American Policy and the Iraqi Issue

It would have been possible for the American operation in Iraq to succeed, if it had taken the route that would benefit Iraq and had not considered occupying it and creating a policy of security confusion. There is significant psychological tension between Iraqis and the United States, and it is not easily erased from the Iraqis’ memory. Starting with America’s blessing and approval of Saddam’s rebellion against Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, supporting Saddam with his reckless attack against Iran, and the flaccid way the American ambassador in Iraq received the news about Saddam’s decision to attack Kuwait. All of these are chapters from Iraq’s wounded history, but the worst of them all was letting down the Iraqis in the popular upheaval against Saddam that was going to end his reign. America let the big dictator stop the “Intifada” and slaughter many souls through publicly witnessed war crimes. He started a major eradicating operation that killed many of Iraq’s finest youth and scientists…and more than that, whatever the reason that Saddam’s regime lasted that long, was also the reason Iraq suffered economic sanctions that were the toughest and longest-lasting in history.

That sanctions that America imposed on Iraq did not result in Saddam was not tasting the Iraqis’ hunger. He was actually became more wealthy, his palaces got bigger and better and his generosity extended to the point that he spent the money for hungry Iraqis’ bread on politicians and educators, who drowned in their greediness and obsession with the “Saddamian” cash. These politicians and educators formed bags of gossip just to protect the dictator.

America wanted to fix its mistakes and it is obliged to. Governments are led by their own advantages and benefits. The great nation is a perfectly business-oriented nation, but let us assume that the great nation had some values left in its international relations strategy, even if broadly, then it should have created a plan to save a country that suffered sanctions and a brutal dictator for years. The United States, however, attacked Iraq, seeking to tamper with the region and warn others in the Middle East that change and occupation were coming.

Syria and Iran were the ones most affected by Saddam’s reckless policies, and let us not forget that Saddam himself was always concerned about America’s advantage in this part of the world, so how can we explain Syria and Iran’s disappointment in what is happening in Iraq today? The answer is that America itself pushes itself towards denying the reality of what its occupation of Iraq has caused.

America’s significant failure was not a result of removing Saddam, which is an event Iraqis loved. It would be extraordinary if the American strategy ignored its greed in this part of the world. What America did was not unexpected, since there is no conscience in politics!

But the failure did not start due to the actions of the terrorists in the area, who did not do more than kill the innocents in shops, mosques and churches. America’s failure, again, was a result of the games Syria and Iran played after finding out that America’s target was not just Iraq, but was an extended target to a major middle eastern project. The operation failed because the United States hid its intentions behind attacking Iraq, that they had not been aiming at getting rid of a dictator who they had supported for so long and who robbed his own people, but they had a hidden agenda with further aims to spread their control over the entire area and build its authority on bases of chaos.

For this specific reason America has failed in transferring power in Iraq peacefully.