Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dan Ehrlich

GET UPDATES FROM Dan Ehrlich
 

Disintegrating Iraqi Democracy Demarks Another US Nation Building Failure

Posted: 03/01/12 00:00 GMT

Goodbye 2011. Once again America has closed a military adventure, one which eight years ago President GW Bush proudly declared to be a "mission accomplished." But it was a campaign whose purpose was vague and success in doubt since there were no weapons of mass destruction and socio-political breakdown is a distinct possibility in such a polarized tribal nation.

The democracy we have installed in Iraq, predictably, is gradually disintegrating, with the Shiite Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, issuing an arrest warrant for the Sunni deputy PM and threatening other Sunni leaders as he tries to consolidate his power as possibly Iraq's next dictator. He hasn't been wasting any time, has he? And as with the country's previous dictator, the West was his benefactor and enabler.

Meanwhile, in the oil rich north, the Kurdish majority there has been creating its own autonomous region and has even concluded deals with western oil companies... positive steps for the repressed Kurds. Al-Maliki is content to allow this, at least for now. The Kurds are more useful out of the way in a happy and trouble free zone, keeping the oil flowing and helping the PM maintain his power.

As these events unfold and a New Year is here, we can look back and ask ourselves what have major American military adventures accomplished since 1950?

The Korean War was the first major UN action, lead by the USA. It ended in a stalemate, with around 36,000 American killed and an uneasy truce that has kept the country divided with a large American troop presence still there 62 years later. On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse. On the negative side is has forged North Korea into a nuclear powerhouse, one that threatens the West.

Vietnam was America's second geo-political war fought mainly to preserve US hegemony in Southeast Asia, but sold to the public as part of the Cold War against the spread of communism. Again stalemate and growing popular discontent forced America out and the North Vietnamese in after nearly 60,000 US troops died there. Today, a united communist Vietnam has mended fences with the US to the point of now depending on America to protect it from former best buddy China.

The 1990 Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, was a US-led, UN sanctioned NATO action in response to the Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Again it was sold on the idea of freeing Kuwait from an invading tyrant, but it really was about safeguarding the Gulf and Saudi oil region.

This eventually lead to the just-concluded Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, if you can call it that, still in progress, both fought as part of the War on Terrorism... a war that may never end since there may always be terrorists somewhere. To date, more than 6,500 troops have been killed in these. And, in Afghanistan, there's no end in sight.

Since its creation, the USA has been involved in 13 major conflicts and dozens of minor ones resulting in 1.35 million military deaths. Yet most have one thing in common, they didn't occur because of perceived threats to national security or survival. They were economic or political in nature, but sold to the public, as most wars are, on the grounds of national security and patriotism. In fact, there's probably only one country today that fights wars of national survival, Israel.

In the end what has America gained from its human sacrifice? We trumpeted our victory in the Cold War, yet now are in debt and at the economic mercy of the biggest communist nation of all.

While communist Vietnam is now our friend, atomic armed North Korea, with little to lose, remains a gateway to Armageddon.

America has a national debt of more than $15 trillion due largely to unnecessary wars we have fought partly on the false jingoistic view that our way should be everyone's way. So, in the end the main beneficiary of American conflict has been the Military-Industrial Complex. You won't find this mentioned in the Constitution, but it exists as much as Congress.

Proof of it existence has again been revealed in a new $50billion arms deal with our favorite extreme autocratic oil-producing nation, Saudi Arabia. It's designed to counter a perceived regional threat from Iran and will generate 50,000 jobs back in the USA.

And you can bet board members of the complex are milling over plans for America's next possible military adventure, what's in it for them and how they will sell it to a public frustrated by our lagging economy and costly foreign involvements. Yet as long as terrorism exists, there will always be a cause to rationalize conflict.

 
 
 

Follow Dan Ehrlich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danew13

Goodbye 2011. Once again America has closed a military adventure, one which eight years ago President GW Bush proudly declared to be a "mission accomplished." But it was a campaign whose purpose was v...
Goodbye 2011. Once again America has closed a military adventure, one which eight years ago President GW Bush proudly declared to be a "mission accomplished." But it was a campaign whose purpose was v...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 24
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
George Cummings
Warning: Moderate. Future posts unpredictable
07:26 PM on 01/03/2012
What are you even talking about? The entire reason for Iraq was the crude oil market Saddam had planned, based on the euro and not the dollar.
'Democracy' was just a propaganda tool. What a shallow post.
05:04 PM on 01/03/2012
Good old Sadam Hussein! He wasn't a saint, by no means, but the country wasn't a pile of rubble.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
04:27 PM on 01/03/2012
A brave post taking on the MIC.
04:19 PM on 01/03/2012
"Vietnam..... former best buddy China"
They havent been buddies since 1975. Heck, they fought a war with each other in 79.

