A Conversation on Iraq

Jason Bates

On an evening at Mexican restaurant and campus hangout in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, I settled into my bar seat awaiting coworkers.  Just then, the news mentioned of the latest violence in Iraq.  Several people made the usual and the bartender quickly channel surfed and landed on Seinfeld reruns.  A few minutes later, before realizing I was in the middle of a conversation with the person next to me. 

JB: The violence is unfortunate but it doesn’t change anything.

VM: I think the violence changes a lot of things

JB: Really, like what? 

VM:  For one thing, it is going to hurt the handover of power.

JB:  Iraq is going according to plan

VM: Really!!

JB: Yes

VM:  Are you saying the violence in Iraq is expected?  Aren’t you surprised by it?

JB:  Certainly, the violence is more than expected.  Nobody really expected us to be welcomed in like some damn saviors.  I still say that it has not altered the plan one bit.

VM: What “plan”? It seems that a lot of stuff has changed.

JB:  I guess that depends on what you believe took us to war with Iraq.

VM: For starters, regime change and the hunt for WMDs were on the books.

JB:  Those may have been some of the goals but there are more important ones.  Those remain the same.

VM:  It seems to me the goals have been either sidetracked or totally derailed, take for example the WMD issue.

JB:  I am not sure that WMD was our primary goal.  The way I look at it we had three major goals in Iraq.  First it was the removal of Saddam Hussein.  This was a personal vendetta but it was accomplished.  Another was to create a different stage for the War on Terror and that is going according to plan. Third is the control of Iraq’s resources.  So the way I see it, the level of violence doesn’t change things much.

VM: What do you mean by a different stage for the War on Terror?  Iraq stole the spot light in terms of media attention and financial aid from Afghanistan.  I think it did a lot of damage internationally too.  Europe supported America after 9-11 but because of Iraq there has been a lot of misunderstanding between us and the Europeans since they have a large Muslim population.

JB: Iraq was the focus of the War on Terror in the Middle East as Afghanistan was in Central Asia.  Actually, Europeans because of their Muslim population should support us on Iraq because it would help them deal with issues about radical Islam within their own borders.  

VM: Iraq is a dangerous focus, it may increase terrorist attacks in the US. 

JB: Again, I disagree.  I think that Iraq will draw out terrorists.  It will force them to engage the US in a local area rather than travel to US shores.  Think about it this way, terrorist would find it easier to attack us in Iraq than go thru the machinations of trying to enter the US.  This point gives us a tremendous amount of control,

VM:  I see your point, just as Afghanistan draws out terrorists from Central Asia to Pakistan.   I think that in the short term you might be right.  However, in the long run, I beg to differ.  I think it will increase hatred and the desire for revenge.  Ultimately that might increase attacks at home.

JB:  I think the long term depends on finding a new focus on the War on Terror after Iraq.  It will accomplish our goals in the War on Terror but keep the war away from US shores.

VM: A new focus?

JB: There are a number of possibilities, neighboring countries or another region that has become a hotbed of terrorism.

VM: That is exactly my point. Going from so called “focus” to “focus” will increase the desire of the terrorists to strike within the US.  I think the realization of that makes it very scary.

JB:  I think if we play our cards right, then we will be able to keep them preoccupied in far away lands where US troops can engage and destroy them, like I said keep the war from US shores.  The best defense is a good offense.          

VM: I think the best way to reduce attacks is to stabilize Iraq, and that becomes less and less likely as days go by.

JB:  The very fact that Iraq is unstable serves the purpose, it acts as a magnet for terrorists and therefore as a theater for anti terrorist operations. In this way Iraq serves to stabilize the world by drawing terrorists away from other parts of the world.

VM:  For the sake of argument, let us say that you are right and that an unstable Iraq serves the purpose of engaging and eliminating terrorists. Doesn’t it hurt your other stated goal of control over Iraq’s resources.

JB:  Not really!!  We have to safeguard Iraq’s resources.  I think that after the power handover, we will reduce our commitments to guarding those parts that are in our interest.

VM: Oil!!

JB: Of course

VM: Won’t it be difficult to just guard oil and associated infrastructure while the areas around it are unstable?  Oil by itself doesn’t hold much value if it cannot be extracted and sold.  Like it or not, by our very goals, I think we have committed ourselves to hand holding in Iraq  Do you get what I am trying to say?

JB: No, I don’t think so.  I think we have to safeguard the oil, the refineries, and the pipelines that transport the oil. 

VM:  Exactly my point, pipelines will cross across the various regions of Iraq, we will have to deal with the Shias in the South and the Kurds in the North. 

JB:  So we can deal with them as a part of Iraq or as some sort of semi-independent groups, either way our purpose is served.  The focus of American policy is to serve American interests and not to nation build across the world.

VM:  I almost agree. Policy should serve American interests.  Among those interests is to make sure a country doesn’t become a hotbed of terrorism. As far as I see this might require a certain level of engagement that can be called nation building.  That is why I am astonished to see why we are so broadly allergic to nation building especially when this serves our interest.

JB: You mean Iraq or Afghanistan?

VM:  I mean both are in our interests.  It serves American policy of influence in the region and as you stated gaining control over the resources of region.  It is a lot easier to do this with a more stable country than an unstable one.

JB: If we change to the goals you state, it will require a much greater and longer term commitment.

VM: Yes, and that is another real challenge of policy. We have to sustain focus on a region or a country for more than a few years. America is the world’s most powerful country and it is time that it acted like it.

JB:  You don’t think we act like a superpower!!

VM:  You misunderstand; I think to act like a true world power we have to act with a longer view than the next few years.  Our interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, looks like small potatoes.  We have to think about the next several decades.  That is only way, we will sustain America as a world power for years to come.   

JB: Certainly, food for thought.

VM: likewise, and speaking of food, enjoy your dinner.

JB: You too.     

Jason Bates is a part-time college student majoring in Communications.