United States' West Asian Insecurity Part One: Iraq and Saddam

With the war in Mexico and subsequent annexation of California, the antagonistic foreign policy of the United States became apparent to the globe. The Barbary Wars in the early nineteenth century had served as a precursor to the post second world war direct interventions by the “world policeman” in West Asia for the major reason — oil and hence termed as United States’ West Asian Insecurity. Excessive interferences, however, over time led to a rising sense of unrest among the populace and governments in the strategically significant region and plundering of nations as a whole.

“Saddam is a dog, son of a dog,” some Iraqis shouted as the statue of the Iraqi strongman was toppled in the capital city. Others looked on, realizing the devastation that was to commence. Sixteen years ago today, on December 30th, Saddam Hussein al-Majid, who had ruled Iraq with an iron fist for twenty-four long years, was executed after a flawed three-year trial. As the war unfolded and the truth emerged, the US failed to justify the reasons for invading Iraq in 2003. Public opinion shifted, revealing the war as one of the most significant missteps in US foreign policy.

It was not the first time that the US had abruptly distanced itself from an ally. Decades ago, Panamanian President Manuel Noriega and Chilean General Augusto Pinochet experienced the same fate. “See-Saw” is probably the most accurate term to describe the fluctuating stances of the United States towards a nation, based the interests on stake. Saddam’s Iraq epitomized this type of foreign policy. Initial discontent originated from the nationalization of oil reserves, which posed a threat to Western oil supplies. However, as geopolitical interests shifted, so did the US foreign policy which aligned with Iraq during the conflict with Iran but this support swiftly waned when the annexation of Kuwait jeopardized the oil supplies and that prompted a quick change in the allegiance. Despite United States’ infamous rhetoric about promoting human rights and changing tyrannical regime, it was evident that it was once again prioritizing its own interest disregarding completely the Iraqi people, their sovereignty and their future. The actions of provision of intelligence to Saddam and the turning of a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons against Iranians and Kurds underscore the US’s history of acting in self-interest rather than upholding moral principles.

Calls for the regime change in Iraq began circulating in top American Circles following the First Gulf War so much so that in 1998 the Iraq Liberation Act was passed. The Iraqi leader who had once been an ally, now posed a serious threat to the Western allies, oil supplies and interests in the region. The September 2001 attacks was the turning point which was used to justify the illegal invasion of sovereign nation. Saddam’s downfall had begun. Through immense propaganda and misinformation, a narrative was crafted to gain support for the war among the American public. The invasion in 2003, led by a coalition force headed by the USA, was justified under the guise of an imminent threat. Hussein’s army was swiftly defeated, his regime toppled and the entire nation was captured and though initially, there was a wave of optimism among the Iraqi populace who welcomed the removal of the tyrant, however, this sentiment quickly transposed into horror as the nation descended into chaos and civil war. As the atrocities of war became more obvious, the promised shift to democracy looked dubious. Initially eluding arrest, Saddam was discovered hiding in an underground tunnel and apprehended following an exhaustive search. Armed militias started to oppose the coalition forces in the meanwhile, and soon emerging terrorist organizations joined them. As the violence surged, the situation in Iraq rapidly deteriorated, resulting in widespread instability and misery among the people. The invasion’s aftermath would have a significant impact and influence future developments in the region for many years.

Not only the allegations that formed the base of invasions namely the Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction WMDs, Saddam harbouring the international terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks, and his alleged plans to provide chemical weapons to terrorists were to found to be completely absurd but it was later revealed that this had been nothing but a conspiracy orchestrated by Western powers for securing their sinister interests. By early 2004, after hundreds of tests, it was clear that Iraq did not possess any Weapons of Mass Destruction —the International Atomic Energy Agency had dismantled all Iraqi nuclear facilities in 1998 and if even the former had possessed WMDs, so did other nations such as China, Russia, and North Korea. Evidence surfaced demonstrating that, in contrast to allegations of Iraqi involvement in terrorism, Iraqi intelligence had in fact contributed to the elimination of terrorist threats and that Saddam’s Iraq was unconnected with the 9/11 attacks. That the presence of terrorist militias skyrocketed post invasion was ironical yet unfortunate.    Powerful regional militant organizations emerged as a radical reaction to the invasion which contributed to the destabilization of the nation and continue, to this day, pose serious threat to global peace.

For the United States’ goal of achieving multiple objectives simultaneously specifically the securing of oil supplies, protecting security interests of its allies in the region, maintaining its bases in the strategically significant West Asia and mainly asserting its dominance at the world level following the damage caused to American prestige, another nation was plundered.  Saddam Hussein’s decision to trade oil in Euros rather than US Dollars a year before the invasion was seen as a threat to Dollar hegemony and may have hastened his removal, alongside Western propaganda. In the end, the democratic commitments made throughout the conflict were not kept. Saddam was captured and subjected to trial, which many perceived as a mockery of international law rather than a fair trial. He was executed in 2006.

Saddam’s legacy remains polarized with some viewing him a butcher responsible for numerous atrocities while others regard him as a Arab revolutionary who valiantly confronted Western imperialism. Even though it’s generally agreed that Saddam was far from an ideal leader, his removal had disastrous results. Over a million Iraqis lost their lives due to the  invasion, which was justified as a defence of freedom and democracy. It also gave rise to global terrorist groups. Many of the same people who first backed Saddam’s overthrow today bemoan the absence of security and prosperity in the area. Iraq has been reduced to rubble and is now a lawless, anarchic state. The West, which was heavily involved in the circumstances that led to this predicament, ought to take accountability for the consequences of its actions.