The military intervention in Iraq (The Fake Call for Democracy)

El'zeni Nedal Khafez Zakariya Khafez PhD in Politics Postgraduate student, Institute of International Relations and World History, Lobachevsky University 603022, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod, Ulyanova str., 37 nedalzakariya@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

The article remains highly relevant given its focus on examining the reasons behind the US military intervention in Iraq in March 2003. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the coalition forces' invasion, which lends relevance not only to the events of two decades ago but also to their reinterpretation in light of contemporary realities. The author seeks to address the question of whether the invasion was genuinely aimed at spreading democracy in the Middle East or if the democratic rhetoric merely masked Washington's true motives.

Analyzing the intentions and justifications behind the Iraq War holds great significance as it provides insights into the complexities of international relations, the impact of military interventions, and the pursuit of strategic interests. By critically examining the purported call for democracy and investigating potential ulterior motives, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of the Iraq War and its long-lasting implications.

Furthermore, in the context of ongoing geopolitical developments and the evolving dynamics of the Middle East, revisiting the events and motives surrounding the Iraq War allows for a reassessment of regional power struggles, the consequences of interventionism, and the role of democracy promotion in contemporary international politics. The article's exploration of these issues encourages readers to reflect on the broader implications of the Iraq War and its resonance in the present global landscape.

The focus of this article is to dissect the narrative surrounding the military intervention in Iraq, emphasizing the ostensible goal of promoting democracy. It scrutinizes the hypothesis of the «Fake Call for Democracy», suggesting that the real motives of the invasion may have been strategic interests other than establishing a democratic regime.

The purpose of this article is to examine critically the historical context leading up to the invasion, to trace the chronology of key events, and to explore both the immediate and enduring consequences of the attack. A detailed analysis will probe into whether the promotion of democracy was a genuine intent or a mere facade masking ulterior motives.

The scientific novelty in this article lies in its examination of the "Fake Call for Democracy" hypothesis regarding the military intervention in Iraq. The present study aims to uncover a comprehensive range of factors (domestic, geopolitical, economic, cultural) that led to the intervention, and it is in this endeavor that its scientific novelty lies. While researchers, policymakers, and experts, including during the administration of George W. Bush, have acknowledged that democratic rhetoric can mask more pragmatic interests, this study offers a more nuanced and profound understanding of the motivations behind international interventions, particularly when justified in terms of democracy promotion or human rights. It calls for future research to explore the specific geopolitical, economic, and domestic factors that may have influenced the decision to invade Iraq, as well as its impact on Iraq's social fabric. Evaluating the broader implications for international law, global governance, and the principle of "just war" is also deemed essential in this study.

Iraq before the Global Attack

The military intervention in Iraq in the early 21st century remains a significant and contentious event in world politics. The stated goal for the invasion was to establish democracy and overthrow the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein. Many critics, however, view this call for democracy as a guise for other ulterior motives, and hence the title «The Fake Call for Democracy».

Understanding the historical context of Iraq prior to the global attack is critical. Until the late 20th century, the country was under the authoritarian rule of President Saddam Hussein, a leader known for his ruthlessness and disregard for human rights.

Saddam Hussein rose to power in 1979 and quickly established an authoritarian rule characterized by severe human rights abuses. He ruled with an iron fist, maintaining power through fear and violence. His regime was marked by the pervasive use of torture, mass executions, and widespread repression. One of the most egregious acts of his rule was the use of chemical weapons against his own people, notably in the Halabja chemical attack in 1988, which is now recognized as a genocidal campaign against the Kurdish population in Iraq^[1].

Despite this, the Saddam era also marked a period of significant secularism and modernization, a point often overlooked in Western narratives. Under his rule, Iraq experienced major advancements in infrastructure, education, and women's rights. His government implemented a secular constitution, and religious extremism was brutally suppressed.

The Narrative and Impact of the U.S. Intervention in Iraq: An Analysis of Primary Sources

During the period from 2001 to 2003, the United States of America intervened in Iraq by undertaking military actions against the regime of Saddam Hussein. To explain and justify this intervention, the U.S. government, particularly President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, developed and promoted a specific narrative. An analysis of primary sources, including speeches and press conferences by high-ranking officials, as well as official documents such as the "National Security Strategy of the United States (2002)"^[2] and the "Quadrennial Defense Review Report (2001)"^[3] allows for an examination of this narrative and its influence on the U.S. intervention in Iraq.

During the early stages of the attack on Iraq following the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government put forth the main argument linking Iraq to terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. President George W. Bush, in his speech before Congress on September 20, 2001, emphasized the need to combat terrorism, while his statement on May 1, 2003, declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq^[4]. These speeches reflected a narrative about the defense of U.S. national security and the necessity to counter the threat of terrorism.

