Sunday, December 9, 2012

Iraq: Our Failed American Foreign Policy


 
After 10 years of occupation and 'nation building', I believe we left Iraq largely in a mess.  It is necessary to address both Iraq and the northern Kurds when discussing Iraq as a whole. The Kurds continue to embrace their decade’s long drive for independence. The fact that they sit on the bulk of Iraqi oil does not enhance the likelihood that Iraq will let this happen. It is necessary to give historical perspective of the Kurds to offer insight to the conflicts.

The Kurds are the oldest ethnic population with a unique culture despite their fall to various ruling powers. They have always struggled for independence but were caught in the crossfire of superpower struggles and the US was complicit in supporting the destruction of the Kurdish Democratic Party post WWII. The Kurds are the causality always caught in the fighting between larger powers which has only strengthened and kept alive their sentiments about independence.  Barzani of the 1970’s aspired to be the “51st state of the USA”. No one, including the US, wanted the Kurds to be independent of Iraq because they viewed the ‘semi-autonomous’ status of the Kurds as a means to keep Iraq a weaker state. The US true to historical form under Kissenger/Nixon, abandoned the Kurds when the Iraqis came down hard on them. We also refused to admit any Kurds for political asylum in the 1970’s.  

Marriana Charountaki , author of ‘The Kurds and US Foreign Policy’ describes in her well researched scholastic book five different phases of  US foreign policy towards the Kurds. The book critic, Mohammed Shareef of Durham University is more aligned with my opinion that the changes US foreign policy related to the Kurds were a direct response to our changing strategies rather than Charountaki’s assumptions that the Kurds shaped American foreign policy. It is only a difference of cause and effect. Seems this book would be a fascinating read.

The Kurds, after being mass murdered by chemical WMD, were long protected from Saddam under the no fly zone by the USA under Operation Provide Comfort in 1992. They had developed a significant level of autonomy from the Iraqi government by establishing their own defense and government institutions. Although initially wrought with infighting, they grew strong and independent. They were also largely unaffected by the US invasion because they were allied with us. They did not suffer the kinds of infrastructure destruction that places like Bagdad did. It is difficult if not impossible to scratch back the independence that the Kurds enjoyed under the protection of the US no fly zone. They advanced independent institutions and a military that presents a formidable opposition to the Iraqi military.

The Kurds live on top of the Iraqi oil reserves and if they were to achieve independence, Iraq would lose its largest income source. The Kurds could see themselves as another Quatar…small but rich. Kurdish President Barzani (interesting that there was a Barzani leader back in the 70’s…any relation?) is in conflict with Iraq because of his independent oil deals that conflict with Iraqi laws. It has been a multigenerational goal of the Kurds for independence from Iraq and their time of security and independence from Iraq has only emboldened and strengthened this aspiration. There is a large Kurdish population within the Turkish borders and Turkey views Kurdish independence as a potential threat. We have alliances with Turkey and I would lean toward us not supporting any attempt for the Kurds to establish their independence. It would be seen as a threat to Turkish borders and I believe Iran would feel the same. 

In Iraq, support for the USA will put your life at risk. I would suggest that there is little ability for US influence in Iraqi stability or survival of its fragile democracy. We are unwelcome by its leadership. Our failed policies there are the root cause of negative Iraqi sentiment towards the US within the Iraqi government. We invaded their country based on false reasons and lacked any post invasion plan which allowed for wide spread chaos and dismantling of government institutions. When we tried to clean up the mess we made, it had become an impossible mission. Bush’s statement of ‘mission accomplished’ and its photo op was premature and arrogant which was characteristic of his presidency and his American foreign policy.

Sectarian power struggles between the Shiite and Sunni is so evident that Shiite President al-Maliki sent out an arrest warrant for Sunni Vice President al-Hashimi with two death sentences to be delivered if he leaves the care and protection of the Turks where he is in exile. Ethnic warring continues between Kurds and the Arabs with no resolution in sight. Maliki has been slowly empowering his office on a slow walk to totalitarianism or dictatorship.

The USA lacked a post invasion plan and dismantled the Iraqi military and disenfranchised what should have been developed into a pillar of stability for the country. Power shifted from the minority Sunni to the majority Shiite as sectarian divisions were reignited. There were neighborhoods where Sunni were intermarrying with Shiite, but that sort of integration is now impossible. The civil war between them had begun. Iraq had no Al Qaeda before we invaded, but they are entrenched there now. Iraqi leadership has been engaged in ethnic cleansing as millions have fled the country.

As the world’s economy slows and limps along, so does the flow of foreign investments into Iraq for infrastructure rebuilding. It is a good thing for Iraq that their oil production and Iranian sanctions have led to an offset of funding to continue progress in investments in such key areas as electricity, transportation and provision of potable water. The predictors for Iraqi economic growth are encouraging as they dig themselves out from under the political disorder we contributed to. I do not see democracy as we know it flourishing given the ethnic and sectarian divisions and resulting conflicts. I expect the Iraqi relationship with Iran to become stressed in the future as Iran will seek to have greater influence and Iraq will start to fight against it. Perhaps a loose alliance against the US will be the end outcome since both their leaderships, not necessarily their people, have a well earned distrust and dislike of the US and our foriegn policies.

 Sources:

Brief History of Kurdistan. Retrieved from   https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~jlshupe/history.html  Nov 9, 2012.

Kamber, Micheal. 2012, Dec. 7. Iraq. New York Times. Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html


Shareef, Mohammed. 2011.The Kurds and US Foreign Policy: International Relations in the Middle East since 1945. Insight Turkey. Retrieved from http://www.insightturkey.com/the-kurds-and-us-foreign-policy-international-relations-in-the-middle-east-since-1945/book-reviews/70  Nov 9,2012.

No comments:

Post a Comment