"In fact, there's probably only one country today that fights wars of national survival"

In several of the examples you cited they were doing just that. North Korea invaded South Korea, Iraq invaded Kuwait, even Vietnam was basically a war between two states (North and South Vietnam).

If the UN didnt intervene in Korea, there still would have been a war and there would still be a DPRK run by the Kim gods....the only difference is there wouldnt have been a RoK making Samsungs and Rain videos.

The thing is the reason conquering and annexing another states become largely impossible to do in the latter half of the 20th century is because of those said interventions by hegemonic powers maintaining world order, there is nothing new or surprising to that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danew13
04:48 PM on 01/03/2012
First, during much of the Vietnam War, the US feared Chinese involvement...It was one reason why we didn't even do more than we did.

Second, Korea was in fact a civil war...as was Vietbanm the North wanted to rule the south as a united communist nation.

Third, Iraq invaded Kuwait to rule it, not destroy it. As I said, Israel is the only country today that has a fatwah on it,
05:30 PM on 01/03/2012
fair enough, but also maybe one could add the Balkan wars, while civil wars, they included Ethnic cleansing to a point of destroying a population.

That is actually a case of Intervention/nation building that is often not mentioned (Bosina and Kosovo).
04:19 PM on 01/03/2012
I have to question anybody that thinks-The democracy we have installed in Iraq, predictably, is gradually disintegrating.

We did not install a democracy in Iraq.
We enforced a coalition government where the losers in the election were given power sharing.

That is not democracy.
Not even close to the definition.

The collapse of the nondemocracy was predictable, but to pretend like Iraqs democracy is failing after we gave it a chance is factually inaccurate.

What we gave them was an antidemocratic denial of the voting results.

I seriously wonder how someone writing on the subject can get such a basic fact wrong.

Making McCain a VP after losing to Obama would also not be democracy to give a little context.

The power sharing coalition falling apart is actually a step closer to democracy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danew13
04:52 PM on 01/03/2012
Democracy is giving people power...the sight mile-long lines of people waiting to vote in Iraq;s first free elections puts pay to your argument. The power sharing demise will inevitably lead to dictatorship, the only style of government capable of keeping order in the Arab world,
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EAPrince
My other car is an Al'kesh
06:27 PM on 01/03/2012
One note, the beginning of OUR democracy (Republic) had the second place finisher in the Presidential election becoming VP. One of those little things most people forget. That's how we got President Adams and VP Jefferson, even though they were at odds on most policies at the time and Jefferson defeated him in the next election.

Erik
http://eaprince.blogspot.com
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
02:38 PM on 01/03/2012
the author here has a great all telling truthful post...and it needs to be pointed out that countries around the World are becoming industrialised and eating our lunch:
" On the plus side it enabled South Korea to become an industrial powerhouse."
Last year S. Korea SOLD 480,000 Hyundais to America...
America sold 600 vehicles to S. Korea..
Can anyone imagine how MANY US Workers jobs this cost?......plenty
WHY....today many should know that the USA only has a 2.5% Value added tax....Most countries have a VAT tax on imports of 15-20%...another words the USA is a dumping ground for anything produced elsewhere while the WORLD Says we do not want your products.
Today NAFTA and WTO brought by Clinton and Emmanuel are hurting the USA badly but helping US Corporation to move their entire operations to China and Indonesia sweat shops where they only pay in many cases eighty eight CENTS A DAY..while these laborers sleep in carboard boxes at nite
Somethings got to give.....and soon
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
03:53 PM on 01/03/2012
Don't you think it might be a bit off to blame VAT for poor car sales to Korea? Given the cost of a car, VAT is usually part of the negotiation mix in buying a car. I'd take a long, hard look at just what cars the US is producing. The US has a population density of 87 per square mile. Compare that to 1271 per square mile for South Korea, and you see a very good reason why huge cars are not a particularly good sale there. Population density in Seoul itself is at 44777 per square mile - compare to 27532 for New York City. If everyone were to drive medium to SUV-size cars in Seoul, you'd run out of road space pretty quickly. If US car builders were to have a semi-decent reputation for compact and city cars, things might be different. But while a handful of these exist, many built outside the US for local markets, their reputation by far lags behind competitors both from Europe and Japan, not to speak of Korea itself.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
04:25 PM on 01/03/2012
I am having trouble finding the point you are "driving" at. First we could find that in the USA we will find that all car companies making vehicles in the USA make a compact car getting 33-41mpg or better...AND I am not against foreign cars, namely Toyota, Nissan, Honda, VW all of which has US factories and EMPLOY Americans.
US and foreign car companies mfg in USA do not just make SUV and trucks
almost all companies today are mfg almost everywhere..
and last I would not be against Hyundai coming to America and employing Americans....we need JOBS
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danew13
04:57 PM on 01/03/2012
Yes, but the big con is giving people the idea that there is a real difference between right and left. Obama, for all his left wing pretentions, has kept most Bush laws in place. More than this, aside from distractions such as abortion and gay mariage, both parties accept and embrace the free global market. And as long as they do, nothing really will change the nation's economic outlook.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
05:11 PM on 01/03/2012
thank you, today BOTH parties are funded by the SAME Corporations and Banksters. The result is always the same. Law made and executed are for the Rich and Powerful elites to games they only they can win. the Public goes wanting time and again.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
lastpost
see biography
01:59 PM on 01/03/2012
"He hasn't been wasting any time, has he?"
Maybe he took his cue from Barack. If dispensing with Habeas Corpus is good enough for him, well. But what would happen if real democracy were ever permitted? Until it is, lets start calling what we have got by its real name of dumbocracy.

