Chaos will ensue in Iraq if the U.S. troops leave early. The current state of Iraq is already chaotic and if the U.S. troops leave early and do not stay to stabilize the country, conditions will be even worse. In Iraq people suffer from complete disorder because many of the country services are out of order and there is no security present; moreover, people attack castles and museums to steal artifacts. Simon Jenkins in "The world has a duty to save Iraq" gives a snapshot of the chaos and lawless in Iraq. He relates that when he asked about the train, he was answered that it was out of service. Jenkins says that "a city of five million people has reverted to economic ground zero, with no law, order, taxmen or health and safety executive. Every family has a gun. Old scores are bloodily settled and the traffic has gone crazy." He added that, looting of museums and kidnapping are taking place in Iraq. A country with such devastating conditions can not function solely and bring itself to life again - it needs forces to help its reconstruction. Mr. Bremer, head of the American-led occupation authority, argues that Iraqis are not yet prepared to take over full authority (Sanger). Iraqis need Americans to develop for them a strategy and an established system so as to stabilize and reconstruct the country. The American forces should stay in Iraq to provide security, control the disorder in the country and help in the reconstruction.
           Moreover, the aftermath of Afghanistan shows the chaos and disorder that could take place in Iraq if the U.S. troops leave early. After the U.S. left from Afghanistan and appointed Hamid Karzai as the president of Afghanistan, conditions became worse. Casualties increased in Afghanistan after the American forces left because the forces of Taliban and Al Qaeda became active again (Rashiduzzaman), which threatened the security and peace of the country. Afghanistan currently suffers from economic, administrative and political problems, and Karzai seems incapable of controlling the country. He asks Bush not to desert Afghanistan (Rashiduzzaman). In Afghanistan, the output of drug cultivation doubled after the U.S. left - Karzai was not able to prevent it ("US admits failings as Afghan poppy output doubles"). Iraq and Afghanistan are similar countries in that both suffered from economic and social breakdown after the U.S. occupation. They are also similar in not being able to carry out the post war reconstruction because they both lack money and security, which are two fundamental elements in post war reconstruction (Howe). What happened in Afghanistan foretells a similar fate for Iraq, if the U.S. troops leave. It shows the possibility of uncontrollable chaos and disorder; hence the U.S. troops should stay to keep control over the country.

    (back to grade scale)

           If Bush's propaganda was to promote democracy in Iraq, the coalition forces would not be justified to stay there because these forces could hinder the establishment of democracy. Bush claimed that they would create a free representative government and then the forces would leave (Jensen). However, he ignored that democracy was only possible if the troops exited first (Jensen). Abduallahi An-Naim, a proponent of Islamic democracy, argued that the coalition forces would impede the establishment of democracy ("Islam Experts.."). Obviously, the U.S. attempts to create democracy in Iraq will be discredited if the presence of the U.S. troops is confirmed because their presence will contradict what democracy and freedom mean. In addition, the Iraqis find it difficult or even impossible to interact and entrust the Americans while these armed forces occupy Iraq (Masci). Maintaining the coalition forces will prove that Bush was hypocritically skewing from the objective of achieving democracy and only using the notion of promoting democracy to delude the Iraqis and justify the troops' occupation.
          Even if the Bush administration persistently struggled to achieve democracy in Iraq while the troops were still there, democracy would not be achieved, because the Iraqis, the ethnically heterogeneous community, never desired it. The Sunnis do not want to be ruled by the Shiite majority or by the Kurdish-Shiite alliance (Cloughley). The Shiites will recognize their imams and ayatollahs as their leaders without considering the democratic elections (Luttwak). On the other hand, the Kurds will have a tribal ruling system and not a democratic one (Luttwak). Not taking into account the Iraqis' ideology and psychology was a serious flaw because the U.S. was trying to impose an unacceptable or rather inappropriate system into the Iraqis' political life. Since the troops cannot stay in Iraq forever, this process of changing an ideology will be rather impossible.
Not only do the Iraqis not aim for democracy, Iraq's circumstances are tremendously difficult for democracy to be promoted, unlike Japan after WWII. Bush compared Japan and Iraq, whose histories and ideologies were utterly different from one another, and assumed that Iraq would transform successfully like Japan to a democratic state. However, after WWII, Japan was a fertile ground for establishing because of its stability and absence of anarchy (Benedetto). Unlike Japan, Iraq was plagued with terrible chaos and turbulence. In addition, Japan had been modernizing and showing signs of an emerging democracy since the 1850s, unlike Iraq that had been ruled by the British imperialism and then by the totalitarian Saddam (Valenzuela). The most striking distinction was that Japan formally relinquished its administration to the U.S. and it did not reveal any signs of resistance to the American's interference (Benedetto). But Iraq was fiercely opposing the American forces and refusing their intervention. As a result, Bush's decision of maintaining the troops to transform Iraq to a democratic country cannot be standardized against Japan due to the great discrepancies between them. Bush has to understand the Iraqis' conditions and not merely compare them with pervious experiences.

