Victory!... oh wait...

What have we really won in Iraq?
by Geoffrey Neale


Iraqis have been freed from the clutches of a ruthless dictator, and that certainly is worth celebrating.

But what else has been gained from the speedy victory over Saddam Hussein's regime?

Thus far the main justification for the invasion -- to protect the United States from weapons of mass destruction -- remains unfulfilled, since no such weapons have been found.

A secondary goal of the invasion -- to bring genuine democracy to Iraq -- appears to be a long shot at best, according to most foreign policy analysts.

Over 100 coalition soldiers were killed, wounded or taken captive.

An uncounted, and perhaps uncountable, number of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children were killed or maimed, and a nation of 23 million people lies in smoldering ruins as looters pick through the rubble.

The graphic TV images of the U.S. bombing campaign broadcast on Arab networks may yet spawn "a thousand bin Ladens," warn terrorism experts, while no evidence suggests that the region is now more favorably inclined toward the United States.

U.S. taxpayers will soon fork over $80 billion for a "down payment" on the war, and the ensuing occupation and reconstruction could cost hundreds of billions of dollars.

An expanded war -- perhaps targeting Syria or Iran --remains a distinct possibility.

So even as President Bush declares victory over Iraq, it seems fair to ask: What, specifically, has the United States won?

Only one tangible benefit springs to mind: the satisfaction of knowing that millions of repressed people can now breathe the fresh air of freedom.

But most Americans tacitly agree that toppling a dictator is an insufficient reason to invade another nation. Otherwise, they would be demanding that the U.S. government overthrow equally dictatorial regimes in Burma, North Korea, Cuba, China, Libya, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia.

Another potential benefit -- achieving democracy -- is considered at least years away by most foreign policy experts, who point out that the Middle East has no tradition of democracy and no active democratic movements.

James Dobbins, a U.S. diplomat who helped oversee nation-building efforts in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, says, "It isn't like the first day of Genesis, where the secretary of defense passes his hand over Iraq and says, 'Let there be democracy.' "

In the short term, any leader who appears to be handpicked by the United States, as President Hamid Karzai was in Afghanistan, will be seen as illegitimate.

Even if genuinely free elections were to occur soon, Americans might not like the results. Christopher Preble, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, points out that Shi'a Muslims, who comprise over 60 percent of the Iraqi population, could elect a leader with close ties to Iran's religious mullahs.

A second possibility, Preble notes, is that Kurds could choose leaders demanding full-fledged independence from Iraq.

A third, chilling possibility is that the newly liberated Iraqis could end up electing another Saddam Hussein. That scenario could unfold if several candidates were to split the votes of Shiites and Kurds, allowing the Sunni Muslim minority to unite behind a former Baath Party official.

As the war draws to a close, it appears that the U.S. government has invaded a sovereign nation to confiscate weapons that may not exist and create a Western-style democracy that may never exist.

But it gets worse: This "victory" could end up making the entire world a more dangerous place, thanks to Bush's shocking proclamation that a U.S. president has a right to launch a pre-emptive strike against any nation that he deems a potential threat.

"If" a foreign leader has weapons of mass destruction, the argument goes, he "might" give them to terrorists. Therefore the United States has the right to launch an offensive attack, destroy that regime and kill thousands of innocent people in the process.

But why should such a "right" extend only to the United States? Nearly every nation faces a threat, real or contrived, at some point.

Imagine what would happen if other nations adopted Bush's kill-first, ask-questions-later policy.

Might nuclear-armed India launch a pre-emptive strike against its bitter rival Pakistan, or vice versa? What if belligerent North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, or an Iranian government that is reportedly close to acquiring nuclear weapons, suddenly sense a threat to their national security?

Unfortunately, the argument isn't just theoretical. On Monday, Australian Prime Minister John Howard sparked outrage throughout Southeast Asia when he asserted the right to launch pre-emptive anti-terror strikes against other nations in the region.

Malaysian leaders immediately denounced Howard, and said such an attack would be considered an act of war.

Nonetheless, the precedent has been set. The doctrine of pre-emptive strike may soon pose a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein ever did.

As the war winds down it's clear what its legacy will include: the death of thousands of innocent people; more embittered, anti-American Arabs in search of revenge; another frustrating foray into nation-building; massive economic costs for the American people; and a framework for expanded, global war.

Is that really worth celebrating?

[per1sh]

no.

[Mr. Sam]

exactley.

We won. Yay.

But what did we win? Nothing. We just probally just started more shit than anything.

[Krash]

Hear ye, hear ye, the english speaking peoples of the world are on the war path, all hail the king.

I feel sorry for the children.