"in the end the main beneficiary of American conflict has been the Military-Industrial Complex."
Which runs on oil. So in the end, they’re merely kicking a rapidly empting jerry can further down the road to nowhere.

"as long as terrorism exists"
some will attempt to conceal it behind the term patriotism.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OH72
01:26 PM on 01/03/2012
This is not at all surprising given the complete collapse of strategic thought. Rather than devising a strategy to build a nation, the US has planned a military conflict to remove Saddam and behaved as if it was a given that all the chips would fall into place. That was utterly naive and predictable to fail. But it's also a mistake the US has made before and after, Lybia being the latest variation on this scheme. If you want to build a democratic nation, you'd better have an idea as to how to bring it into being under the local circumstances, e.g. taking into account tribal cultures, religious conflicts etc, and then subjugate ALL efforts under that goal - including the military one. As long as the Pentagon believes it is its job to devise "strategies" while confusing military goals with political ones, any such attempt will fail.
photo
novelist2000
veritas non olet
05:52 AM on 01/03/2012
The Iraq war was not about nation building, democracy, Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction or some such like. French oil (elf Aquitaine or successor TOTAL SA) had made a contract with Saddam, to come into effect on 1st April 2003. The invasion in March 2003 is a fascinating historic coincidence. Rumsfeld himself said, in a clip which is not seen much any more, something like 'we're not about spreading democracy' in a very condescending tone.

The troop withdrawal from Iraq was only half an heroic act by Obama. The Iraqi parliament refused to excempt US soldiers from criminal prosecutions; that's why they had to leave.''We could have been there for a long time to come' was one of the voices who said Obama did not exercise enough pressure. How much Iraq was to pay for these troops is not recorded, but countries do pay for them. Next step might be like Teheran in Oct 1964, where they got the Parliament to acknowledge that US oil personel in Iran had diplomatic status, but it caused a tad of resentment and would be unwise to repeat.

We're being fed 'stuff' that steers us into the direction someone wants us to be. Remember Alexander Haig and his quote of President Johnson? 'The American people must never believe anything else than Kennedy was shot by a crazed lone gunman.'

The Iraq war was about access to oil and pipeline routes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danew13
10:25 AM on 01/03/2012
of course it was about oil...but remember, most wars are fought on two rationals, the popular and the geo/political. america's popular end game, as always, was to free these hard pressed people and give them the democratic society that long to have.
photo
novelist2000
veritas non olet
04:51 AM on 01/05/2012
When corporations, which are not elected, seem to have more power than the elected politicians then democracy is a bit of a mirage. The financial crisis has confirmed to us once again, that our lives are more influenced by the corporations than the politicians.

Of course there are always two rationales for wars, one the true reason that cannot be mentioned, and the other one for public consumption, with the latter having a grain of truth to make it look believable. 30 years later the next generation finds out the truth. The effects of a war with Iran will be very far-reaching and destructive, I think, and sabre-rattling warmongers at this point in time play as much with fire as those in the Cuba missile crisis. The fact, that Americans are not really affected, is the dangerous aspect that makes it more likely. If the US ever had a war on their soil, a real one with air raids and troops coming in to conquer, they would understand better what they're actually doing and would not be so much at ease rattling their sabres.
12:36 AM on 01/03/2012
The problem with world today is that the UN are made up of very poor countries which are led by the richer ones and when the votes are taken on sanctions and possible to take military action,they must vote and tow the line,or else their government will lose financial aid. They must Vote to support their paymasters. All the wars in the last 20 years was abetted by corrupted UN secretary generals. There were never any scrutiny of their offices. The solution for a better war free world is to move the UN HQ to another country. The politicians must make decisions and the military must obey and not the other way round. War is not a solution, it must be dialogue with the enemy.
12:11 AM on 01/03/2012
"America has a national debt of more than $15 trillion due largely to unnecessary wars we have fought"

I would love to see the analysis that proves this. Another view is that entitlements are, by far, the major reason the national debt is where it is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
danew13
09:51 AM on 01/03/2012
who do you think pays for war? the taxpayer. According to the Center for Defense Information, the estimated cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would reach $1.29 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2011...and its not over..yes, welfare costs trillions, but at least that is being spent on the people not on vague geo-political battles that have little to do with national survival.