U.S. and Iraqi Conflict
With the start of the war against Iraq, the majority of the countries around the world didn't support American efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was, in most cases, looked upon as a rash and abrupt act of uninitiated violence by our U.S. government as an overuse and abuse of our power. Many believe that, as the last remaining superpower in the world, we were -- and still are -- attempting to inflict our opinions, culture, ideals, goals and general way of life upon countries around that world. Many feel that the US is not only having an effect on every culture with an indirect approach and influence socially and economically, but that we are also using full hands-on, forceful military techniques to get our way around the globe. To many, America is the representation of all that is ethnocentric.
Even though America is a country which consists of the culmination of many different types of people and nationalities, our general "American" ideals are unwelcome in a large portion of the countries abroad. Our opinions on things such as women's rights and capitalism have always struck a cord with decidedly different trains of thought, such as Muslim societies.
Most severely, as a result of the Iraq war, the majority of Muslim oriented countries have a highly - and universal - negative opinion of our country; "in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the United States remains pervasive." (PEW, 1) Even Osama bin Laden is viewed favorably amongst the surveys conducted. Approval ratings in Pakistan, Jordan, Morocco and Turkey were ranked substantial numbers in his support.
Each group felt that the recent suicide attacks against Americans and other westerners were understandably justified, and they doubt the "sincerity of the war on terrorism." (PEW, 2) The sentiment is seen more in the sense that America is trying to maintain its' lock on the Middle East's most important and influential resource, its' oil. It seems that many there believe it is our goal, President Bush's goal in particular, that a conquest for world domination is our delineated and planned intention.
Germany, France and Russia still hold true that their countries made the appropriate decisions when they chose not to go to war, while Britain's opinion in support of Americas efforts are quickly declining in the hindsight. Most feel that the war on terrorism was severely hurt by this action, even though in American press, the two issues have been stated as starkly unrelated matters. (PEW, 3) The intrinsic value of conquering a culpable foe on false pretenses has had a perverse effect on the opinions of other countries toward our actions. Instead of seen as conquering the "bad guys," our national image has been reduced to that of bullies on the proverbial "block," showing irresponsibility in all matters of the war, including their missing weapons of mass destruction.
Even before the beginning of the war, this issue was held in highly controversial debate for months in the international community and even amongst the American populous itself. Decisions were split over whether to support the U.S. efforts against Iraq, because: on the one hand, the media had been portraying Saddam Hussein as an evil man for years, and on the other, our American troops would have to be deployed for indeterminate amount of time. Many felt that it was President Bush's goal to take care of a little business while the majority of the population was still on his side from the terrorist attacks from two years previous.
Every major news network across the country had extensive coverage on the war in Iraq and nearly all media coverage during the Iraq war was undeniably unquestioning of Bush's conservative administration. Any opinion to the opposition of Americas roll in the war was grossly underrepresented in our media.
Images or news content that might have caused criticism or self doubt within the American populous regarding our conduct during the war were not shown by any network or media outlet in America. Call it biased, but it tends to be the natural stance for the American perspective during times of war. America limits descent by claiming it to be unpatriotic and unsupportive of the citizens there fighting for the country.
In President Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, he labeled Iraq as part of the "axis of evil," and vowed that as one of the worlds most dangerous regimes, he would not allow them, any longer, to threaten the US with destructive weapons (Weapons of Mass Destruction -- WMD). As weapons inspector David Kay said, "We were all wrong, probably, in my judgment," in reference to inquiry by the US senate committee asking about Iraqis WMD's. "I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stock piles of deployed, militarized chemical and biological weapons there," he continued. (Sales, 1)
On September 12, the same year, President Bush addressed the United Nations in order to try to implore them to enforce their regulations and resolutions made in Iraq because they'd been receiving intelligence reports saying that Saddam Was acquiring weapons he was not allowed to have. Bush also stated that if the UN would not take action, the U.S. might be forced to take action on it's own, in a preemptive strike. A month after this, congress authorized Bush's plan for war, still riding high on American patriotism and a war against terrorism. (Iraq War Timeline)
In November, 2002, the UN Security Council came to a resolution to impose new, tougher, inspections in Iraq - the first time they had returned to a decision about Iraq in nearly four years.
"Much of the current controversy centers on our prewar intelligence on Iraq, summarized in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002. [National Estimates are publications where the intelligence community as a whole seeks to sum up what they know about a subject, what they do not know, what they suspect may be happening, and where they differ on key issues.] This Estimate asked if Iraq had chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. We concluded that in some of these categories, Iraq had weapons. And that in others-where it did not have them-it was trying to develop them," said the Director of Central Intelligence, George J. Tenet, in a report about the war in Iraq. (Tenet, 2)
With the availability of supposedly substantial information about Iraq's violation of UN Regulations, in December of 2002, President Bush gave ultimatums to Iraqi leaders that the information of developing weapons of mass destruction - including ballistic missiles, as well as chemical and biological agents - were to be investigated by United Nations (UN) inspectors.
"Everyone knew that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in the 1980s and 1990s. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people on at least 10 different occasions. He launched missiles against Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. And we couldn't forget that in the early 1990s, we saw that Iraq was just a few years way from a nuclear weapon-this was no theoretical program. It turned out that we and the other intelligence services of the world had significantly underestimated his progress... Our second stream of information was that the United Nations could not-and Saddam would not-account for all the weapons the Iraqis had: tons of chemical weapons," said Tenet. (Tenet, 2)
Within the next few months, UN weapons inspectors reported that Iraqi cooperation was nearly non-existent. The pro-war countries felt that Iraq had taken their claims in jest and felt that Iraq was showing its nature, promptly standing in defiance of the international community. Anti-war nations on the other hand, saw the effort as a sign that inspections were yielding few results and should continue until the complete analysis was finished. (Iraq War Timeline)
However, as the U.S. received more intelligence about the weapons they issued another ultimatum for Saddam Hussein to step down from his position of power because of his violations against the UN regulations. Around February of 2003, it seemed as if the president's determination to see American forces in Baghdad by March of the same year was engraved in stone. It was in March of 2003, that a war which would take no more then a month for the pentagon to declare the major fighting over, as they took control of both the Iraqi capital and Tikirt, Hussein's birthplace.
"Majorities in the Western European countries surveyed believe their own government should obtain U.N. approval before dealing with an international threat. That idea is much more problematic for Americans, and on this issue Russians and people in Muslim countries are much closer to Americans than they are to Western Europeans." (PEW, 3)
Ethnic conflicts come in all shapes and sizes; they are not empirical in any sense, but instead based, mostly, upon the differing and conflicting internal ideals of two separate types of people. Many might not be willing to call the U.S. war and current occupation of Iraq an ethnic conflict, but in many senses, at its core, there is a severe distaste for the American presence in this part of the world. The U.S. efforts in Iraq are a fantastic example of clashing societies, ideologies, cultures and economies. It seems as if the current U.S. plans for Iraq are markedly different from the wills of some of the Iraqi people. There is a holistically sharp difference between the standard American outlook on life and that of the Iraqi people.
The greater majority of Iraq is filled with Muslim oriented citizens who have been under the regime of one of the most vicious dictators we've seen in recent history. And they are still putting up a fair amount of resistance to the aid we are trying to give them and the opportunities we are trying create for their people. "The growing number, sophistication, and diversity of attacks on US forces suggest that the resistance is growing and becoming more organized - clear evidence that the US may be losing the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people." (Ritter, 2)
There are a lot of discussions about the influences of "western" society across the world, it's important to recognize our influences, both direct and indirect. America has a way of imposing itself and it's ideals upon other people - often as a result of thinking our ideals and way of life is better then others. It is from this fact that it's not surprising to see that the majority of Middle Eastern countries have a huge animosity towards our nation.
Even now, with the "War in Iraq" being over for two years, Americans are still encountering a severe amount of resistance, rooted within the ideologies of the people. We simply think differently about situations of aid, and see a large number of things out of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It is always difficult to resolve conflicts that are based more on ideological concepts then explicit events and occurrences between two nations. Our current quarrel with the Iraqi people seems more a result of ethnic conflict then simplistically warring nations. The ideals of the people look beyond money, power and political leaders, toward the root of the cause, generally deep-seated anger and opposition to another culture.
The feelings are so strong in some of those within the Iraqi resistance that resolutions to the conflict seem nearly impossible within any reasonable amount of time. We are going to need a number of years before our relations with the Iraqi people, their society and their economy are alright; still there are many in Iraq who will resist as long as they can.
There are Iraqis who remain loyal to their former leader Saddam Hussein and his entire regime, and others who have turned against that ideal and allied with us, the supposed invaders of their land. There are also foreign and indigenous opportunists who are allied with groups like Al-Qaeda and perhaps still others who simply feel the need to unite with fellow Muslims. "Hussein's government was - and its remnants are - intimately familiar with every square inch of Baghdad: who was loyal, where they live, and who they associated with." (Ritter, 2)
Often, the people still resisting within Iraq have a wide variety of ideologies behind their actions, and often collateral damage is rarely an issue or reservation to their purpose. That is to say they don't seem to realize that civilians - any kind of civilians - have specific rights under international law, that a lot of these civilians have the right to be there.
In order to analyze and resolve the issues, our two countries have, and possibly therefore rectify the American relationship with the Middle Eastern societies; anthropologists must seek to understand Islam and Muslim people. They must open themselves up to talk with wide varieties and stations of Muslim people, to gain and understanding of the culture and the way they think -- this is also needed in an effort to help them. Working together with some the Iraqi people on certain public issues in which we and they may have similar concerns, could yield a positive start to forming a bridge for our two nations - for instance: free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and censorship and of the press.
Some critics, however, feel that the Bush administrations radical shift in priorities and goals in late 2002 "[embraceed] militarism and unilateral preemptive military strikes to answer threats to U.S. interests." (AFSC, 1) This is in reference to the National Security Strategy released in 2002, which the American Friends Service committee feels "undermines the foundations of international law, arms reduction treaties, and diplomacy in the post-World War II era. It states that the United States will never allow its military supremacy to be challenged, as it was during the Cold War." (AFSC)
The policy advocates reliance in the international community upon military force, and tends to narrow the alternatives of policy in terms of foreign affairs. It boldly claims that "The United States possesses unprecedented- and unequaled-strength and influence in the world. Sustained by faith in the principles of liberty, and the value of a free society, this position comes with unparalleled responsibilities, obligations, and opportunity. The great strength of this nation must be used to promote a balance of power that favors freedom." (NSS, 1) It continues to say that:
"For most of the twentieth century, the world was divided by a great struggle over ideas: destructive totalitarian visions versus freedom and equality.... That great struggle is over. The militant visions of class, nation, and race which promised utopia and delivered misery have been defeated and discredited. America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few. We must defeat these threats to our Nation, allies, and friends. This is also a time of opportunity for America.... We will work to translate this moment of influence into decades of peace, prosperity, and liberty. The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests. The aim of this strategy is to help make the world not just safer but better. Our goals on the path to progress are clear: political and economic freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human dignity." (NSS, 1)
The entire demeanor of the document promotes an atmosphere of threats and intimidation through US military action. Some critics feel that "it reduces the opportunity for creative diplomacy and encourages violence... prevents cooperative agreements that might limit military actions, including nonproliferation treaties and efforts to hold national leaders accountable through the International Criminal Court...." (AFSC) Our consistent and perpetual inability to ensure the basic human rights we claim to desire across the world in Iraq is partially do this strategy, it "neglects to address the conditions of poverty, injustice, and oppression that lead to violence." (AFSC)
In America we tend to scream concepts of democracy, human rights, and religious freedom from our rooftops and attempt to herald those same ideals throughout the international communities to which Muslim nations have close association. A dialogue cannot advance very far, however, unless it addresses the problems that each side perceives in the other.
Ethnic conflicts are well entrenched in the world's history and perhaps intrinsic to human nature simply by the very fact that we have our own opinions and see the world differently because of our cultures, experiences and the way we were raised. Ethnic conflicts that involve deep-seated distaste for other cultures and groups of people are difficult to resolve, which is only exemplified by the ever unending situation that has taken place in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine, and at some point could end up describing the US relationship with Iraq.
As ethnic conflict theories explain, it is not economics, politics, or territory specifically which prevent the attainment of peace between the two groups, but it is instead, the very deep-seated hatred of one another that neither group, culture or ethnicity can overcome. As a result, conflict between the two group's remains intrinsically fierce and continually a problematic source for countries around the world.
Even though ethnic conflicts run rampant throughout the world, people should maintain a uniquely positive and optimistic outcome that some countries will eventually be able to get along. There are little doubts that the U.S. will be making every attempt to get along with Iraq within the next 10 years. The problems between these two countries are highly reconcilable, it is just necessary to maintain control of the rouge squads of resistance for the effort toward peace.
Wars, on a general scale, have been utterly ineffective in resolving problems between people; this case is exemplified by the US position in Iraq. The crux of the issue is very apparent, "Violence tends to only breed more violence. No one is born with the right to deny others, the freedom, their human dignity, their ability to master their lives the best way they know; yet we must acknowledge, there are those who are awarded privileges that they themselves are not aware of, and such privileges are often used to dominate, or perpetuate inequality... Equality is the policy of restructuring human relations," said Farhad Malekafzali. Though the protection and implementation of people's rights in Iraq is one of the purported policy goals of Americans presence in Iraq, starting the change of a country through war initiated by pre-emptive strike, while maybe the most direct and immediate way, might not have been the most tactful. The sentiment that "they'll love us when we win," is naïve and brash at best; especially when dealing with real and lasting issues of other countries.
Our journey and trek through the Middle East is nowhere from over. When we went to change the controlling regime in Iraq, our goal -- and a necessity of the entire effort -- was to not only to take control and reinstitute a new government, but to change the complete ideology of the country. Even with a concentrated and dedicated goal to do just that in our own country, it has taken us a couple hundred years, "several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights we hold as fundamental today," as Justice Thurgood Marshall would say.
Changing the ideology and very fabric of a way of life in a country is a journey that is both long and arduous at best; the mechanisms for racial separation -- especially in such societies as those found based on religious idealism -- which are present in the core of the economy and social cultures around the world, have traditionally proven to be tough and enduring. Even for a country such as the US, with all our power, we have our hands full trying to change the minds of a people who have developed certain ideals through their history. Theories about our ulterior motives for causing such an uproar in Iraq aside, now that we have such a position in Iraq, it is an obligation of our country to both deal, handle and insure the prosperity of the Iraqi nation. We must take responsibility for our actions, and look toward a bright future through cooperative effort.