Vice President Richard Cheney also actively voiced support for the intervention in Iraq. In his press conference on August 26, 2002, and his speech on March 26, 2003, he asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a direct threat to the U.S. and its allies^[5]. This assertion reinforced the narrative of the need to prevent the potential use of weapons of mass destruction and protect national interests.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also played an active role in shaping the narrative. In his speeches on October 7, 2002, and May 7, 2003, he emphasized the importance of combating terrorism and the changes in the national security strategy^[6]. He drew attention to the necessity of employing force to achieve security and stability in the region.

Additionally, documents such as the "National Security Strategy of the United States" and the "Quadrennial Defense Review Report" played a significant role in shaping the narrative. These documents justified the intervention in Iraq from the perspective of national security and U.S. interests.

A common factor in the aforementioned speeches and documents was the focus on combating terrorism and the need to prevent the threat of weapons of mass destruction. This narrative greatly influenced public opinion and garnered support for military actions in Iraq from both the American public and the international community.

However, following the completion of major combat operations and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, the absence of discovered weapons of mass destruction and the ongoing violence and instability in Iraq raised doubts about the arguments presented in the narrative. Critics accused the U.S. government of manipulating intelligence data and exaggerating the threat posed by Iraq.

In conclusion, an analysis of the narrative accompanying the attack on Iraq shows that the U.S. government, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, actively promoted arguments regarding the fight against terrorism and the threat of weapons of mass destruction. This narrative exerted significant influence on public opinion and support for the intervention in Iraq. However, the outcomes and consequences of this intervention raised doubts and criticism regarding the arguments presented.

Geopolitical and Economic Interests

Internationally, Iraq held a strategic position due to its vast oil reserves, ranking as the third-largest in the world. The dynamics of reported oil reserves for the five countries with the largest deposits, namely Saudi Arabia, Canada, Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq, can be illustrated over the period from 1980 to 2017, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration (see fig. 1). This made the country an area of interest for global powers, especially the United States and its allies. The critical turning point in Iraq's international relations came in 1990 when Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion of Kuwait. This act of aggression was met with strong international condemnation and led to the Gulf War in 1991.

Fig. 1 - The dynamics of reported oil reserves for the five countries with the largest deposits, namely Saudi Arabia, Canada, Venezuela, Iran, and Iraq, during the period from 1980 to 2017, based on data from the US Energy Information Administration^[7]

The Gulf War ended with a decisive victory for the U.S.-led coalition but did not result in the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. However, the war left Iraq's infrastructure severely damaged, and the country was subjected to heavy economic sanctions by the United Nations. These sanctions had a devastating effect on Iraq's economy and led to a significant decline in living standards and a rise in child mortality rates.

In the years that followed, Iraq remained a pariah on the international stage while suffering from internal repression, economic decline, and social hardship. It was against this backdrop that the 2003 invasion was launched.

The period before the global attack has been extensively researched by many academics. Saïd K. Aburish, in his book «Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge», provides a detailed account of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship^[8]. His analysis reveals that while Saddam's rule was harsh and dictatorial, it also ushered in a period of modernization and secularism. This nuance is important to understand when analyzing the effects and outcomes of the military intervention in Iraq.

Pretexts for Establishing Democracy

The military intervention in Iraq in 2003 was primarily justified by the U.S. and its allies on two grounds. The first being the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that posed an imminent threat, and the second being the need to promote democracy in Iraq^[9].

However, in retrospect, both justifications have come under intense scrutiny. Post-invasion, no significant evidence of WMDs was found in Iraq. Authors like John J. Mearsheimer in «Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics» have discussed how the WMD argument could have been a strategic lie by the Bush administration^[10]. On the other hand, analysts like Neta C. Crawford in «Accountability for Killing: Moral Responsibility for Collateral Damage in America's Post-9/11 Wars» argue that it might have been a result of misinterpretation of intelligence^[11].

The pretext of promoting democracy in Iraq is another heavily debated topic. Critics argue that the call for democracy was a façade, used to garner support for the invasion, both domestically and internationally. Noam Chomsky, in his book «Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance», asserts that the call for democracy was a guise to extend American hegemony^[12].

This assertion leads us to question: How did the narrative of promoting democracy manifest in the actual events that transpired during the invasion? To further explore this, it is essential to delve into the chronology and key events of the military intervention in Iraq. By looking at the sequence of events, we can assess whether the course of action aligns with the stated goal of fostering democracy, or if it supports Chomsky's argument about expanding American hegemony.

The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003, led by U.S. forces along with troops from the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. The campaign, termed «Shock and Awe», saw rapid advances into Iraqi territory. Saddam's regime was quickly toppled, with Baghdad falling to U.S. forces by April 9, 2003^[13].

Post-invasion, the country was gripped by chaos, with looting and crime becoming widespread. Critics argue that the lack of a post-war plan led to a power vacuum and civil unrest. The establishment of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the controversial de-Ba'athification policy further exacerbated the situation. Paul Bremer, the head of the CPA, has been criticized for his role in the mismanagement of post-war Iraq.

This period has been extensively studied by scholars like Larry Diamond in «Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq», who critiqued the American approach towards establishing democracy in Iraq^[14].

The challenges that were seen in this period of immediate aftermath, from the breakdown of law and order to the struggles of the CPA in managing the transition, laid the groundwork for a host of more long-term issues. These subsequent problems comprise what can be seen as the true consequences of the military intervention in Iraq, which not only impacted the country's political structure but also had far-reaching implications on its social and economic fabric.

Actual Consequences of the Global Attack

The aftermath of the military intervention in Iraq carried wide-ranging political, social, and economic ramifications, painting a grim picture of a nation marked by instability, human suffering, and precarious progress.

Politically, the removal of Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime, while initially hailed as a stride towards democracy, soon found itself marred by a host of issues. While the face of authoritarianism changed, many argue that its essence remained, albeit in a different guise. Iraq's political landscape post-invasion was rife with corruption, marked by sectarian politics, and burdened with emergent authoritarian tendencies^[15].

Toby Dodge in «Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism», provides a thorough exploration of these challenges^[16]. He suggests that the democratization process, rather than dismantling authoritarianism, effectively replaced it with a version that was ostensibly more palatable to the international community, yet just as damaging to the Iraqi people. The transition was further complicated by a poorly managed de-Ba'athification process and the disbandment of the Iraqi army, which fed into the sectarian divide and created a fertile ground for insurgency and civil unrest.

On the social front, the invasion and its aftermath unleashed a severe humanitarian crisis. Civilian casualties were high during the invasion, and violence continued to escalate in the ensuing chaos, leading to the displacement of millions of people. The dislocation and disintegration of civil society institutions further eroded social cohesion, exacerbating sectarian divisions and leading to widespread disillusionment and discontent. The long-term social effects of these disruptions continue to be felt, with successive generations bearing the brunt of the war's legacy.

Economically, the attack on Iraq and its subsequent occupation resulted in a profound upheaval. Despite its abundant oil reserves, Iraq has grappled with the Herculean task of economic recovery. Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, in «The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict», underscore the staggering economic costs of the war^[17]. They highlight the monumental direct and indirect costs, including the cost of maintaining security, rebuilding infrastructure, caring for veterans, and the broader economic impact on the global economy. Notably, these costs were not confined to Iraq, but extended to the invading countries as well, particularly the United States, further challenging the notion that the war was solely in pursuit of lofty democratic ideals.

Influence of the US and Its Allies in the Region

Emerging from the military intervention in Iraq, the anticipated establishment of a stable democracy seems more of a mirage than a tangible outcome. What emerges instead is a nation wrestling with the profound challenges of an unstable political order, deep societal fractures, and economic struggles.

These realities make it imperative to scrutinize the notion of a «call for democracy» that was used as one of the principal justifications for the invasion. Was it a genuine commitment to fostering democratic governance in Iraq, or was it, as some suggest, a more manipulative move with ulterior objectives?

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was seen as an opportunity for the United States and its allies to significantly strengthen their strategic foothold in the Middle East. Let's delve into some examples and provide numerical data and relevant sources to support these assertions:

- Existing Military Presence: The United States had a substantial military presence in the region before the invasion of Iraq. For instance, the U.S. maintained military bases in countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These bases served as important hubs for conducting military operations, projecting power, and exerting influence in the region. The U.S. Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, also played a crucial role in safeguarding maritime trade routes in the Persian Gulf.

- Regional Stability and Counterterrorism Efforts: After the 9/11 attacks, the United States embarked on a global campaign against terrorism. In the context of the Middle East, removing Saddam Hussein was viewed as part of the broader objective to combat terrorism and promote stability in the region. Saddam Hussein's regime was accused of supporting or harboring terrorist organizations, which further justified the military intervention^[18].

- Geopolitical Interests: The Middle East's geopolitical significance, particularly its oil reserves, trade routes, and proximity to major global powers, cannot be overstated. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein and installing a friendly regime, the United States and its allies aimed to consolidate their influence and control over key strategic areas. Iraq's oil reserves, estimated to be the fifth-largest in the world, were a substantial factor in this pursuit.

