The Bush administration repeatedly stated that our benchmark for success in Iraq was the creation of “a unified democratic federal Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself, sustain itself, and is an ally in the War on Terror” — to quote the 2007 Iraq Strategy Review published by the National Security Council. President Bush himself insisted that “by helping Iraqis build a democracy” we would not only “undermine the terrorists” but “gain an ally in the war on terror,” and “inspire reformers across the Middle East” — and, he added, “this will make the American people more secure.
I have argued, to the contrary, that newly “democratic” Iraq is becoming an Islamist satellite of Iran, hostile to the U.S., hostile to Israel, and hostile to non-Muslims, homosexuals, and other minorities. I won’t rehearse the back-up for those claims. I simply point to this report from last Friday’s New York Times, detailing that under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki (the Islamist prime minister the U.S. has backed in the interest of promoting democracy), Iraq — nudged by Iran — is supporting the Assad regime in its brutal crackdown in Syria:
As leaders in the Arab world and other countries condemn President Bashar al-Assad’s violent crackdown on demonstrators in Syria, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq has struck a far friendlier tone, urging the protesters not to “sabotage” the state and hosting an official Syrian delegation.
Mr. Maliki’s support for Mr. Assad has illustrated how much Iraq’s position in the Middle East has shifted toward an axis led by Iran. And it has also aggravated the fault line between Iraq’s Shiite majority, whose leaders have accepted Mr. Assad’s account that Al Qaeda is behind the uprising, and the Sunni minority, whose leaders have condemned the Syrian crackdown.
“The unrest in Syria has exacerbated the old sectarian divides in Iraq because the Shiite leaders have grown close to Assad and the Sunnis identify with the people,” said Joost Hiltermann, the International Crisis Group’s deputy program director for the Middle East.
He added: “Maliki is very reliant on Iran for his power and Iran is backing Syria all the way. The Iranians and the Syrians were all critical to bringing him to power a year ago and keeping him in power so he finds himself in a difficult position.”
Iraq and Syria have not had close relations for years, long before the American invasion. During the sectarian violence here that broke out after the invasion, Iraqi leaders blamed Syria for allowing suicide bombers and other militants to enter the country.
But Syria and Iran have had close ties, a factor in the recalibration of relations between Syria and Iraq. Last year, Iran pressured Mr. Assad into supporting Mr. Maliki for prime minister, which eventually helped him gain a second term. Since then, Mr. Maliki and Mr. Assad have strengthened relations, signing trade deals and increasing Syrian investment in Iraq.
The rest is here, including Maliki’s interesting take on Syrian “democracy,” which bodes ill for the future of Iraqi “democracy.” (“Mr. Maliki said that the protesters should use the democratic process, not riots, to voice their displeasure, though Syria does not allow competitive, free elections. He put most of the blame on the protesters and said little about the government’s ending the bloodshed.”)
There is no doubt that Assad’s opposition includes Sunni Islamist elements allied with the Muslim Brotherhood (which the late, unlamented Assad the elder mercilessly crushed), and some al-Qaeda-affiliated jihadists, too. We shouldn’t deceive ourselves into thinking that, if Assad were toppled, whatever came after him would necessarily be good for the U.S. But the fact is that the Iranian regime is the number one American enemy in the region — promoting anti-American terrorism by both Shiite and Sunni jihadists, including al-Qaeda, with which Iran’s government has been cooperating since the early nineties. If Iraq is supporting Assad, Iraq is supporting Iran’s terrorist rulers, and that means Iraq is no ally of the United States. But I think we already knew that.
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a Ron Paul devotee and have served 8 years of active duty...
As time goes on, Paul's 'craziness' is seeming less and less crazy to me. We are shedding blood and enourmous amounts of money to prop up governments that are not friendly to us. Why?
Is it 'patriotic' to support US soldiers dying in iraq to prop up slimy, islamist governments that will, in all likelyhood, stab us in the back at any opportunity?
I'm not anti-intervention, but I think we should be wiser in picking our battles. We did our best in Iraq, we did our best in Afghanistan. I don't think we are gaining much by staying there much longer.
We've been there for a DECADE! Think about that. Military families have been stressed for a decade with constant deployments, stress, injury and death. How much longer should we stay? Indefinitely? Until a 'friendly' government is strong enough to stand on it's own? What if that never happens?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBefore Iran was our #1 threat in the region, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was.
A lot has been made of the "real" reasons we went into Iraq - from WMD's to that trumped up ridiculous accusation that it was personal revenge on the part of GWB for Hussein's intent to assassinate Bush Sr. (What a load of manure.)
Most Americans were blithely unaware of how dangerous Saddam Hussein was to the peace of the region and of Western interests. He was not only a mass murderer of his own people but he was an encourager of terrorist organizations. That is why Bush could gather a coalition of the willing to finally do something about him.
Ron Paul will never be president and I am glad because he is so far off the mark of understanding our place and role in the world. In his own way, just as far off the mark as Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDonna, did you read the post you commented on? After we invaded Iraq and spent lives and dollars puttinga 'democratic' government in place, the 'democratic' government seems to be aligning with the Iranians.
So what have we bought with our blood and money?
I'm not a 'bring the military back and hide in our borders' kind of guy, but I'm into cost-benefit analysis. Did we get in return something worth what we have spent so far? Have we spent enough? How much more are we willing to spend? What is our end goal here?
I'm a war weary conservative. I don't like the idea of 'we'll stay there until the middle east is a big-happy-friendly democracy.' because I don't think that will EVER happen.
The results of the "arab spring" are telling. When given a choice, the people in that region will most likely choose governments that are unfriendly with our interests.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I read the comment. Here's the thing, what were we going to do after taking Saddam down? Walk away and let the free for all begin? Didn't we have an obligation then to attempt to steer the toward a more democratic government? Wasn't Turkey a nearby example of a fledgling Muslim democracy?
I really hate the term "war weary". I'm not for being engaged in places where it is not warranted, or for staying far beyond our ability to direct the redirect the flow of a dangerous stream, but I don't believe withdrawing from all conflicts either.
So what have we bought in Iraq with our blood and money? Who knows what Saddam & sons would have gone on to inflict upon the world. And who knows what kinds of insanity would reign if we'd packed up our troops and left Iraq to its own resources.
And the Arab Spring has nothing to do with what we did in Iraq. That was pure foolishness on the Obama administration's part to allow Western friendly governments to be toppled. Totally different set of facts on the ground.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi Donna, I agree that once we invaded (and I supported the invasion) we had an obligation to attempt to leave something whole behind when we left. Where you and I part paths is that I think we have made the good-faith effort already.
I think your example of Turkey is a bad one. Turkey is sliding more and more islamist day by day. Again, when they people in that region get 'democracy' they tend to go islamist. The only time the islamists tend to be marginalized is when they are ruled by a military dictatorship with some limited freedoms (see Egypt, Iraq, Turkey as previous examples.)
I've spent a lot of time in the middle east (mostly due to our efforts to get rid of Saddam) and I learned that the people there are not like us. We take it as common sense that people strive for individual liberties, religous tolerance, etc. but it's simply not true in much of the world sadly.
When I see the americans that have died over there, especially recently, it makes me sad to think that we've reached a point where their struggles and lives probably are not accomplishing much more than we already have.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry Donna, I forgot this in my previous reply.
In regards to 'war weary', that's the way I truly feel and if you walk around and ask some of the soldiers/marines that we've asked so much of (Camp Pendleton for example) you'll find that they're pretty war weary too. They are patriots and aren't going to whine about it, but they've been stressed beyond belief for a very long time and we owe it to them to make sure that their sacrifice is actually going to accomplish something. I wasn't anti-war before, and I am not now. But I don't believe in continuing war just 'because' or for fuzzy, intangible, or impossible goals either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree that Saddam was our main threat at the time - at least in the category of an enemy that is an actual old-fashioned country. Most people I talk to who opposed the war seem not to realize that we were administering a no-fly zone over Iraq that had been put in place through a truce that "ended" the first gulf war. In administering that zone, we were bearing nearly all of the military expenses - and damages - while many of our "allies" were trading with Iraq behind the scenes in violation of agreements set up in the wake of the war.
WMD or no WMD, 9/11 or no 9/11, we had to put up, shut up, or pull out when Saddam repeatedly violated the no-fly zone and the U.N's WMD disclosure mandates.
After helping install a new government however, it's a valid question of how long we should stay. I tend to agree that we'll never produce a true ally there - or in Afghanistan - and should probably slowly disentangle ourselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSounds like we're on the same page, Longplay. We probably will never produce a true ally in Iraq, not any more than we've had with several others in the area, like Mubarak who was deposed with American encouragement.
Speaking of Mubarak though, I think it is telling that Israel offered Mubarak asylum - a safe haven in Eliat to live out his days.
In the Middle East region, any degree of friendship with Western democracies is to be valued. Not thrown to the wolves as the Obama administration threw Mubarak.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIraq is in a dangerous neighborhood and has an unstable external security issue. Its perfectly natural for Iraq to side with the Assad regime. Syria is in a position to undermine Iraqi security. I can understand Iraq's realistic position. That doesn't mean the Iraqi govt is anti-US, pro-Iran nukes, or positioning itself as Israel's worst enemy. Iraq's president seems to be looking out for his country's security with lip service to Bashar Assad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI lost a friend and colleague to an IED in Iraq. He didn't have to go back to serve; he had mustered out after the first Gulf war. But he was that kind of a guy.
I no longer think the Iraqis were worthy of his sacrifice. I sure don't think they are worthy of any more American blood. I'm with you, Andy. We should get the Hell out of there. It is a black hole of blood and money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is happening is that the Iraqi government is realizing that they cannot count on US armed intervention should Iran and/or Syria attempt to re-ignite an insurgency in Iraq. While there is no love lost between Iraq and Syria or Iraq and Iran, the realities of the situation is that Iraq is placed between allied States who have proven their willingness time and time again to use terrorist cat's paws to destabilize neighboring regimes...with no likely help to come from the United States, Iraq has to tread carefully. Better to deal with a weakened Assad regime in Syria than a burgeoning, Moslem Brotherhood regime even more closely allied with Iran. To say that the Iraqi government is waiting to stab us in the back is a slander - the fact that they want a status of forces agreement to keep us in-theater indicates what they really want...US support in keeping away a conventional foreign attack while they thread the middle east needle until Iraq is fully recovered from decades of war and misrule.
