2003 Year in Review

Iraq - The Consequences of War I

No one doubts the coalition victory in Iraq. In a short time, Iraq will be free of Saddam and his cohorts. In the aftermath, the United States and Great Britain will share in determining the type of government the Iraqis will have, at least in the short term. We should be prepared, therefore, for a protracted American presence in Iraq. Given the high price of victory and the almost solitary engagement of American forces, the world should not expect the United States to simply pack up and vacant the premises following the conflict.

At the same time, it is unlikely the present American and British governments will cede control to a largely discredited and fractured United Nations to exercise. The United Nations will play the only role in which it has been somewhat successful during its life, that of a humanitarian supply organization. (Even in this area, its efforts have come under suspicions of corruption – within the organization itself and in its dealings with assisted nations.) In like measure, the countries of old Europe would do well, following their disgraceful behavior at the world council, to come hat in hand in seeking favors from a new Iraqi government backed by the Americans and the British.

Without question, a new Iraqi government will permit the United States to build airfields and military complexes on Iraqi soil. These American forces will serve a dual purpose: To protect the new government, giving it time to form into a coherent body; and, to eliminate the need for Turkish and Saudi bases from which to launch strikes against terrorist camps and rogue nations. In addition, Iraqi-based facilities place the United States in the heart of the Middle East with easier access to Afghanistan and terrorist-supporting states such as Syria and Iran – a position the U. S. has wanted since World War II. An American presence in the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf regions, unfettered by issues of national sovereignty, would allow it to react immediately to threats to American interests in the region.

By building its bases in the remote, sparsely populated regions of western Iraq, the United States could keep a low profile, and avoid the cultural, ethnic, racial, and religious clashes that would inevitably result from close contact with the native populations. The object of the American presence is to protect American interests, not to assimilate with the peoples. Isolation would also help avoid the type of dependence on local services that made possible the Kobart Towers incident in Saudi Arabia and the recent Kuwaiti truck attack on American soldiers. The American military, keenly aware of these oversights, will take steps to prevent similar incidents in the future. As much as possible, Iraqis – and others in the area - should see a new Iraq emerge under the guidance of the Iraqis themselves.

Some fear that an American presence in so volatile a place as Iraq might increase militant Islamic terrorist activity in United States. On the contrary, it could have just the opposite effect. From an Iraqi base, the United States could put the Islamic extremist movements on the defensive, by forcing them to concentrate on their own preservation rather than wreaking havoc worldwide, particularly on American shores. If anything, militant groups should find their training camps under siege, their leaders on the run, and their support from so-called rogue nations drying up. Such groups, in disarray in their own backyards, would be more nuisances than threats.

Whether a democratic Iraq is possible given the abysmal state of its economy and its education, the prospect of a more liberal society on their borders will give pause to rogue states such as Iran and Syria to curb their practices of giving aid and succor to extremist organizations. Equally, seasoned American troops with battle-tested weaponry will serve as a deterrent to reaction from nations within the region. A coordinated military response from Syria, Iran, and possibly Egypt is unlikely – none can undertake a war at this time, singly or in unison, especially Iran with its growing pro-Western sentiments among the younger population. What these nations confront today was unthinkable two years ago – two pro-American nations within their midst, Afghanistan and Iraq, with a powerful American military based legitimately in the region.

We can only imagine what thoughts are running through the minds of the leaders of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East as they contemplate the fact that the Eagle has landed.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
March 31, 2003