Iraq War -- Impact on the Middle East



For a long time after the invasion, I didn't see many positive results, nor was I expecting them. But recently (and especially after the capture of Husayn), the unforeseen consequences have been increasingly positive, beneficial not only to the United States, but the world at large. To illustrate what I'm referring to, I'll break it down country by country, examining their post-war actions (after April 2003).

Iran:

-forfeiting their nuclear weapons development program to IAEA inspection
-sealed the Iran-Iraq borders and announced that they would arrest and prosecute any fleeing Iraqi officers
-stopped 4 suicide boats laden with explosives and destined for the Iraqi coast
-have detained and are currently holding hundreds of members of ansar al-Islam and al-Queda (rumors indicate that Iran holds some top al-Queda leaders)

Syria:

-agreed not to harbor Iraqi leaders after Assad was asked by Bush
-is cooperating with US sealing Iraq-Syria border to prevent militants from crossing
-has cracked down (to a degree) on extreme Islamist groups within Syrian borders
-citizens inside Syria report better treatment and less abuse by Syrian police

Libya:

-has decided to end their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Qaddafi quoted as saying, "I don't want the same fate as Saddam."
-have agreed to pay compensation to the families of the victims on Pan Am flight 103

Saudi Arabia:

-unprecedented cooperation between Saudi secret services and US intelligence services combating terrorism in Saudi Arabia
-first elections (albeit symbolical) in history were held in Riyadh

Jordan:

-has supported us in efforts to track down and shut off funding of terrorism

And of course, let's not forget Iraq, whose government will have done an about-face by 2005 if all goes well.


It appears that most of these Middle Eastern despots are as spineless as Saddam was when their own personal and political fortunes are at stake.

I am not dealing here with the possibly destabilizing global impact of a pre-emptive war based on a false premise (weapons of mass destruction), but with the direct impact of the war on the lives of citizens in the Middle East.

In light of these new results obtained from the invasion of Iraq, it is appropriate to review our previous stances and reevaluate them.

David Casey
25 December 2003





It has occurred to me that while I mentioned many of the positive side effects of the recent Gulf War on the citizens of the Middle East, I haven't hilighted many of the negative consequences of our incursion, some of which have become apparent only in the last six months and relate primarily to national security. So I will attempt to do that below.

The most direct impact that the war has had on national security is an increase in al Queda recruitment and the emergence of grassroots terrorist organizations from Morocco to Indonesia that have loose affiliation with al Queda and draw inspiration from it. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal has been called "the greatest boost al Queda has ever received" by counterterrorism analysts. In addition, terrorists from around the Middle East (notably Saudi Arabia) are using Iraq as a rallying cry and infiltrating into the country through pourous borders.

This brings up an interesting point: Rumsfeld has been criticized by top American generals for not having sent enough troops in to secure the border regions of Iraq, and this troop shortage has led to terrorist infiltration into the country, constant terrorist attacks on Iraqi oil facilities, government buildings, restaurants, and other civilian targets, and this in turn has led to political instability and caused economic growth to stall. The favorite target of these foreign terrorists, who are reputed to be coordinating efforts with former Ba'ath party members that served in Saddam's secret service, is foreign contract workers, notably oil workers. The reason for this is that targeting foreigners is the best way to stop foreign investment in Iraq, since companies are forced to hire security to guard their employees and have no insurance against terrorist attacks. This policy of targeting foreigners has had a great degree of success, both in scaring foreign companies and investment away from Iraq (and delaying economic progress), and in obstructing international peace efforts through bombing the UN headquarters and the Jordanian Embassy, assassinating the top Iranian ambassador to Iraq, and targeting other carefully chosen political targets. The UN were forced to evacuate Iraq after their head of Iraqi affairs was killed in the UN bombing, and many international aid organizations, such as the Red Cross-Red Crescent and Christian missionary groups reduced their scale of operations or left Iraq altogether. This is an evolution on the tactics that the Taleban are utilizing in Southern Afghanistan, which are targeting all Afghan "collaborators" with Western authorities (such as policemen and translators, which is a policy also adopted by the terrorists operating in Iraq) and kidnapping/killing anyone affiliated with international organizations such as the UN, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, etc.

It is clear that the Bush administration did not anticipate this level of advanced terrorist tactics, and they have failed utterly in providing security to Iraqi civilians, foreign workers, and Iraqi government officials due to a gross lack of preparation and foresight. In addition, the physical threat to Americans presented by al Queda has greatly increased due to Arab outrage at American occupation of Iraq and torture allegations in Abu Ghraib.

