Home >> Middle East >> Iraq

     Email   Print 

Iraq War: Losing Its Objective

Amit Pyakurel - 9/4/2006

Enough time has passed to evaluate whether there has been a visible improvement in the lives of Iraq's citizens since the end of Saddam Hussein's despotic reign. U.S.-led coalition troops succeeded in this objective after capturing Hussein in December 2003, some nine months after the invasion took place in March 2003. That his inglorious end would ultimately bring democracy and prosperity to the lives of the Iraqis was often touted and even glamorized by the Bush administration (as the international community has said).

Although Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was given as a core justification for the invasion, the claim has since been sidelined by U.S. authorities because there were no WMD to be found. Now the justification for the invasion is explained as a mission to free the Iraqi people from Hussein's dictatorship and to prevent Iraq from becoming a safe harbor for terrorists. This new justification, although commendable, cannot fully justify the invasion after the fact. Moreover, it cannot justify the ongoing civilian casualties or the enormous financial costs of the war.

Ousting Hussein did bring a sense of relief to the Iraqis. Some celebrated the fact that they would no longer have to suffer Hussein's tyranny and brutality. Others relished the newfound chance to participate in a democratic election. They were not overjoyed by the foreign intervention, but they hoped for the best. The feeling that freedom and happiness were worth the cost of the invasion was palpable.

But this sense of relief proved fleeting as attacks by the insurgents suddenly targeted the livelihoods of Iraqis. The prevailing assumption is that the presence of coalition troops in Iraq has only strengthened the motives of the terrorists, and overall, increased the risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks, the war having turned into a "breeding ground" for terrorists.

However, the Bush administration would oppose such claims. Privately, it may have acknowledged that the invasion and occupation has produced little in the way of improvements and only increased the bloodshed, and it may have perceived that it would not be easy to leave Iraq now that the situation has deteriorated even further. To do so publicly would only expose the truth of the Bush administration's falsely perceived "victory."

Iraqi troops still may not be capable enough on their own to stem the tide. And it is hard to say when they will gain that capability. As the situation worsens, the need for an ever-stronger force increases. Will they ever measure up to the task?

Would ending the occupation quell the insurgency, which is haphazardly targeting coalition troops while it kills scores of innocent Iraqis? Would setting a deadline for withdrawal spur Iraqi nationals at large, let alone the insanely and brutally refuting insurgents, to aspire to greater self-governance?

Besides making life worse for Iraqi citizens, the war has presented coalition troops with a considerable challenge. In the process of rebuilding Iraq, they must risk their lives at every corner. Renewed sectarian violence only further complicates matters.

The consequences have shaped the negative attitude of U.S. citizens toward the war. Recent figures indicate that support is dwindling, in America and in the world at large. The personal impact of the war on Iraqi citizens, as well as on coalition troops and their families, is huge. The psychological effects will be felt for a long time to come, let alone the effects on the economy, society, and politics. It seems the invasion has not led to any improvement in the lives of the Iraqis. It may only have made things worse.