Iraq & Privatization
I think it is a given now that Iraq is a total disaster. The sheer amount of resources, lives and money which have been consumed is astounding. The scope of this disaster causes one to consider the justifications for the US being there in the first place; it is a problem the US created. So what is the justification? We've heard quite a few from both supporters and detractors. Perhaps an examination of a few is warranted.
WMD/Terrorism
This is the reason we went to Iraq. It was the only justification which was sufficiently frightening and time-dependent to convince enough people that our presence there was required immediately. Often these two justifications are separated, but they are actually quite inseparable. It wasn't just that Iraq was supposedly harboring, or had a relationship with terrorists, it was that state sponsership of terrorism would inevitably lead to WMD in the hands of terrorists. I agree that state-sponsership of terrorism would eventually lead to the acquisition of WMD but in the case of Iraq that relationship did not exist and hence the justification is false. Additionally, even with a relationship, there were no WMD in Iraq to use against a civilian population. A modification of this theory is that there were programs in place. This has also been proved false. So we're left with "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." The fact that the exact nature of the relationship and the status of WMD in Iraq has been changed so often is proof that the original justification is false.
Democracy/freedom
Also known as the "Saddam was a bad man" argument. In it's distilled version, the argument states that (a) freedom is a fundamental human right, (b) The United States is the best example of freedom in the world, (c) The United States' great power also comes with a moral responsibility to rid the world of those who would oppress freedom. Taken together, the justification for the Iraq war was to remove a dictator and bring democracy to Iraq. This might be a noble effort but as I've discussed previously, it is unrealistic. Liberation does not necessarily precede democracy but more important, if we are to believe that the U.S. army was sent to Iraq to liberate the people there, then what does that mean for the people under the thumb of other oppressive regimes? Should they be expecting an army of liberators? Of course not. Not even the largest army the world has ever seen can possibly do this. Bringing democracy to Iraq is not a serious justification--it is a PR-inspired afterthought.
blood-for-oil
Protest and dissent is an expression of democracy. Even if we are inconvenienced by a procession of anti-war protesters, we should applaud the fact that they can. However, the statement "war is unhealthy for children and other living things" (poster witnessed during last year's anti-war march, apparently dating back to the 60's) does not seriously attempt to criticize US foreign policy; rather it could be applied to any violent situation. But beyond simplistic pacifism exists the theory that the Iraq war, like all previous US invasions, is motivated by imperial desire and lust for wealth. Rather than hitting the bullseye of criticism, this dart hits the metal frame and falls to the floor. Its obvious that the US--like any industrialized nation--has an interest in the energy reserves of the Middle East. But to speculate that this entire endeavor is simply to seize Iraq's oil fields is an unsophisticated argument.
My sense is that none of these arguments sufficiently describe the real motivations behind invading Iraq. That being said, there are elements of truth in each. The problem is these motivations have been twisted to fit into a strict ideology of politics and economics. Iraq, as viewed by the architects of the war, is an experiment. An experiment in nation-building, global hegemony, and market economics. Let us remember what was attacked on 9/11: symbols of American economic and military might. The message could not be more clear. And predictably the Bush Administration responded to the attacks using those very same institutions. Pacifying terrorism is desired in the interest of stability, for stability is required to do business. With their justifications based on nothing more than fear, the ideologues in power proceeded with their invasion to demonstrate two things: (1) American military power can and must act unilaterally, (2) Iraq will be the model state for the Middle East. While the US foreign policy is clearly not in the business of benevolently freeing the oppressed people of dictatorial regimes, it is also not involved in imperialism as we understand it historically. This is economic imperialism, using a taxpayer-funded military to provide private interest with a garage sale of previously state-held interests. Even more than the "military-industrial complex" Ike warned us about 40 years ago, we have an ideology that is fundamentalist about privatization. The contempt the architects of the Iraq war feel for international organizations is the same as their contempt for state ownership. The same way the invasion was conducted on the cheap, with insufficient troop levels and private contractors is the same philosophy that guided the Iraq reconstruction. But just as they have failed to impose democracy in a country that has only known authoritarianism, they have failed to impose privatization in an economy that has no stability.
The rise of democracy in the West facilitated the rise of capitalism. These two ideologies--though fundamentally different--are inextricably intertwined. Trying to establish a laissez-faire marketplace where national unity has yet to be achieved is like putting the cart before the horse. The results have been disasterous, just as they were in South America when those economies were privatized via stipulations on loan requirements from the IMF. As this excellent, excellent article discusses, the failure to privatize Iraq (at least for now) has had a direct impact on the swelling Iraqi insurrency, recruiting displaced former government workers and the unemployed who have no place in this so-called "market-driven" economy.
Before the war I knew thinigs were going to turn out badly. But I knew that once in, we couldn't leave because Iraq would likely devolve into civil war. Now the CIA tells us that civil war is just the worst of several possible future scenarios in Iraq. Things are not going to get better in Iraq and it is apparent that US forces are only contributing to the problem, not providing stability. It is my opinion that US forces should withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Setting a timetable for withdrawl and promptly leaving once that date is reached might be the only way to stabilize the country and allow the people to rebuild. Whether this will happen in the immature, macho and militaristic environment the US finds itself in is another story entirely.