America’s Withdrawal from Iraq: Time to Face Serious Lessons

American President Barack Obama aims for all troops stationed in Iraq to be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The withdrawal of those on combat duty by the end of this month is a midpoint landmark towards that goal. In concert with this objective is the withdrawal of combat forces from the neighboring country of Kuwait.

At the end of this month, American troops will decrease by one third to 50,000. Their main mission will become training the Iraqi security forces.

Already, American forces killed in Iraq exceed 4400, and estimates put Iraqi civilian casualties at over 100,000.

A soldier who left Iraq told a foreign news reporter, “What can we do? Foremost, injure no one else.” Was this war just? Although it may be their duty, isn’t it also the case that these are complicated thoughts occurring to soldiers as well?

Simultaneously, in a time when repeated acts of terrorism have occurred, people from many countries backed America, who fought back against terrorism. However, the way in which America forcibly overthrew Saddam Hussein’s political administration divided the world, made opposition in the Islamic world stronger and diffused terrorism efforts to both inside and outside of Iraq.

What was this war? This is a time when both America, who initiated the war, and Japan, who supported the war, should answer their own profound questions.

Scar of a Preemptive War

Let’s look back a little.

There was the question of whether Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist organizations had become a huge threat. At the time, President Bush took up arms against Iraq for “justice,” but conclusive evidence was lacking. Yet America, facing down opposing countries such as Germany and France, began its attack, with countries such as Britain and Italy in the Coalition of the Willing. As it was, the Security Council had not yet clearly given approval to the use of military force.

This “preemptive war,” arbitrarily harvesting the “sprouts of threat” beforehand, was inconsistent with the UN Charter, which only approves military force based on Security Council votes and self-defense against an imminent threat.

How could we suggest self-control to America, who went ahead with the “preemptive war”? The international community racked its brains. Before the outbreak of the war, a French diplomat said, “This is not an Iraqi problem. This is America’s problem.”

U.S. Secretary of State Powell plainly said to the President that an invasion of Iraq would be “costly” both to the U.S. and the world. He said if the U.S. occupies Iraq, then America must be responsible for both the Iraqis’ hopes and problems. Nevertheless, the President moved to start a war. President Bush, who said, “We will rid the world of evildoers,” brought the Iraq war to fruition.

At the same time, his action probably stemmed from the impact of terrorist attacks. Using military force to overthrow a government based on ambiguous grounds and sympathy for the Iraqi people, though, has not united international public opinion around “anti-terror” actions. We have not reached an understanding even with these sorts of obvious issues.

Upon examination after the invasion, with no weapons of mass destruction found, doubts about this war have escalated. Since the American “War on Terror” was on a par with overthrowing governments, continuing eradication tactics against former political administration remnants and supportive powers triggered terrorism and strong anti-American sentiments within Iraq. They gave al-Qaida and other extremists a “Great Cause” to carry out a holy war in Iraq, producing a cycle of violence.

Caution Against Reliance on Military Force

Iraq is in disarray even now. After the March election of the National Assembly, there are still sectarian conflicts in the new government administration and the political vacuum continues.

Obama, who criticized the route Bush took, became president and diverted the plan in a big way. Now, he is persuading the United Nations and the international community to aim towards rebuilding Iraq. This is a heavy responsibility for America, who damaged and threw Iraq into disarray with its “preemptive war.”

President Obama said that Afghanistan was a “necessary war” and tripled the number of U.S. troops stationed there. While he overthrew the government connected with al-Qaida, he did not take into consideration the current difficulties concerning the rebuilding of the country and counter-terrorism movements, which are reminiscent of the suffering in Iraq.

One of previous British Foreign Minister Miliband’s errors in the “War on Terror” was over-reliance on military power. The expansion of war and its victims does not necessarily increase the number of allies to help prevent terrorism.

Japan supported the Iraq War and sent self-defense forces to Iraqi “non-combat zones.” It was a way to support the American ally. How can we explain supporting a war based on unreliable information? “If I’m asked, where are the combat zones and where are the non-combat zones, there is no way for me to know,” said Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s. Wasn’t it a mistake to choose to dispatch self-defense forces in such a situation?

Inspecting Japan’s Decision-making

For the ruling party, the Iraqi problem is in the background and the North Korean problem comes and goes. The voice, from Liberal Democratic Party leadership, that said “Even though we’ve got the North Korean problem, I say one thing is missing from Iraq, and can relations with our ally America become bad because of this?” can also be heard. In reality, within the administration, in what ways have the Iraqi and North Korean problems been related?

Prime Minister Naoto Kan, the Democratic Party’s representative, pointed out that, in general, dispatching self-defense forces to combat zones in Iraq was an unconstitutional action. Now is the time for the Democratic Party political administration to point out clearly what we should learn from this history.

A country’s decisions with regard to war require intense scrutiny and verification. Otherwise, future administrations will not learn from past errors, especially ones of diplomacy and national security.

At the House of Councillors’ investigation meeting, they should deliberate on and review the decision-making at the Diet concerning the Iraq War.