US soldiers take oath to the US army on an Iraqi destroyed tank in Iraq

Politics

Уроки войны в Ираке спустя 15 лет

Mar 22, 2018 Javier Solana

МАДРИД – Прошло ровно 15 лет с момента начала одного из самых роковых эпизодов начала XXI века: войны в Ираке. После терактов 11 сентября 2001 года, французская газета Le Monde отлично отметила: “Nous sommes tous Américains” (“Мы все американцы”) и даже предсказала, что Россия станет основным союзником Америки. Но вторжение Президента США Джорджа Буша в Ирак в марте 2003 года, разбило эту перспективу вдребезги.

Теперь мы знаем, что война, помимо создания многочисленных текущих проблем на Ближнем Востоке, ознаменовала начало конца Американской гегемонии пост холодной войны. Мы также знаем, что, хотя это и было представлено как часть «войны с террором», основа вторжения была заложена задолго до 11 сентября.

Уже с января 1998 года, неоконсервативный Проект Новый Американский век (PNAC) направил письмо тогдашнему Президенту Биллу Клинтону, с призывом свергнуть Саддама Хусейна. И, одержав победу на президентских выборах в 2000 году, Буш объявил Ирак одним из основных своих приоритетов в области безопасности. Не случайно, администрация Буша включила десятерых из 25 подписавших основополагающие принципы PNAC, включая Дика Чейни как вице-президента и Дональда Рамсфелда как министра обороны.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 Comments on this article

Henk Crop Apr 8, 2018

Preceding a war a broad analysis should be made. Based on the political, economic, cultural and military situation By independent experts but familiar with the Middle East and its history. Scenario's are to made several steps ahead. Including scenarios for handling the aftermath.
Who would have succeeded Sadam Hussein, Gaddafi or will Assad ?
You cannot make a feasible plan for the ME without a reasonable knowledge about the Islam.
- Then you would know that the Sunnis and Shiits have a conflict with each other since the death of Mohammed in 632 AD.
- That freedom of speech does not match very well with Islam.
- Its doubtful that democracy could grow in an Islamic country.
You will have either a military or a religious autocracy.
- The Islamic countries experience a very high population growth.
- In the ME they have very much a tribal structure.
The West should be much more cautious with its interference in the middle east. Not just focus on a single bad guy.
We must conclude that simply the removal of Sadam or the bringing of democracy ( Nation building ) has not lead to a sustainable Arab Spring.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cary Fraser Mar 25, 2018

The Iranian Revolution, the attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Carter Doctrine, and the American-backed ill-fated Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon unleashed the destabilizing conflicts that have bedeviled the Middle East and the wider Islamic World in subsequent decades. Both the Soviet Union and the USA subsequently lost influence and leverage in the region.
The collapse of state authority in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is but another phase in the evolution of the post-Ottoman world. Beyond military intervention and the supply of armaments to various factions, neither Russia nor the USA has the intellectual credibility to propose a creative solution to the instability that had been unleashed in 1979-1980.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Mar 23, 2018

While I applaud the author's clear-eyed comments on the Iraq war, we must not ignore that Europe, most notably France, Britain and most of Nato, repeated the same wrong-headed policy towards Libya - regime change followed by total disaster.
- Henk Crop Mar 23, 2018
  
  Bernhard. Well put.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 23, 2018

Ahead of the May elections in Iraq, Javier Solana gives his take on the US invasion in 2003 and America’s policy – regime change – there, that reflects badly on the Middle East. In fact the Pandora’s box was opened already in 1990, when Saddam Hussein invaded neighbouring Kuwait, prompting outrage from the international community. A US-led war was waged on Iraq with the UN’s blessing. After weeks of heavy bombardment, Iraq agreed to end the conflict.
Before the first Iraq war in 19900, the US had rarely deployed military forces in the region and never fought a large-scale war there. The Middle East was a region of secondary importance to America. Yet freeing the tiny Gulf emirate from Saddam's clutches had morphed into a mission creep – a seemingly permanent state of war, metastasising to the entire region, and causing many of the “current troubles” on the ground.
What had been a backwater for the US military had since 1990 become the international venue of atrocities, and the US involvement in Iraq has spanned four presidencies and a panoply of evolving goals. The author says the 2003 invasion also “marked the beginning of the end of America’s post-Cold War hegemony.” Some fifteen years on there are so many conflicts in the region that it is hard to keep track on, and the US is still entangled in a messy, complicated war in Syria with no end in sight.
Apparently the “groundwork” for the 2003 invasion “had been laid well before 9/11,” when a bunch of neocons of the think-tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC) urged Bill Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein in 1998. After George W. Bush came to office in 2000, he “declared Iraq one of his top two security priorities” and appointed neocons, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as members of his cabinet. They became obsessed with “promoting the idea that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, despite the absence of any conclusive evidence.” The invasion in 2003 was peddled as part of the “war on terror.”
The author says the US was responsible for the “chaos that consumed Iraq and the rest of the region” after Saddam’s ouster. The Bush administration oversaw the sweeping “de-Baathification” process, ridding the country of the Baath party's influence. Its members were excluded from the reconstruction process under the Shia-led government, and the sectarian policies of the first elected pro-Iran prime minister Nouri Maliki drove the Baathists into the arms of the Islamists.
In 2014, the Sunni inhabitants of Mosul welcomed the ISIS when it took the city and set up its Islamic State there. The Islamists enjoyed strong political and logistical support from former members of Saddam Hussein's Baathist army, which was dominated by Iraq’s Sunni minority. Marginalised and down-trodden, the security forces lost their livelihoods after being disbanded by the new power-holders in Baghdad.
The incumbent, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has been in power since 2014. His cabinet enjoyed initial Sunni and Kurdish support, something which his predecessor lacked. The liberation of Mosul has provided him a political boost, ahead of the upcoming elections. If Iran would have its way, Abadi could be unseated, because of his good ties with Washington. Iranian-backed Shia Popular Mobilisation Units’ commanders such as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis - a US-designated global terrorist - and Hadi al-Ameri will want to share the political limelight.
Abadi is the only incredible actor who can lead the process of reconciliation and reconstruction. A new government under him will continue its commitment to “ruling through consensus, maintaining stability, and defending the country’s institutions.” Although ISIS had been defeated, but its fighters in Mosul and its rural outskirts may have blended back into the population, waiting for the opportunity to stage a comeback, if the Sunni population once again feel discriminated and excluded by the Shia-led government.
The author the Iraq War “showed that the cost of unilaterally forsaking diplomatic channels can be enormous.” Trump does not seem to learn from Bush’s mistake. Moreover, he is no friend of diplomacy. Given his belligerence towards Tehran, there is a risk that a “similar US approach to Iran would lead to another generation – or more – of turmoil in the Middle East.”
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Ross Mar 22, 2018

I agree with your hopes, but realistically don't see them working out.

The middle east reminds me of the Balkan Peninsula; until all parties -- Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Persian, Arab, Turk desire to be living in peace, and forget about old grudges, there will be no peace. No elected government or outside force will change this dynamic.

In the interim, we can only hope to slowly nudge parties that have been at each others throats for 1000s of years to try peace before they turn to the sword.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/lyJZYdoru

Уроки войны в Ираке спустя 15 лет

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

The World the Iraq War Made

Log in/Register

Уроки войны в Ираке спустя 15 лет

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification