A history of Iraq in order to understand Bush's reasons
for war.
Why War?
by Dr. Leslie Jermyn
Since President George W. Bush pronounced Iraq a member of the Axis of
Evil following the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington,
there have been so many competing explanations and theories for why this
war had to happen, did happen or shouldn’t have happened that it’s
pretty hard to know who to listen to. Few facts are accepted across the
political divide making it even more difficult to formulate a considered
opinion on the issue. Now that war has begun, the risk of propaganda swamping
truth is even greater as is the need for a thorough backgrounder to this
conflict and its role in our collective history.
Let us begin with a primer on Iraqi history. This is essential to understanding
much of what has happened in living memory though it requires diving into
the deeper pool of historical memory.
Iraq was created out of the defunct Ottoman Empire at the end of the First
World War. If you recall your high school history, the Ottomans or Turks
as they are called today, controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula at
the outbreak of the war. They sided with Kaiser Wilhelm in Germany which
meant that they suffered ‘victor’s justice’ at the end
of the war. What had been provinces in the Empire loosely formed the outlines
of new states. Iraq was cobbled together from 3 provinces: Kirkuk, a Kurdish
province, Baghdad controlled by Sunni Muslims and Basrah, a Shia Muslim
region in the south on the Persian Gulf. The future of this new highly
unstable entity resulted from the Great War in another sense: the twentieth
century realization of the strategic and economic value of oil.
The British, French and Americans were all eager to explore for oil in
the Middle East after the war. The Europeans had no national supplies
of oil while the Americans feared that demand would outrun national supply
and so wanted to secure other sources. The British had experimented with
oil-powered ships during the war and realized their advantages in speed
over coal-fired ships. Motorized warfare had also proven itself more efficient
than animal power and the automotive industry was poised for massive post-war
expansion. All of this meant that the victorious powers were politically
and militarily driven to expand their supplies.
Even before test wells had been sunk, Iraq had been conceded by the Turks
to a consortium, the Turkish Petroleum Company, including Anglo-Persian
Oil (later British Petroleum or BP), the Deutsche Bank of Germany and
Royal Dutch/Shell Oil. At the end of the war, France acquired Germany’s
25% share in the company and traded their territorial claims on Mosul
in the north for British-controlled Syria. Thus the British came to control
both the Turkish Petroleum Company and what would become Iraq.
Britain did not want the expense or the public relations hassle of directly
governing Iraq so in 1921 they put Faisal, a Hashemite from Arabia and
one of ‘Lawrence of Arabia’s’ fellow revolutionaries
against the Turks, on the throne of Iraq. His brother, Abdullah was given
the Kingdom of Transjordan (now Jordan) and both countries were under
British protection. To quote Avi Shlaim, professor of international relations
at Oxford University, “The 1921 settlement not only sanctioned violent
and arbitrary methods: it built them into the structure of Iraqi politics.
Its key feature was lack of legitimacy: the borders lacked legitimacy,
the rulers lacked legitimacy and the political system lacked legitimacy.”
Britain also conceded some shares in Turkish Petroleum to the Americans
to prevent them from challenging the legality of the original Ottoman
concession. The key American player was Standard Oil of New Jersey, later
Exxon, now Exxon Mobil. Together they renegotiated a firmer concession
from Faisal and began to explore near Kirkuk. On October 15th, 1927, Iraq’s
fate as the second largest reserve of the world’s most important
commodity was sealed when the Baba Gurgur Number 1 gushed at 95,000 barrels
per day.
Skipping forward over another oil-driven war to the Cold War, we find
the Middle East in a big mess. Western capitalist powers feared the growing
tide of Arab national socialism promoted by Nasser in Egypt. Nasser came
to power in 1954, two years after the overthrow of Egypt’s monarch
and began to preach pan-Arabic socialism and resistance to both the old
colonial powers and what he called “the greatest international crime,”
the creation of Jewish Israel out of Arab Palestine. Nasser nationalized
the Suez Canal, primary shipping channel for Middle Eastern oil, in 1956
and put the wind up the skirts of both Britain and the US by trading with
the Soviets for arms. The Suez Crisis erupted into war involving Israel,
Britain and France versus Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The result was greater
prestige for Nasser as the ‘Voice of the Arabs,’ loss of Western
control of the canal and the swift adoption of supertankers to move oil
around Africa rather than through the Canal.
Nasser presented a viable option for Middle Eastern Arabic nations who
had long suffered under Western imposed regimes – like those of
Faisal’s grandson, Faisal II, in Iraq and the Shah of Iran. King
Hussein I of Jordan and King Faisal II of Iraq formed the Arab Union in
1958 in opposition to Nasser’s coalition with Syria under the United
Arab Republic. Both Jordan and Iraq hoped to benefit from the Eisenhower
Doctrine of 1957 that said the US would support any Middle Eastern government
threatened by Communism.
In a surprise u-turn, the Iraqi military responded to Nasser’s call
to overthrow Western-backed Faisal II and staged a coup in 1958. General
Kassem took control and in short order exiled his partner, Salem Arif.
Kassem was anti-Western and appeared to be arming to fight Israel which
prompted the US government of J.F. Kennedy to organize a coup against
him with the support of Israel and Britain. Arif, a member of the secular
Baath Party (Saddam’s very own) came to power with the help of his
friends in the CIA in 1963 and immediately re-opened ties with the West.
The Baathists also initiated a bloody purge of Iraqi intellectuals and
‘suspected communists.’ At Arif’s death in 1966, his
brother, Abdul Rahman Arif took the helm but was overthrown in a palace
coup in 1968. Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr came to power with the support of Lyndon
Johnson and Richard Nixon – Saddam now had a relative in charge
and was in command of the Baath underground militia. By 1979, Saddam finally
made it to the top when he instituted a purge of the Party, leaving only
his supportive relatives alive and at liberty in top government positions.
Remember that Iraq’s majority population is Shia Muslim, considered
to be the more conservative of the Islamic faiths. When Shia religious
leader Khomeini overthrew the corrupt Shah of Iran, he presented a serious
challenge to Hussein who feared the Ayatollah might incite rebellion among
Iraq’s Shiites. If you’re old enough you may also recall the
grueling American hostage ordeal in Tehran initiated by Khomeini’s
victory in 1979. By 1980, Hussein figured the time was ripe and launched
the Iran-Iraq War, which should really be called the First Persian Gulf
War. He hoped to squash Shiite fundamentalism in Iran and encourage the
Arab minority (Iran is mostly Persian) in the south to join Iraq. This
would have the double advantage of gaining better access to the Persian
Gulf and about 90% of Iran’s proven oil reserves.
Throughout this war, Western powers consistently supported Iraq through
arms deals and aid over Iran, despite proclaiming neutrality. Britain
and the US were so committed to supporting any regime that fought Khomeini’s
Islamic fundamentalism and ardent anti-Western sentiments, that they even
turned a blind eye to Hussein’s gassing of 5000 Iraqi Kurds at Halabja
in 1988. The Kurds had been a thorn in the side of Iraqi leadership since
they were denied a separate state by Winston Churchill back in the 1920s.
Britain went so far as to promise to help Hussein develop a nuclear weapons
program once the war ended. While Hussein was no Pinochet or Noriega in
terms of blatant Western support, the West was very keen to keep Iraq
secular and the oil flowing – even at the expense of Kurdish lives.
As a result of this grueling war, Hussein found himself with a lot of
foreign debt from his weapons buying spree. He counted on oil revenues
to generate the currency to pay the debts but was annoyed that Kuwait
continued to produce over its OPEC quota and promote low prices. When
Hussein expressed his displeasure to then US Secretary of State, Madelaine
Albright, she is reported to have told him to do what he felt was necessary.
Thus, Hussein initiated the Second Persian Gulf War when he invaded Kuwait
in August of 1990. The West responded promptly and with overwhelming force
– why? Why did they move so quickly against their former ally?
Hussein was under pressure to pay his loans – to Western powers
– for a war that had stretched his budget, killed half a million
citizens, required a standing army of 1 million out of a population of
18 million, crippled his oil production plant and lost him ‘face’
as the successor to Nasser’s Pan-Arabism. He wanted OPEC to raise
the price of oil and strictly enforce production quotas to ensure Iraq
high earnings. Contrary to public opinion, OPEC’s longterm strategy
has not been to push for the highest prices possible. They have certainly
used the ‘oil weapon’ against the West – as they did
in 1973 – but OPEC leaders realize that they do not benefit by excessive
oil prices except in the short-term. The 1973 Oil Crisis prompted exploration
beyond OPEC territory and resulted in for example, the opening of North
Sea oil and the expansion of production in the Gulf of Mexico. Its other
byproducts were a recession in the West, higher fuel efficiency standards
and a push for nuclear energy; all of which resulted in lowered per capital
demand for oil. Since 1973, the world’s largest producer, Saudi
Arabia, has followed a policy of setting OPEC prices as high as possible
without threatening Western economic growth or making alternative energy
sources economically feasible. They have often stepped into the breach
when shortages or the fear of them have driven prices too high by increasing
their production. By demanding high oil prices, Hussein was opposing OPEC
policies supported by both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Once he had occupied
Kuwait, he also posed a real threat to the West because of the additional
supply he controlled. But the plot had thickened considerably since the
end of the Cold War when the Baathists were considered a viable alternative
to communism.
By 1990, the US found itself in the happy position of being an uncontested
superpower. Reagan’s arms race had bankrupted the USSR and led to
Gorbachev’s dismantling of the Soviet Socialist system and the fall
of the wall in Berlin in 1989. Iraq seemed to be poised to assert itself
as a contender for the throne through its aggressive arms build-up and
bid for control of the West’s most vital commodity. Iraq holds nearly
11% of the world’s proven reserves, while Kuwait has nearly 10%
and Saudi Arabia dominates with 25%. If Iraq had been allowed to hold
on to Kuwait, it could have rivaled the Saudis in influence on world prices
and markets and by extension, would have gained control over Western economies.
It is not surprising in this context that Bush Sr. acted quickly to assemble
a wide coalition of countries to oppose Hussein, nor that the Saudis offered
the use of military bases in the war against a neighbouring Arab power.
The Second Persian Gulf War was swift and lethal but is considered by
many to have stopped short of its goal: the overthrow of Saddam. Bush
Sr. encouraged both the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the north
to rise up against Hussein’s Sunni elite in Baghdad, and they did.
But the US decided to end the war before overthrowing Hussein, leaving
the Shiites and Kurds to face his brutal reprisals. The West stepped in
to establish a no-fly protected zone in the Kurdish north but left the
southerners around Basra to Saddam’s predations.
Since then, Britain and the US have imposed brutal trade embargos on Iraq
and have repeatedly initiated aerial bombing campaigns. In a way, the
Second Persian Gulf War has never ended in terms of Western aggression.
The embargo banned trade in arms, naturally enough, but also in essential
medicines and water treatment chemicals. It is estimated that _ to _ of
a million Iraqi children died since 1991 as a direct result of the embargo.
In 1996??? the UN launched the Oil for Food program which permitted the
exchange of limited amounts of Iraqi crude for much needed food. UN weapons
inspectors were also authorized to identify and destroy Saddam’s
arsenal. In 1998, after Hussein had refused to comply with a number of
UN security council resolutions involving disarmament, the inspectors
were withdrawn and the US and UK once again launched a brutal bombing
campaign. We tend to forget this stage in our relations with Iraq but
Iraqi citizens certainly have not.
At the prompting of Bush Jr., the UN inspections began again last year
after a nail-biting series of diplomatic negotiations among the members
of the security council. The wrangling focused on whether the UN should
give the US automatic authorization to go to war in the event that Saddam
did not comply with the inspection teams. In the end, the resolution was
unanimously approved because it did not clearly authorize force. This
January, Bush, Blair of the UK and Aznar of Spain sponsored a second resolution
to authorize war if Iraq did not disarm immediately. France, Russia and
China, who all have veto power, refused to endorse the new resolution.
Their argument was that the inspections were proceeding and producing
results. It has to be remembered that the last inspection team to withdraw
in 1998 said that Iraq was already 90% disarmed of ‘weapons of mass
destruction.’ When Hans Blix was pulled out this time, he remarked
that the US/UK coalition was sending 250,000 soldiers into Iraq to find
nothing. This war is not sensibly understood as a hunt for deadly weapons
nor purely as the result of Western greed for oil; it is more complicated.
Recall the motivation of Bush Sr. to prevent Iraq from becoming a serious
power in the Middle East, now zoom forward to Bush Jr.’s administration
and their open commitment, following 9/11, to pre-emption or striking
before attacked. Add to that ideology the potent cocktail of a number
of corporate accounting scandals involving both Bush Jr. and Vice-President
Cheney, a very suspicious presidential election, the California energy
crisis (now accepted to be the result of market manipulation by companies
like White House favourite, Enron), a sluggish economy and lots of Republican
dues to be paid to corporate sponsors after two successful elections (Bush
Jr. and the Congressional race in 2002), and you have a president who
needs to reassert national pride, rejuvenate an economy without offending
big business, and maintain the illusion that America is the only cop in
town. It is important to be clear here that Hussein had nothing to with
bin Laden or Al-Qaeda – the latter are fundamentalist Muslims, the
very people Saddam warred against for eight long years and Iraqi Sunnis
fear as contenders for power. All the ‘evidence’ mounted by
the US to the contrary has been shown to be fabricated. But Osama proved
to be an elusive target and one could argue that Bush Jr. had to save
face by targeting someone or something that couldn’t move so fast.
The other Axis of Evil powers are being summarily ignored at the moment
and analysts have suggested it is because both Iran and North Korea present
a real threat in terms of weapons of mass destruction. In other words,
Bush needed a nearly crippled enemy who was bad enough to warrant attack
but who was weak enough to not create too many American casualties and
bring back the spectre of Vietnam’s body bags.
Oil still lurks in the background as a good reason to invade Iraq but
not because the US desires colonial control, rather because as with the
whole reconstruction package, the best deals will go to American corporations.
This is already happening and is raising cane among the British who argue
that they are on the front lines too and should be included in the divvying
up of the business opportunities. There is much fuss made about how much
the war and reconstruction will cost the US, but in fact, they will be
paying themselves for both: their arms manufacturers, their port builders,
their oil engineers, their private health care companies and so on. There
is much more at stake here than just controlling oil.
by Dr. Leslie Jermyn cooperative@GlobalAware.org
|
