraq War: Triumph or Tragedy?
Dr. S. M. Rahman
Churchill named the last volume of his personal account of World War II-Triumph and Tragedy. Triumph for the reasons: “Between the Anglo American landings in Normandy on June 6, 1944 and the surrender of all our enemies fourteen months later, tremendous events stuck the civilised world. Nazi Germany was crushed, partitioned and occupied; Soviet Russia established herself in the heart of Western Empire; Japan was defeated; the first atomic bombs were cast.” Except for the last, as casting of atomic bombs was as irrelevant as it was outrightly barbarous --- outside the pale of civilised existence --- Anglo-American Alliance, however, could justifiably rejoice its victory. A very formidable enemy had been routed. But why ‘Tragedy’ was added to the title by Churchill? It was “because the overwhelming victory of the Grand Alliance has failed so far to bring general peace to our anxious world.” Which war does? Iraq war has turned the ‘anxious world’ into a chaotic one – a sort of Hobbesian world to say the least.
The latest Anglo-American attack on Iraq culminated into Greek tragedy. Even to call it a war is a misnomer. Who could dare face the power of USA, which has all the capability to destroy the whole world, what to speak of a tiny Iraq? Michael Mandelbaum is right, when he says: “In the League standing of global power, the United States occupies first place – and by a margin so large that it recalls the preponderance of the Roman Empire of antiquity. So vast is American superiority that the distinction bestowed upon it and its great rival, the Soviet Union, during the cold war no longer applies. The United States is no longer a mere super power; it has ascended to the status of ‘hyper power’.” Iraq pitted against USA is a wanton act of massacre but hardly a war – David against Goliath. When the outcome is so obvious and foreknown, why call it a war? Wars have always been fought within the implicit norms and principles. There has to be some semblance of balance between the adversaries. Iraq war defied all norms and propriety that go to make war a just war as St. Augustine conceived it. A defeated nation is never attacked again. Iraq was first attacked in 1991 and after 12 years again a cruel war was imposed upon it, which has been opposed by the Security Council as well as the voice of conscience of the world. It had also endured excruciating sanctions. How could a nation so battered and debilitated face the wrath of power of USA and Great Britain armed with latest weaponry and armada of destruction? But there was a method in madness.
The geo-strategic design was spelt out by Brezezinski in his book “The Grand Chess Board” that USA had to pursue after riding over the victory stand sequel to the end of the Cold War, to retain its primacy over Eurasia. This was necessary to be at the apex of the global empire. Intellectual backup support was provided by Samuel Huntington by propagating “Clash of Civilization” idea which was contrived to create chaos and destabilization in the world and thereby an opportunity for USA to fish in the troubled waters. The clear delineation of the enemy was made by Bernard Lewis, in his concept of the “Crescent of Crisis”. The central message was to contain and if necessary, crush the Muslim nations so that Islamic resurgence is nubbed in the bud, before it builds up its momentum. It was all the more necessary, as some of the Muslim countries possess the major reservoir of world’s precious black gold --- Oil-- and to take control of them was conceived necessary.
Robert Dreyfuss in his write up “ The Thirty-Year Itch” spells out “If you were to spin the globe and look for real estate critical to building an American empire, your first stop would have to be the Persian Gulf. The desert sands of this region hold two of every three barrels of oil in the world – Iraq’s reserves alone are equal, by some estimates, to those of Russia, the United States, China and Mexico combined. For the past 30 years, the Gulf has been in the crosshairs of an influential group of Washington foreign policy strategists, who believe that in order to ensure its global dominance, the United States must seize Control of the region and its oil. Born during the energy crisis of the 1970s and refined since then by a generation of policy makers, this approach is finding its boldest expression yet in the Bush administration – which, with its plan to invade Iraq and install a regime beholden to Washington, has moved closer than any of its predecessors to transforming the Gulf into an American protectorate”. It is not hard to discern why the neo-conservative clan is so committed to implementing the Zionist Agenda. According to above author: “to the hawks who now set the tone at Whitehouse and Pentagon, the region is crucial not simply for its share in US oil supply but because it could allow United States to maintain a lock on the world’s energy life line and potentially deny access to its global competitors”. Iraq’s oil, which is the cheapest in the world to produce -- less than $ 1.50 barrel—would force multiply the economic power of USA.
Whatever gains USA may have achieved through the war on Iraq are essentially transient in nature. These may be characterized as short-term hedonism but long-term goals have been sacrificed. The image of USA is badly tarnished. The graet achievements that USA made in the past century have been squandered away for some temporary tactical gains. Peace is the greatest casuality, which the great forbears of USA, had so passionately struggled to achieve in the world. So is the fate of democracy. Paul Krugman in his write-up “Bush’s weapons of Mass deceit” asks a relevant question: “Now it’s true that the war (Iraq war) removed the evil tyrant (Saddam) but democracy’s decision, right or wrong are supposed to take place with the informed consent of citizens. That did not happen this time. And we are democracy. Aren’t we?” This is the question that will hang heavy on the policy makers of USA. The free market philosophy is also being questioned more vigorously by the people in the West than the inhabitants of the deprived world. When oil wealth is being controlled through coercion, the question of free market does not arise. Therefore, the American power has transgressed from being legitimate to coercive and utilitarian in nature. Wars are used against recalcitrant nations and utilitarian power is used to sustain ‘coalition’. Therefore, USA has miserably failed in using its power to defend, maintain and expand peace, democracy and free market.
Micheal Hirsh writes in ‘Bush and the world’: “but it is simply not in America’s national DNA to impose an new Pax-Romana. The United States is a nation whose very reason for existence is to maximize freedom. And in any case the pursuit of empire is a prescription for certain failure: every graet empire in history, no matter how enduring, has fallen eventually to its own hubris, having built up a tide of resentment among its subjects or enemies”. It has robbed the sanctity of the United Nations. It has not allowed international institution for justice to come into being. Anti Ballistic Missiles Treaty is scrapped. It has punished the tyrant of Iraq – but left Sharon of Israel intact to perpetuate tyranny on Palestinians. George Bush even elated him as the apostle of peace. A great damage has been done to the unity of Europe, which was attained after centuries of struggles, wars and animosity. Charles A. Kupchan in his book The End of the American Era makes a very apt observation: “America and Europe are parting ways, the discord extending well beyond the realm of trade. Decades of strategic partnership are giving way to renewed geopolitical competition”. Stephen Cohen argues convincingly that USA is not as safe as it was before: “Those of us who were against the war and continue to oppose the assumptions on which it was based fear that future events will answer these questions to the grave detriment of American and international security”.
One may like to pose a question to Francis Fukuyama. Has history really ended or one sees the reversal of history?