On a different note, the second way in which the war has endangered the security of Americans is much more subtle and not as openly visible. World opinion was overwhelmingly against the war; in fact there was only one country within the "coalition of the Willing" in which a majority of the population supported the war: the United States. Unpopular governments in countries such as Spain, who supported the war, were punished by being voted out of office by disatissfied voters, and the US lost important allies. Furthermore, the United States have isolated themselves completely from France and Germany, two countries who traditionally play a large role in international peacekeeping and nation-building but who are not involved in the Iraqi project due to contract and sovereignty disagreements with the Americans. Lastly, the credibility of the United States as a global superpower has been greatly damaged by pursuing a policy of pre-emptive war on false pretenses (weapons of mass destruction that never materialized) and without international approval or support from bodies like the UN or NATO. Well and good, but what does all this mean for the United States, you may ask? The answer is that this policy is myopic and has no regard for longterm ripple effects. Now that the United States have attacked a country with the apparent goal of preventing it from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, countries such as Iran are now forced to acquire a deterrent, preferably nuclear, to prevent a similar invasion of their country by US forces. North Korea has already learned this lesson, using their nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool both in exacting economic concessions from the United States and preventing an all-out war against them. Countries that already have nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction will be less hesitant to get rid of them, since they have been proven by the North Korean example as a guarantor of security against pre-emptive American military attack. In this matter has the race toward nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction intensified. The possibility of total global nuclear disarmament has become more distant than ever before. Equally relevant, the international community has been torn apart by the war and are not working effectively and in coordination in restoring order to Iraq. Traditional alliances have been ripped apart, and petty disagreements (spurred along by French, American, and German arrogance) have prevented progress on many fronts in Iraq. This could spill over to other regional and international issues, where reduced international cooperation would lead to increased instability in the Greater Middle East.

A third criticism is that although Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, he did not present an immediate threat to American national security, whereas Afghanistan, which was being used as a base of operations for al Queda, posed a clear and present danger to all Americans. Involvement in Iraq (and a lack of support from most major countries) has dented the efforts of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and distracted Americans from the real threat: al Queda and international Islamic terrorism. Iraq has received 20 times as much reconstruction money as Afghanistan, and the two countries have almost the same population. Afghanistan is still largely controlled by warlords who fund their armies through opium sales, now at a record high after Taleban control over the country was lost. Opium is a large source of funding for terrorism as well, and the United States have not been able to mount a real effort at eradicating terrorism in Afghanistan because most of their troops are deployed in Iraq. In fact, there are only 12,000 American troops in Afghanistan, as opposed to 138,000 in Iraq, 11.5 times as many. Afghanistan should have been rebuilt and stabilized with fullscale US efforts before another nation-building project was undertaken.



Parting Thoughts

After all this, the picture is less clear to me than it was before I knew the details of Iraq. It has yet to be seen whether Bush's ambitious plan of democratizing and capitalizing the Middle East will be succesful, and it certainly will not be unless the US redouble their efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq and involve other major countries and the UN in the process. However, if the US plan succeeds and Iraq and other countries in the Middle East are able to reform and open their economies, living standards will rise, terrorism will decrease naturally, and democracy will replace autocracy. On the other hand, the US invasion has given rise to an indigenous resistance force under the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr (albeit filled with extremists and not popular with the general Iraqi population), US soldiers are dying and there is always a chance for instability to increase. If the US leave, this could spell widespread chaos, tribal anarchy, and a three-way civil war between Shi'ites, Sunnis, and Kurds. Other problems also factor into this situation, since Turkey, Iraq's neighbor to the north, has sworn to use military force to prevent Iraqi Kurds from gaining independence by forming a new Kurdish state. This theoretical scenario can hardly be called an improvement from Saddam's Iraq. Since the full implications of the war will not be realized for another 15 or 20 years, it is too early to celebrate Bush's actions or condemn them, although it is fair to criticize the Bush administration for a number of strategic blunders, ranging from an inability to lead and coordinate international efforts to a miscalculation in troop deployment which has allowed terrorists to cross Iraqi borders undetected and caused instability in Iraq.

Regardless of your opinions on the war, it is now clear that to leave Iraq would mean to escalate the problem, and would spell the collapse of the fragile Iraqi Governing Council that is the only national interim governing body in Iraq. A void of power in Iraq would lead to extremists such as al-Sadr using military force to grab for power (which he is already doing in any case), as well as provide a base for terrorists the size of California, something al Queda would be quick to take advantage of. It could even lead to a seizure of power by al Queda in Iraq or in Saudi Arabia, where it would likely be supported by the population. The only course of action that remains is an international effort, led by the UN, the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany, to restore safety to Iraqi citizens and rebuild Iraq's devastated economy.

David Casey
31 May 2004