So, the mainstream media has been asking whether or not our invasion of Iraq was worth it. I guess the question is being asked because our “combat” troops have departed Iraq and now we “just” have 50,000 troops remaining.
I’ve been thinking a lot about why we invaded Iraq, and based upon the theory I’ve developed I believe that such questioning is premature by about five decades. The effort we started in Iraq will, in my opinion, spread throughout the Middle East continuing for about fifty years or more. Therefore the answer will be finally determined long after I’m dead. I guess this is an easy theory to offer, since I won’t be around to be told I was wrong.
My theory about Iraq all started with the next war. Or, more accurately, “The Next War” the 550 page (paperback) book authored by former secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in 1998, about ten years after he left that office. The book illustrates that one of the responsibilities of any administration is to look over the horizon and predict the next potential threat(s) to the USA. In his book Mr. Weinberger explores such interesting potential threats as:
- Response to nuclear terrorism by Iran – Part (chapter) Two
- War with Mexico due to violence crossing the border into the USA – Part (chapter) Three
Published in 1998. Huh.
The point here is that a worthy administration will look towards the future to prepare for potential threats. The next time you read an article in the “Washington Post”, probably on a slow news day, about the Department of Defense (shockingly) having plans to invade ______________, then you ought to say “thank you” because they damn well better be planning a response to a potential threat, even if we lowly citizens aren’t yet even aware if said threat, and may never be since said threat may not come to pass. It is the responsibility of our senior management to prepare for possible threats. I’m not saying that our senior management is always successful in looking into the crystal ball, but I’ll bet they try.
On the other hand, the terrific book “Charlie Wilson's War” by George Crile taught me that we lowly citizens really don’t know what is actually happening in the world. You’ve probably seen the movie, which was entertaining; you might even have seen the History Channel documentary, which was enlightening; but you may wish to actually read the 560 page (paperback) book and find out just how ignorant you are to world events. Such as, how many of you knew way back in the mid-1980s: Pakistan (a Muslim country) was sending Soviet tanks to Israel (a Jewish state) to beef up said tanks so that Pakistan could better protect itself against India (a Hindu country)? Raise your hand if you knew that a Muslim country was cooperating with a Jewish state, and visa versa, just so the USA could slip arms into Afghanistan to help some dirt poor, horse back riding (if they were lucky) warrior kick the ass of one of the largest, most powerful armies in the world.
I believe, then and now, we have no idea what is actually going on in the world, especially if you read the newspapers and watch news on television. By following the news we know what someone wants us to know, and for the most part we don’t know what they don’t want us to know. Read “Charlie Wilson’s War”. Bask in your ignorance. I bask in mine.
One other book demonstrated just how badly third party countries screwed up the Middle East. “A Prince of our Disorder: The Life of T.E. Lawrence” the 560 page (paperback) by John Mack explores the life of the incredible Lawrence of Arabia. The book includes maps of the Middle East before and after World War I. After WWI the Brits and the French (and I’m guessing we had a seat at the table somewhere) sat down with a map and defined the current day Middle East (sans Israel). Pop quiz: do you know why Lebanon is so closely tied to Syria? Because Lebanon used to be part of Syria (Assyria) as part of the Ottoman Empire. This before the Brits and French broke out their brand new Crayola crayons and drew the new and improved Middle East map, at the same time creating the Kingdom of Saud out of sand.
And there in lies the issue (finally!).
The reason we invaded Iraq is because:
· I think that Saudi Arabia is or will become a world threat.
· I think that attacking Saudi Arabia to eliminate the threat would be politically tacky.
· I think that it was more politically acceptable to invade Iraq, run by a bad guy, to reduce the threat from Saudi Arabia.
· I think that 9/11 changed the psyche of the USA, forever.
I think we invaded Iraq because Saudi Arabia poses an over the horizon threat to not only the USA, but the world economy as a whole.
And apparently General Hugh Shelton agrees with me. How about that? General Shelton was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Shelton ) and in a recent lecture credited Saudi Arabia, as well as other countries, as a potential threat to the USA. Not a military threat, but rather because Saudi Arabia is a most critical supplier of world oil, any upheaval in that kingdom could create havoc in the entire Middle East, and therefore the world.