(back to grade scale)

          If the U.S. government decides to keep all the troops in Iraq for a prolonged period, most probably casualities from both sides will keep increasing. Foreign military presence is unwanted by Iraqis and the resistance forces are making sure the message reaches the American government. President Bush couldn't even announce his visit to Iraq until after he left the country due to security reasons. Although there are about 150,000 foreign troops in Iraq, the country's security is going from bad to worse. More troops have died after President Bush declared all military actions over, than during the war itself. The Iraq Body count, a research gropu recording the number of civilian deaths since the beginning of the war, has reported that as of 31 August 1,519 civilians have been killed ("Over 1,500 violent civilian deaths"). Other research found that the number of U.S. troops who died since the beginning of the military actions in March has exceeded the number of casualites in the first three years of the Vietnam War (Morgan). After 8 months of combat, most of the American troops have become depressed. Under stress from the attacks by the resistance forces, troops from the U.S. 101st Airborne Division wish to go back home ("Depressed US troops"). One soldier was reported saying, "They couldn't care less about us in Washington. They don't realize how much tension there is and the fact that we're depressed" ("Depressed US Troops"). Troops in the city of Tikrit were trying to self-injure themselves to return to American on sick leave (Allen). the fact that 11 soldiers and 3 Marines have committed suicide since May, has urged the U.S. Army to send mental health specialists to the country (Zoroya). Four hundred and seventy eight soldiers were sent back to the United States due to mental health reasons (Zoroya). Sending more troops to Iraq will not improve the country's security, but it could actually make it worse. The Iraqi resistance forces are already outnumbered by the foreign forces, and still they coordinate to perform their deadly attacks. A gradual removal of the troops will absorb the anger of the public in America and Iraq and the resistance forces may stop attacking the troops when they know that the foreign forces are gradually leaving the country. The morale of the troops will also rise knowing that soon they will be leaving for home.   

Comments

(back to grade scale)

          The first reason why the USA should leave Iraq is because of America's unstable motives for staying in the country. Before launching the war, the USA's main motive was that Iraq contained nuclear weapons. The other motive was that Saddam was linked to the 9/11th attack. Ironically, president Bush later on confessed that there was no proof that Saddam was linked to the attack (Bush dispels Saddam-9/11 theory). Then came two different motives. The first was that the USA should take responsibility for establishing a democratic government in Iraq. Then came a more shocking reason which encouraged the USA to decide to pro-long their stay in Iraq, and that was that it wanted to prevent terrorism from arising in such a severely destructed country as Iraq (Pena).
            To the Iraqis, the USA has now become the greatest source of anxiety, for they have entrusted the USA to free them from the hands of the totalitarianism of Saddam's rule, but they did not expect themselves to be thrown into the whirlpool of USA's commands, controls and long-term occupation. To show their anger at the American occupation, the Iraqis killed several American soldiers and started guerilla attacks. Those attacks, through collected evidences, have shown to be executed by "ordinary Iraqis who resent a foreign military occupation of their country" rather than supporters of Saddam and his regime (Zunes). Even though Bush's administration assumes that it is only the minority of the people that reject the USA, they have no proof for that. After all, there will still be a feeling of hatred for the US and this hatred with time can eventually lead to great rebellion. From history, we have learned that at first it only takes small numbers to persuade and encourage the people to start an uprising against the imperial force, and this could be the case in Iraq. Also, there has been several "suspected tortures" executed by the US troops on the Iraqi civilians, and as the word spreads through the Iraqis about those tortures, it will definitely induce hate and anti-American sentiment ("U.S. Accused Of Torture In Iraq"). This will be enough for the Iraqis to make them refuse any further toleration for the USA's interest and investment in Iraq. In addition, one tribal leader reported that "the entire Iraqi people is a time bomb that will blow up in the Americans' face if they don't end their occupation" (qtd. in Marshall).

(back to grade scale)

          The U.S. presence in Iraq is vital until a coalition government is formed in a proper democratic process. After the war, the Iraqi society has been divided into tens of sects and ethnic groups, which are all looking for the lead of Iraq. Accordingly, the U.S. troops' mission in Iraq has to include preventing saddm's government from resurfacing as well as preventing these groups from pushing an ethnic war to break out. A new coalition government can be achieved when the U.S. troops pass the control to a reliable entity that can hold up the cause that hundreds of Americans are paying their life. The end of Saddam truly marked the end of tyranny but will not guarantee that other tyrants will not come to the surface. The Curds, Sunnis, and Shia, who have been constantly fighting to rule Iraq, are considered a great danger that can appear at any moment. It is only the world's super power: the United States that can reconcile these antagonistic sects and put them together into a peaceful form. The U.S. president, George W. Bush promised to help in establishing a government that can achieve the needs of the Iraqi people (qtd in Baker). If the U.S. troops leave before unifying these undergroud powers, hundreds of Saddam-like tyrants will break Iraq into hundreds of provinces. Consequently, Iraq might repeat what happened before in Sudan when the southern leaders fought to change the constitution, which gives only the norther leaders the right to role Sudan, exploit the human resources of the norther Sudanese and thus, a civil war broke out ("Sudan: Conflict and Minorities").

