• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Occupying Iraq is a complicated issue.

The Los Angeles Times recently announced that 200 Americans had been killed in Iraq since the day American and British forces launched the attack against the Persian Gulf nation. Those 200 dead include 100 American and British troops who have been killed in Iraq in the nearly two months since the end of major hostilities. These developments, along with the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction, have called into question the United States’ motives in going to war, as well as the United States’ ability to fulfill its commitments to the people of Iraq while occupying their nation.

President Bush’s claim that he was invading Iraq in order to “liberate” the Iraqi people has always appeared dubious at best.

After all, at one time, Bush claimed he was invading Iraq because of its involvement with terrorism, including supposed ties to the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington D.C. As this terrorism claim came into question, however, Bush decided to produce a new reason. He claimed Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and it would be “suicidal” for the United States not to disarm Iraq. But as the international community began to question whether an attack was necessary to accomplish this goal, Bush realized that such reasoning might not be persuasive enough. He decided to open his third line of argument: It was America’s obligation to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime, because Hussein was a ruthless despot who had murdered thousands of his own people.

Of all the claims Bush made concerning Iraq, the only one that appears to be indisputable today is that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant who murdered thousands of his own people.

So now the citizens of Iraq are “free,” but the future of Iraq is certainly in question. Along with the alarming number of American soldiers killed in Iraq in recent months, general lawlessness has overtaken Iraq. Several major attacks have crippled power generation, looting has been rampant, and shopkeepers are robbed frequently. Numerous Iraqi citizens have questioned why American troops have been unable to bring order.

In northern Iraq, dominated by Sunni Muslims, it was assumed that forces loyal to Saddam Hussein were orchestrating continuing attacks against American soldiers. However, this has quickly become a national, rather than a regional trend, after troops were killed in the predominantly Shiite regions of southern Iraq. This came as a shock, for it was assumed that Shia Muslims, having been targeted for repression by Hussein’s regime, would not oppose the United States so strongly.

These events appear to indicate that the United States has entered a situation much more complicated than it initially seemed. The withdrawal of American troops and the formation of a sovereign Iraqi government, which administration officials had promised would be swift, is as distant as ever.

None of this is to suggest that Hussein’s treatment of his people was in any way justifiable. But if Bush’s goal was to liberate the Iraqi people, he should have ensured that his plan was really geared toward this end.

Instead, we have seen the Bush doctrine – which asserts the United States’ right to make preventive strikes against nations manufacturing weapons of mass destruction – destroying accepted international precedents, and causing conflict with many allies.

Since no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, the world is left with a confusing situation. Apparently, the Bush doctrine extends to nations that are merely suspected of WMD programs. But if no weapons are ever found, the United States’ already poor standing in the international community will decline further. Harm will come to the United States not in the form of physical attacks, but because of our lost political capital.

Unfortunately, as Americans already know, the claim of WMDs in Iraq really is only one in a series of questionable government claims.

From the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution under Lyndon Johnson to the Iran-Contra scandal under Ronald Reagan, Americans have faced a difficult dilemma – should they question the government’s actions, as the writings of the Founding Fathers urge, or should they trust the government that has been entrusted with preserving national security?

Government dishonesty weakens citizens’ trust, heightens cynicism and lack of participation that hinders our government. The issues of American dishonesty, as well as the wisdom of continuing to occupy Iraq, are issues with which the American people will have to deal. The occupation is costing the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, and has no end in sight.

Only a full, thorough analysis of the reasons that the United States went to war, and the costs of continuing occupation of the Iraqi people, can resolve the issues behind the current quagmire our nation faces.

The Bush administration should be honest with the American people and the world. If WMDs do not exist in Iraq, the administration should admit to the failure of the intelligence agencies.

Bhaskar is a third-year political science student.

Comments

Post a comment