Saudi Arabia, sometimes know as a Family with a Flag, is a monarchy. The royal family consists of about 7,000 members. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud
It is generally acknowledged that the Middle East’s known oil reserves account for over half of the know world reserves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves and Saudi Arabian reserves count for almost one third of the world supply.
One third of the world supply of oil all in the hands of a family with a flag.
Saudi Arabia holds first place in OPEC oil reserves, Iran and Iraq trade second and third place depending upon who you believe, but each with about half of the Saudi Arabian reserves, alone. Remember that. Iran and Iraq combined almost total that of the Saudi Arabian reserves
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
The question is, how great is the risk that the Saudi Arabian royal family might be displaced, or at least their oil enterprise disrupted? We may have found that out if Saddam Hussein hadn’t stopped to pick his nose after invading Kuwait, giving us time to ship war fighters and supplies to Saudi Arabia to kick the bad guy out of Kuwait. Another part of the answer to that question is just how financially stable is the monarchy?
Below is an excerpt from a study by the Kogod School of Business titled “Center for Information Technology and the Global Economy”. A friend of mine received his Masters degree in Finance from the school and he tells me that the Kogod School of Business is the Business school of American University in Washington, DC. They are one of the highest ranked business schools in the country. The study states:
Saudi Arabian financials:
Saudi Arabia has seen higher deficits over the years. Economic growth has been volatile. According to the Consulting Center for Finance and Investment (CCFI), Economic and Investment Research Division of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Budget 2003 advocates a spending of SR 209 billion bringing the deficit of SR 39 billion or 5.6% of the current GDP (SR 695 billion).9 Paris projects its 2003 deficit at 3.4% of GDP, which breaches the European Union’s 3% limit.10 According to the Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2003, this is expected to draw a formal warning from the EU and possible sanctions later as the commission can fine serial budget offenders. Both France and Germany, the Euro zone’s two largest economies, have deficits above the 3% ceiling. Saudi Arabia’s budget is 5.6% of the GDP and although it does not face economic sanctions, this is not a positive economic indicator and is cause for concern. Saudi Arabia spends 60% on Human Resource and Defense and Security expenditures. Steps needed to be taken to reduce the dependence on oil, which stands in the range of 75-80% of the total revenue, increase the capital expenditure and reduce the current expenditure, which attributes to the accumulation of debt.11 Saudi Arabia’s economic problems could deepen should the US seize oil fields after the war prompting a sustained decline in oil prices that would throw the Saudi economy into a tailspin. The per capita income now at $8,000 has shrunk about two-thirds since the late 1970s. The budget deficit is projected at 5.6% this year, and national debt is about equal to annual gross domestic product.
Unemployment among Saudis exceeds 10% and is growing; contrast this to the US. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor, US unemployment rose in April, 2003 to 6%. The foreign work force continues to grow in Saudi Arabia leading to high public debt and is hurting Saudi citizens seeking employment. Saad al Zahrani, a professor at Umm al Qura University in Mecca, says even graduates from high-demand departments such as medicine have to wait months for job openings. Ordinary Saudis, he says, are ready to take any job, for as little as 1,000 riyals ($270) a month.
If I haven’t bored you to death yet, the entire report may be found at:
http://www1.american.edu/academic.depts/ksb/citge/Saudi_Arabia_Financial_sector.doc
The point is that Saudi Arabia has an economy that goes up and down with oil prices, sometime radically. Additionally, according to an article in “US News and World Report” about ten years ago (can’t find the link, sorry), at that time Saudi Arabia had invested $80 billion in exporting Wahhabism all over the world. Wahhabism is considered to be a very conservative and even radical form of Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi
Why would they do that? Well, I would say that some members of the royal family, very wealthy members of the royal family, want to promote Wahhabism around the world. I would also say it is a possibility that some members of the royal family made a deal with the devil and agreed to fund Wahhabism as long as the extremists would not bite the hand that fed them and attack Saudi Arabia itself. That may not have worked out as planned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_militant_incidents_in_Saudi_Arabia
So, we have a family with a flag that is financially oil dependent and some family members prefer a very conservative, radical form of Islam, and whose kingdom is experiencing a stubborn form of internal terrorism.
