Monday, October 7, 2013

Daniella Portal: Blog Response #2: In Retrospect: Did the US do more harm than good?


As we reach the 10th anniversary of the US invasion into Iraq, too many Americans are baffled as to how we got to this point. At the beginning this war was supposed to be quick and relatively low costing, yet here we are 10 years later, and US troops are still occupying Iraq.  The first part of this response will briefly examine the US motivations it had for invading Iraq, which is very much up for debate and is not my main focus. Then, I will discuss how the intended initiatives were not carried out, and explore whether the US ultimately did more harm than good in this war.
The forerunner of this war can be explained by a number of factors: some uncertainty if Iraq was producing WMDs, a weak connection that linked Iraq to the attacks of 9/11, and need to install a democracy in the Middle East. These all seemed like valid and even selfless motivators at the time, however, only to later discover that there were no WMDs and that Iraq wasn’t involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack. Now the only intended purpose of our presence in Iraq is to provide them with a stable government. A war that was supposed to be relatively low in cost turned out to be one of the highest costing wars in US history.
Not only did the US waste its own financial and military resources, but they also destroyed the lives of the natives. The Bush administration assured all before the war that great care would be taken to avoid harm to civilians however, most of the civilian deaths were due to air attacks.  Not only did they start a war over false accusations and assumptions, but the US also stayed there and created even more chaos than before. Though Saddam Hussein was not a very compassionate leader, he still managed to maintain peace throughout his country. The people have more freedom than before, but their ability to vote does not provide them with food for their families. Before the war, people had regular jobs and regular lives, very similar to those of the Western world. As Iraq became in complete disarray, these people were now concerned whether their home will be bombed or whether they can leave their homes to buy food.  

It’s difficult to say what violence would look like if the US hadn’t invaded, but take note that the US sought out to fight a “war on terror,” and ended up instilling terror into the everyday lives of the people. With a 10-year perspective on the matter, I conclude that the US has done more harm than good. In the eyes of Iraqi civilians we are terrorists and we have violated every single one of their natural rights by being there. I yearn for the return of US troops from Iraq, not only for their families’ sake, but for the civilians’ sake.

2 comments:

  1. Daniella, while I agree with you that it could be argued that the U.S. caused more harm than good in Iraq, I think that your points about U.S. air strikes causing massive civilian casualties and U.S. forces being widely regarded as terrorists by the Iraqis, while somewhat valid, are just a tad overplayed in popular understanding of the war. Firstly, the air strike point. Because combat in Iraq mostly took place in urban centers, air strikes were not overly used. The only real large scale bombing raid that took place was the "Shock and Awe" attack on Baghdad at the start of the invasion, and after this, the invasion, and the defeat of Saddam's Republican Guard, Iraqi civilians still welcomed Americans. There was one case in particular of a Marine Force Recon unit moving through Baghdad in early 2003 where the neighborhood elders asked for bronze statues of George W. Bush before they asked for water (they asked for these two things together). Civilian mistrust of Americans came later and for more peripheral reasons. If we look at how much the U.S. spends on developing and producing pinpoint guided munitions with the express purpose of neutralizing hostile targets without harming civilians, it is very easy to appreciate how much care the U.S. puts into trying to fight "clean" wars (I put that in quotes because no war is ever completely clean; that's just how war is. I think Americans are more surprised when this fact is brought to their attention because we have so much and are so sheltered from hardship that the average U.S. citizen has no clue what a war is like). Finally, in order to highlight what brought about civilian mistrust of U.S. forces, I will first give a brief timeline.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. *Precision close air support (i.e. laser guided stike munitions) WAS used throughout the war, but not in any respect that it could be called carpet bombing, bombing raids, etc

      Delete