          A well equipped and trained Iraqi army is necessary before the departure of the U.S. troops to their home land. Fascinated by its treasures, Iraq has many enemies who were waiting for the fall of Saddam's government to come in and try to dominate its lands. The antagonistic history of Iraq and its neighbors makes it unethical for the U.S. troops to leave the unsecured Iraqis without a leader or a well-organized army for these hungry hunters. The British occupation for Iraq after the World War I in 1918 is considered one of the popular occupations for Iraq ("Iraq since 1918"). The U.S. army should start training Iraqi soldiers and teach them how to protect their borders. No other Organization like U.N. or European Union can help the Iraqis through this due to the simple fact that they were not involved in Iraq from the beginning. The U.S. troops became familiar with the Iraqi tough lands, war techniques and will accordingly be able to give their war experience to the Iraqi army that will keep the lead on them. The situation would seem very complicated if the U.S. retreat was alone before all that.

(back to grade scale)

            The U.S. invasion helped the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam's government, and this is something they could not have done alone. I agree that Saddam was a dictator, and during his presidency, the Iraqi people had no freedom or democracy. They were tortured from his brutal control over every thing in their country including their own lives. Wendy Ross mentioned in her article that Bush's administration declared that the U.S. will remain in Iraq until they get rid of all the terrorist elements and establish a democratic government. It is true that the U.S. helped the Iraqi people to escape from Saddam's iron rule. If the U.S. is sincere in its desire to help the Iraqi people gain a democratic government, they must leave immediately after putting in place a provisional Iraq government, and asking for U.N. peace keeping forces to help in the transition period.
           The continual presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, and the daily loss of American lives is causing discontent in the U.S., and growing pressure on the U.S. government for a quick resolution to the Iraqi situation. By withdrawing, the number of the attacks and level of violence against the U.S. troops will stop. For example, in 9 Dec 2003, a car bomb exploded in front of a military compound west of Mousl, causing 31 American wounded soldiers (Gilmore). Many officials in the U.S. government feel that staying in Iraq is not a safe strategy. David Sanger mentioned that one of the most important senators in Bush's campaign said that it is a huge gamble, and Bob Dart showed some opinions which were taken from the families of the American soldiers in Iraq. Suarez, who lost his son in Iraq, says that his son will not return back for him, but he wants the other soldiers to come back to their families (Dart). If the U.S. troops left, the attacks will stop allowing peace and security to spread in the country, and the U.N. peace keeping forces would make sure that a civil war did not erupt. This would be an internationally acceptable solution until an Iraqi government was established to take control. Many countries with conflicting groups often form coalition government to be sure of fair representation, and have a rotating head of government position.

(back to grade scale)

            In order for Iraq to be successfully built the facts must be well analyzed. The US troops don't want to be there. Many Iraqis don't want the US there and don't trust them. The main goal of the mission is to capture Saddam and take him out of power which has been already done. The majority of the effort the US tropos are putting into Iraq at the moment is to keep from getting killed by the Iraqis. The US doesn't know how to contain the Iraqis; therefore it has resorted tot he method the Israelis use for the Palestinians (Filkins, Dexter). Common Iraqis tend not to trust the US troops and be extra cautious when they attempt to help them due to situations such as, the killing of 16 men during a protest in the town of Fallujah (Peterson, Scott). All this is promoting anti-western attitude along Iraq, causing the task of rebuilding very difficult for the US. The solution is that an organization that has no interest in Iraq other than its rebuilding, as well as one that the Iraqi people can trust, such as the UN, should take over the building task. Although military forces from all over the world including the US should ensure the safety of the UN. The UN should keep the Iraqis busy, while improving their lifestyle. This should be carried out by firstly rebuilding and running schools, as well as helping the Iraqis start businesses. This is possible by rebuilding workplaces and encouraging employment. The UN can promote foreign companies to work with Iraqis in rebuilding things in Iraq such as transportation, schools and hospitals. As stability rises as do the opportunities for growth, finally at a certain level in the stability, the UN could invite volunteers to help teach the Iraqis the required skills for running certain businesses. The goal here is that when the political stability in the country allows it, the model type of political system and economic system for the Iraqi people be installed and fully functional. The education system should be strongly monitored and should persuade the way of thinking and the values of the Iraqis to be more open minded and drift them towards a democracy. It is important to note that although we must not let our emotions and beliefs be involved in our determination of what is best for Iraq now and in the future, we must keep in mind that the emotions of the Iraqi people do play a role. The fact that they are rsisting US troops and are launching guerilla attacks on them proves that there is tension and that the Iraqis don't want the US there, which helps the argument that the Iraqi people don't trust the US troops. For democracy to be set up efficiently, values such as capitalism and rationality must be rooted within the Iraqi people. With the Iraqi people not trusting the US troops there is no way they will accept and follow their values.

Comments

(back to grade scale)

Tom Johnson. tjohnson@aucegypt.edu. Last updated May 2004.