This is a Dexter Filkins interview (few journalists have spent
more time in Iraq). I know Obama campaigned on and promised to
extricate us from the Iraq fiasco, and in 2011 no one in the US had the
stomach to stay any longer (even if we were able to sign a security
agreement with the Iraqi gov't). We were supposed to refocus on
Afghanistan-Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But every decision has tradeoffs, and
unfortunately here are the costs of leaving Iraq in the manner that we
did.
The PM the Bushies tapped and currently remains in power,
Nouri al-Maliki, is quite anti-American and sectarian (the CIA vetted
that pick about as well as McCain did with Palin). Our presence there
kept his Shia government from outright oppressing the Sunnis. So now he
has free reign, and sectarian bloodshed has risen to the tune of 1,000
civilian deaths per month (at the height of their civil war, it was
2,000/month). He has also not only tolerated, but more or less absorbed
into his regime, Shia militias responsible for hundreds of US deaths.
There likely can't be peace and progress with Maliki and his party
in power, who are backed by Iran. So without our presence in the mix,
the gov't has no incentive to stop marginalizing the Sunnis, and
therefore the Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting back with car
bombs and such. Remember how we set up the Baghdad gov't to be a fairly
representative mix of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd? Well that is out the window
also, as Maliki has removed hundreds of Sunnis from their offices. His
gov't has also removed billions of petro-dollars from the state to
offshore personal accounts.
So maybe Iraq would be less dysfunctional now with different leaders
in charge, but unfortunately their selection pool is pretty thin. They
have no one who resembles a Mandela or Gandhi, much less a marginally
competent non-ideologue. And so the show goes on. It seems that
everything we sacrificed there (our national rep, thousands dead,
decades of huge costs on the VA to name a few) was pretty much wasted,
and the only positives we got out of it are Saddam was deposed, and we
learned a lot of hard lessons on Mideast politics and counter-insurgency
that we can hopefully apply to our benefit. Now we have basically no
credibility or influence in Iraq and the greater Gulf, and Iran has a
lot of influence, as we've seen in Syria. Iran doesn't seem to mind, but
inter- and intranational social-sectarian tensions are at an alarming
level, which could lead to even bigger problems and regional conflicts.
As a war critic, I don't know whether I would have advocated a
long-term US presence in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been unjustifiable -
after all we've had tens of thousands of Americans in Germany and the
USSR is long gone. It's easy to see it now, but we could have
mitigated/prevented a lot of these problems if we stayed - as the "adult
supervision" and outside intermediary between the factions (of course
we could have caused other problems too). The Obama admin. proposed to
Maliki to keep a 5-10K residual force in Baghdad, mostly for training
and advising. Maliki may have been OK with that (knowing we would be
focused on Sunni insurgents), but he said Parliament wouldn't agree to
immunity to local prosecution (a condition that US forces enjoy most
everywhere they are stationed). Also some speculate that his Iranian
handlers were against it too.
-----
since Iran had their revolution and deposed the shah, the country's been
pretty stable. They picked their own govt without American 'advisors'.
As I was told, when the shah was in power, you had social freedoms but
free speech was not tolerated at all. Now the social freedoms are
minimal with regards to dress, but you can say whatever you want.
Political dissent is not discouraged. There is a high literacy rate.
I'm not saying Iran is perfect, but it's their own government, not an
american puppet government.
Regarding Iraq, we went in there and totally f'd up that country. We
took a country, granted, that had it's problems, and turned it into a
living nightmare with DU bombings, checkpoints and no normal life for
anyone. How do you propose the Iraqis feel about us? Do you really
think they would be 'grateful' to have us, any of us there? The only
thing we should be sending there is food, seeds(non-GMO, of course) and
building materials. They're an educated population. They can rebuild
and choose their own government.
American advisors mold the country to benefit corporate interest
and nothing else. We assure their govt. is beholden to us, not its
people. I'm sure there are plenty of Gandhis or Mandelas in Iraq, but
we call in a drone if anyone appears the least bit charismatic or
uppity.
------
Well, the Islamic Republic is not that democratic, with fanatical
religious police, torturing secret police, and pseudo-elections where
the popular vote winner still has to be approved by the Ayatollah. In
that sense, I am amazed that they elected a reformer (Mousavi)
currently. But hey, we thought we were getting a reformer in Obama too.
Iranians must not be that happy with their gov't when they rose up en
masse against Ahmadinejad's questionable re-election (
green revolution).
And of course gov't forces cracked down on them violently with possibly
72 deaths. Much worse than Kent State or Zuccotti Park.
I agree that our adventurism and pathetic attempt at
nation-building in Iraq under Bush was an abject failure. For an
ostensibly civilized superpower that "learned lessons" from Vietnam, we
messed up about as badly as you can imagine. I assume Iraqi sentiment is
fairly un-American, but I believe that many people would rather have us
"in the picture" if it keeps the sectarian tensions under control.
Sadly without us, things got more chaotic (bombings and killings are
more frequent now vs. the months prior to our exit). I am not advocating
a permanent meddling presence where we conduct daily raids and dictate
policy to Baghdad. I would prefer more of a Bosnia-style peacekeeping
force (preferably int'l, though understandably no one wants to join us)
to prevent civil war and ethnic cleansing. And hopefully we could help
broker agreements between the factions, call out corruption, and assist
in development (forgive my naivete, but I believe we still have it in us
to do things right). For all of America's faults, I would trust us in
that role more than Russia, Iran, China, Saudi, etc.
Lastly, I think the most promising Iraqi leaders have fled long ago,
and may prefer a better life in the First World vs. returning to a
hornet's nest of problems and corruption.