Add to this the increasing tension around Iran and the issue of the Straits of Hormuz, a strangle point for shipping Saudi Arabian oil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz
and we have a less than stable environment for a country that accounts for one third of the world’s oil reserves. What comes to mind is that if Saudi Arabia sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. Probably pneumonia.
And then we are attacked by radical Muslims on 9/11/2001.
Before you get your panties in a bunch by saying that Saddam Hussein did not attack us, I agree with you. The point is that we were attacked by radical Muslims on 9/11 and fifteen of the nineteen highjackers were from Saudi Arabia, a kingdom who is experiencing financial challenges and is facing increasing risk from internal terror attacks.
Pop quiz: who was the first president of the United States to face the issue of radical Muslims?
http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/barbary-pirates-timeline.htm
If an administration is looking into their crystal ball they may see disruption in the world’s oil supply. Substantial disruption in the world’s oil supply could wreak havoc on the world economy. Look at the impact OPEC had on the US in 1973 just by snugging up the spigot. Can you imagine what would happen if the royal family crumbles and succumbs to radical Islam?
Saddam Hussein, the guy who had earlier invaded Kuwait and was looking south towards Saudi Arabia at the time, was still in power and could still be considered a regional risk.
We also had that trouble with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Nope, sit back down and listen up. I know we haven’t found them post invasion but if you think that Hussein did not have them you have a short memory. Hussein, continually irritated with the Kurds was at one time seeking ways of alleviating that irritant. Before WWI the Kurds happily lived in Kurdistan. But the post WWI crayon cut them in half placing half of them in Turkey and half in Iraq. They’ve been irritated about that every since.
In the 16th century, after prolonged wars, Kurdish-inhabited areas were split between the Safavid and Ottoman empires. A major division of Kurdistan occurred in the aftermath of the Battle of Chaldiran in 1514, and was formalized in the 1639 Treaty of Zuhab.[33] Prior to World War I, most Kurds lived within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire in the province of Kurdistan.[citation needed]. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the Allies contrived to create several countries within its former boundaries - according to the never-ratified Treaty of Sèvres, Kurdistan, along with Armenia, were to be among them. However, the reconquest of these areas by the forces of Kemal Atatürk (and other pressing issues) caused the Allies to accept the renegotiated Treaty of Lausanne and the borders of the modern Republic of Turkey - leaving the Kurds without a self-ruled region. Other Kurdish areas were assigned to the new British and French mandated states of Iraq and Syria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan
Hussein and his cousin Chemical Ali employed chemical weapons (considered a weapon of mass destruction) against the Kurds, killing 5,000 and injuring another 11,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
So, where are the weapons now? I don’t know and really don’t care. Syria? Buried in the sand? Dismantled for easy reassembly later? Just no longer there? Dunno. The point is that the ruler of a country in the volatile Middle East had used the weapons in his own country. What would prevent him from supplying them to radical Muslims for use against another country? And which country might that be? Israel perhaps? And if you want to see trouble in the Middle East, apply chemical weapons against Israel. I have never seen Israel display a sense of humor when it comes to national security. Have you?
So, now what do we have?
· We have the Saudi Arabian monarchy that appears to be a less than stable caretaker of one third of the world’s oil reserve.
· We have an aggressive Iraq whose leader has used weapons of mass destruction in the past.
· We have Iran as an increasing threat with nuclear development.
· We have Syria facing challenges:
o Syrian economic growth slowed to 1.8% in 2009 as the global economic crisis affected oil prices and the economies of Syria's key export partners and sources of investment. Damascus has implemented modest economic reforms in the past few years, including cutting lending interest rates, opening private banks, consolidating all of the multiple exchange rates, raising prices on some subsidized items, most notably gasoline and cement, and establishing the Damascus Stock Exchange - which was set to begin operations in 2009. In addition, President ASAD signed legislative decrees to encourage corporate ownership reform, and to allow the Central Bank to issue Treasury bills and bonds for government debt. Nevertheless, the economy remains highly controlled by the government. Long-run economic constraints include declining oil production, high unemployment, rising budget deficits, and increasing pressure on water supplies caused by heavy use in agriculture, rapid population growth, industrial expansion, and water pollution.
o https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sy.html
· And we probably have an administration looking ahead and seeking some form of alternate, dependable oil source to the world.
· And we have Iraq with:
o a LOT of oil reserve:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm
o A ruthless, but weakened dictator who remains a regional threat
o And if we play our cards right might be an avenue for another form of elected government if we kick Hussein out of office.
· And, although the real threat is Saudi Arabia, it would be considered tacky to invade Saudi Arabia since we call them our “friend” and hold hands with the monarchy, at least in public.
Perhaps most importantly, I believe that 9/11 was pivotal to our country’s psyche causing us to be more proactive than reactive to national security. In other words, if some smart guys camping out in a cave in Afghanistan can cook up a simple yet elegant attack such as we experienced on 9/11, maybe we had better start being a little more forceful with our national defense, and national defense includes a ready oil supply. World defense requires a ready oil supply.
If we do it right, a big “if”, then we can end up with an Iraq with an elected form of government (a democracy if you will), friendly towards the United States (since we and our allies put them in power) with a supply of oil more or less under our control compared to the oil supply in Saudi Arabia.
So, do I think we will be leaving Iraq anytime soon?
Are you kidding?
After all the human blood and monetary treasure (in that order) invested in that country?
With a US embassy in Baghdad known as “Fortress America” ten time larger than the next largest US embassy anywhere else in the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Embassy,_Baghdad
Besides having access to a decent amount of oil if Saudi Arabia begins to tank, what else does success in Iraq offer?
If we are ultimately successful in Iraq, don’t you think that the highly educated younger generation in Iran will be tired of being second class world citizens and maybe seek a calmer form of government? And if they are incented to promote a calmer form of government, does that help secure Iranian oil? Iranian oil plus Iraqi oil equals Saudi Arabian oil. Do the math.
If we are ultimately successful in Iraq, don’t you think Syria will feel a breeze on its butt and consider being less disruptive in Lebanon and elsewhere?
If we are ultimately successful in Iraq, don’t you think Jordan will feel a lot better about letting Israeli special forces cross its border into Iraq to hunt for Scud missile launch sites?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1120356.ece
If we are ultimately successful in Iraq, won’t Israel feel better about not being the only real democracy in the Middle East?
If we are ultimately successful in Iraq will things in the Middle East finally settle down?
Beats me, but I’m guessing it was considered worth the effort and agony.
Once the dust settles, can we remain friends with the Iraqi government? I’m guessing that would be the case. A friend of mine has been in or around Iraq since the beginning of the current conflict. He swims in the rarified atmosphere of higher management working with the top Iraqi officials. He told me one time that he was speaking with such an Iraqi official and asked the official when he wanted to see the United States leave his country. The reply was never.
Never? our friend asked.
Never. The Iraqi official said he wanted to see, as he sees in Germany, US troops walking down the street with their families, shopping and enjoying the country.
Never is a long time, but our troops have been in Germany and Japan for some time, walking down streets with their families shopping and enjoying the country. The same can come true in Iraq as well, and I suspect we are well on our way to such success.
And the newspapers ask, “Was it worth it?”
Since it is far too soon to ask that question, the real question remains, will it have been worth it?
And to that I say, I simply don’t know. It is far too soon to tell and it will be decades before the answer is finally determined.
But, that is why I think we invaded Iraq.
We did not invade Iraq solely because of weapons of mass destruction. I suspect that such concern offered a simple, more palatable explanation than the one about our friend, Saudi Arabia, being a world threat.
President Bush the younger did not invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein developed a plot to kill President Bush the senior. To those of you who seriously subscribe to such a theory let me be the first to welcome you back to Earth after visiting your home planet.
Life isn’t simple and neither are world politics.
Oil is the lifeblood of the world, despite our desires for renewable energy.
Saudi Arabian oil may no longer be a dependable commodity.
We and our world partners did what we had to do to secure the stability of the world.
That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.