According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Iraq possessed proven oil reserves of approximately 112 billion barrels in 2001, just before the invasion^[19]. This represented a considerable share of global oil reserves. By gaining influence over Iraq's oil resources, the United States and its allies sought to ensure access to energy supplies and maintain favorable market conditions for their economies.

The expression of U.S. influence in the Middle East was evident through diplomatic, military, and economic dimensions. For example:

- Diplomatic Relations: The United States engaged in diplomatic negotiations with regional governments, shaping policies and alliances to align with its interests. It fostered close relationships with countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel, which further enhanced its influence in the region.

- Military Cooperation: The United States conducted joint military exercises, provided military assistance, and established military partnerships with regional allies. These collaborations strengthened its military presence and influence.

- Economic Partnerships: The U.S. engaged in economic partnerships and investments, particularly in the energy sector. It supported the development of oil infrastructure and contributed to economic development in the region.

- Cultural Exchanges: The United States promoted cultural exchanges and educational programs to foster ties and influence public opinion in the Middle East.^[20]

It is important to acknowledge that the extent and effectiveness of the United States' influence in the Middle East following the invasion of Iraq is a contentious and complex topic. The subsequent years witnessed challenges such as sectarian conflicts, the rise of extremist groups, and shifts in regional power dynamics that have influenced the overall balance of power and the United States' influence in the region.

In sum, the «Fake Call for Democracy» argument posits that the democratization agenda in Iraq served as a facade for deeper strategic objectives, whether they be related to oil, geopolitical influence, or domestic politics. This perspective provides a critical lens through which to interpret the motives behind the invasion and its aftermath.

Conclusions

The military intervention in Iraq stands as one of the most significant and contentious episodes of the early 21st century. From a lens of historical reflection, the «call for democracy» that justified the invasion is shrouded in controversy, debate, and criticism. The aftermath of the invasion has resulted in a precarious, deeply flawed democracy, defined by sectarian violence, economic instability, and political corruption, rather than the envisioned stable and prosperous democratic nation.

This analysis underscores the vital importance of critically examining the motivations and rationales of global powers when they intervene in international conflicts. The appealing rhetoric of spreading democracy and upholding human rights, as seen in the case of Iraq, can sometimes obscure ulterior objectives. While the ambition to foster democratic governance can be genuine in some cases, the potential for these laudable ideals to be employed as a smokescreen for other, less noble motivations is a reality that cannot be overlooked.

In conclusion, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of the military intervention in Iraq in the early 21st century and raises important questions about the motives and outcomes of the invasion. It highlights the contentious nature of the call for democracy, suggesting that it may have been a facade for deeper strategic objectives such as oil resources and geopolitical influence. The research emphasizes the negative consequences of the invasion, including the perpetuation of authoritarianism, social upheaval, and economic struggles in Iraq.

To avoid a similar situation in the future, it is crucial to learn from the mistakes made in Iraq. First and foremost, transparent and evidence-based justifications should be established before undertaking any military intervention. It is essential to critically evaluate intelligence information to avoid misinterpretations and strategic lies that can lead to unnecessary conflicts. Robust international mechanisms, such as United Nations resolutions and inspections, should be utilized to ensure that all diplomatic avenues have been exhausted before resorting to military action.

Additionally, the international community must prioritize diplomacy and peaceful conflict resolution. Rather than relying solely on military force, diplomatic negotiations, mediation, and dialogue should be pursued to address political crises and promote stability. International organizations should play a central role in facilitating diplomatic efforts and ensuring the adherence to international law.

Looking ahead, it is challenging to predict the exact actions that the United States will take regarding the ignition of conflicts worldwide. However, it is essential for the United States to adopt a more balanced and cautious approach to its foreign policy. Rather than pursuing unilateral actions, a multilateral approach that considers the interests and perspectives of other nations should be embraced. Promoting cooperation, dialogue, and respect for international norms and institutions will be crucial in reducing tensions and preventing conflicts.

Furthermore, the United States should prioritize the well-being and development of nations instead of pursuing narrow self-interests. Investing in sustainable development, education, and capacity-building programs in vulnerable regions can help address root causes of conflicts, reduce inequality, and promote long-term stability.

In conclusion, the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath serve as a sobering reminder of the complexities and consequences of military interventions. By learning from this experience and adopting a more inclusive and diplomatic approach, it is possible to work towards a more peaceful and just world order. It is imperative that nations strive to resolve conflicts through peaceful means, prioritize the well-being of people, and promote democratic principles without ulterior motives. Only by doing so can we hope to avoid the mistakes of the past and build a better future for all nations and their citizens.