The lesson to be learned here is not "heck with them" but to be sure when we go back to the middle east to fight again (and we will have to) that we go after all of the sources of trouble. Until a US army (or, at least, a US allied regime) stands in Damascus and Tehran, the war goes on, even if we pull out, do a Ron Paul about it and try to pretend that we're not at war.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen we invaded Iraq, we eliminated a major enemy of Iran's. The balance of power shifted and the Shia influence could not be controlled as it was under Hussein. Iran will fill the void and the U.S. has wasted lives and trillions with little to show for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen we invaded Iraq, we eliminated a major enemy of Iran's. The balance of power shifted and the Shia influence could not be controlled as it was under Hussein. Iran will fill the void and the U.S. has wasted lives and trillions with little to show for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCaliph 1, Kant 0. They will never be Western. Never.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou've got to stop those stupid puzzles.
Arab democracy?
Name one - I'll give you 1,400 years...
As Cernisceffski said 150 years ago, "What is to be done?"
Only 2 methods have even the slightest chance of success:
1. New policy for all Muslim states: "Do what we say, and you're rich. Do something else, and you die". We've already tried paying them in advance, and they instantly did what we already bribed them to avoid. This correctly diagnoses our position as vacillating weakness (memo to the Dear Leader: anything less than stark terror is weakness), and prompts them to try the same trick again since there are no consequences.
It's not a failure of IQ: FDR believed Winston, who believed Stalin, who believed Hitler.
2. Don't wait for the inevitable failure of 1. (above), and use the LeMay method: "Bomb them back to the stone age" - should be easy, since it's a really short trip.
Arab states make Cold War-era Russian diplomacy look honest, trustworthy and reasonable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe main obstacles to our policy in Afghanistan are Pakistan and Iran. The main obstacles to our policies in Iraq (and Israel) are Syria and Iran.
See the common factor? I've long been in favor of recognizing an Iranian government in exile, and there are plenty of Iranians who'd be eager to cooperate. With discrete assistance from the US the neutralization of Iran could, I believe, be accomplished.
[BTW, if there's one product I'll never buy it's something named after a great ape.]
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell Mr. McCarthy, I just don't feel this is fair.
The Bush Administration cannot be blamed for the negligent, incompetent, mindless diplomatic failure known as "smart power" which followed their offering. The Obama Team seems to even want to sabotage the success in Iraq at times, for their own cheap domestic political gain. Can we blame the Lincoln Presidency, for the enormous failures during Reconstruction after the Civil War?
One cannot judge, if the Bush Administration efforts would not be more visibly successful with different political leadership controlling US foreign policy today - especially in regards to the hard fought victory in the Iraqi Theater. The Iraqi Liberation clearly provided a needed intervention in the heart of the Middle East, produced a defeat for Radical Islamic Militants, etc.
The Bush Administration's policies were similar to the empowering but challenging efforts which created Free Democracies turned essential Allies in West Germany, South Korea, Japan, etc. History is on the Bush Administration's side, and frankly, the positives still out way the alternative.
I can quickly state the obvious, the USA still wisely maintains a serious Military Base of operations for example, in the heart of the ME (separating Iran and Syria), not a monster like Saddam who was rewarding suicide bombers with 20G.
The lessons of the Cold War - the Reagan Doctrine should never be forgotten. Critics offered similar negative analysis long ago, about a number of Our endeavors overseas they considered "failures", only to be proven wrong time and again, (including the Reagan Administration).
Your conclusion is premature I feel, and less than objective.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can see that you have not been following the events in Iraq. Iran began moving in the day Saddam was deposed. By 2006, Iran was in control of the newly formed Maliki government as well as the Sadr opposition. (Now of course, Sadr is part of the government formed by Iran.) The peak of $8 billion in Iranian/Iraqi trade was reached in 2008. All this was during the Bush administration, which never seriously confronted the Iranian threat.
I do hold the Obama administration responsible for not changing the Bush policies. Iran predicts its trade with Iraq will exceed the previous high this year and reach $10 billion. The problem is that no one in the US wants to admit that Americans died in a war that only benefited Iran. But I saw that as the outcome back in 2003. The only ones ready to take over from Saddam in 2003 were Iranian puppets. It was obvious to all but the Bush administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusequite to the contrary, the Bush administration can be blamed for the entirety of the problem.
they never had a stinkin clue as to what they were doing beyond ousting the Baathists.
no planning , nothing. .....
the Rumsfeld/Cheney group's big idea was to turn the country over to a guy who was in the pay of Iran.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMany interesting comments and a good article. It does make for depressing reading. What a political and ideological morass that whole region is. Unfortunately, we really have little choice but to engage there because Iran will whether anyone opposes them or not. If no countervailing power exerts themselves in the whole region, Iran will wipe away everyone that does not seek the same goals they do.
It's ugly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse