In 10 years: Exemplary regime in Iraq

There are two interpretations over the invasion of the US and its allies to Iraq. One is the official stance of the US and UK and the other that of the critics and the opposition side. Back in 2003, the US and UK announced that Saddam Hussein regime has to be toppled due to three reasons.
Firstly, Iraq has been producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), secondly, it is supporting Al Qaeda, consequently threatening anti-terrorism campaign. Finally, free jihad is under a moral responsibility to topple non-democratic Baath regime.

The first reason was dealt with great hesitation from the beginning more likely to be an accusation and after the war the hesitation came out to be right. The second reason was repeated after the war but it was never known what the US exactly meant by Al Qaeda because since 911 twin blasts, Al Qaeda has turned into a word to describe any Muslim radical movement against world system while its exterior examples are quite blare. The third reason, was non-legal by nature and there has not been a shared comprehension to discuss if the behavior of the Baath regime could be included under article 51 of the UN charter on threats against world security and basically what guarantees that the topple of a regime would be followed by the emergence of a better regime?

The second interpretation was that of those who opposed the war, those who provided three reasons for invasion of the US and its allies: Firstly, the US wishes to dominate the oil resources in Iraq and the region. Then they want to guarantee a booming weapon and construction industry for the US through selling arms and reconstruction of the war debris and eventually they intend to be the decision makers in the region.

10 years have passed since the invasion of the US against Iraq and topple of the Baath regime and the challenges of these two groups have continued to present. Supporters of war do not need to compile documents or discuss their interpretations because the basic reason for the war, regime change in Iraq, has realized and pros and cons do not count any more. However, those who opposed that war, who are basically in opposition with any war, are in need of more evidences to support their interpretation.

Among the tree reasons stressed by anti-war supporters as the main motivations for the US and its allies to invade Iraq, the first two, mainly highlighted over the third one, seem to lack strong fundaments. Because based on a 2003 survey, US oil import from the Middle East was so trivial that the benefit of the US from oil import at that time was $ 9 billion and it is unlikely that the US, who spends $ 1000 billion (according to some surveys $2000 billion) on a war that is going to earn the country only $ 9 billion annually.

Armaments industry of the country is in the same situation. In the year that the US invaded Iraq, turnover of three main armaments complex of the US, with its main market in the Middle East, was $ 100 billion. Presence of Iraq Baath regime was the main reason for arms race in the Middle East and its continuation would be more beneficial rather than a temporary consumption of the US army.

The third reason by the critics and those who opposed the war (decision making for the regional countries) which was stronger than the previous two was given less attention and in fact it lost its hue in the shadow of the other two, or it might have lost in propaganda guise that it lost its meaning. What is deducted from the American researchers and makes its way to the wording of their diplomats and politicians, what made the main sparks for Iraq war, was the “Great Strategy” that had much higher targets than benefits from arms trade and included oil in the same manner. According to some views (and probably operational schedules) of the Americans, the more efficient world order, that aids an increase of the world income, the more US and the west would benefit the privileges in the world.

The present order of the world is based on two pillars including US-Europe ties or Atlantic order and the Asia-Pacific order including the ties between the west, eastern Asia and Oceania. A bipolar order cannot be an everlasting one and naturally it needs a third party and this order has to include the Middle East and North Africa.

Realization of this strategy is not much easy and the Americans are quite aware of that. Therefore two projects have to be followed simultaneously; firstly, efforts to integrate the Middle East and Africa in the world order and providing a third base for that and in the next step, controlling and caring the potential powers for a day when the intended order realizes.

This is while, due to the cultural resistance of the people in the Middle East and North Africa, realization of the Great Strategy seems to be unlikely and these powers are better to be controlled. The strategy of control, umbrellas politics, security and science but hesitates when it comes to economy because economic collapse of the countries, if it goes beyond some extents, can destabilize world order.

An aspect of the Great Strategy, related to Iraq, is that firstly Iraqi Baath Regime, as a system with powerful internal organization and expansionist military capacities, would topple and be substituted by a regime that arouses the envy of other regional countries.

The first aim has been met and the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein has collapsed but on the success of the second part has to be given a second thought. The present regime of Iraq does not have basic differences with other Middle East or North African countries when 10 years into the war its problems exceeds those of other countries, its internal security is fragile and foreign affairs is normal in some cases with tensions.

In the field of economics, although since 2006 the inflation has decreased, unemployment has plagued the country and economic positive changes are not visible in the lives of the people. More important is that the regime that was supposed to be an ally of the US in the regional affairs, has expanded its ties with Iran to an extent beyond the expectation of the west and its commercial ties with the US is limited to oil export that was not banned during Saddam Hussein regime.

“The Exemplary Regime” has no basic differences with other regional countries and the question remains: With a $ 100 billion budget (or $ 2000 billion according to other surveys), could not the Americans found the third base of this Great Strategy through peaceful means?