Atam Edward Motufoua

S11086931

Dr. Claire Slatter (Wed: 9 – 10 am session)

Review 1: the American invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences

(Raymond Hinnebusch)

There have been countless analyses done on US hegemonic domination and military assertion in the Middle East; one such theoretical analysis is reflected in a journal article by Raymond Hinnebusch titled ‘The American invasion of Iraq: causes and consequences’. In it, the author analyzed the Iraqi invasion according to the following factors; firstly, US global ground strategy; secondly, the US strategic position in the middle east; thirdly, the interests of Bush’s ruling coalition. For the purpose of this review; the same factors would be employed to avoid misconstruing of the authors’ main arguments while at the same time restating some of the consequences mentioned in this paper. The second part of this review will include my own comments in relation to the readings.

In Hinnebusch’s analysis, the invasion of Iraq is the key to understanding US global hegemonic assertion. Here, Hinnebusch highlighted the radical transition in US foreign and Security policy instituted by the Bush Administration after the 9/11 attacks (2007: 9). This policy calls for a unilateral response instead of the conventional approach of multi-lateral dialogue and containment. Other points Hinnebusch highlighted in the paper were the two most fundamental reasons for the Middle East’s antagonistic attitude towards the US; firstly, the pro-Israel policy of the US and secondly, its continuous interference in Middle Eastern affairs to secure oil supplies (2007: 9). Oil is an issue the author noted was imposed on generations of US Presidents the responsibility to seek a balance of relations between Israel and the Arabs. However, when the Bush administration came to power it discarded this responsibility in favor of a more pro-Israeli regime (Hinnebusch, 2007: 10). However, for the war to be legitimate a guise was needed to justify military intervention in Iraq; a country far removed from the US in terms of threats and location. As highlighted in the article, the Bush administration then manufactured a story on WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction) being manufactured and sold by Saddam Hussein to the Al-

Qaida organization; however, no evidence of this link has ever been found (Hinnebusch, 2007: 10)

The second argument made in the paper shifts from threats to one of US strategic location in the Middle-East and its hegemony over the oil market. Here, the argument was that the US’s increasing dependency on oil in a very limited and competitive market increases the vulnerability of the US to economic shocks, as the so called ‘balance of power’ is held by the oil producers who in turn can subject the US economy to shocks which it cannot afford (Hinnebusch, 2007: 11). Hinnebusch (2007: 13) argues that US hegemony (in the Middle East) was only made possible by its ability to balance special relationships with both Israel and Saudi Arabia; this special relationship had now been marred by the patience of Saudi Arabia and Middle Eastern states. A new alternative has to be found in order for the US to decrease its dependence on Saudi Arabia; Iraq was the solution to this issue. Thirdly, another driving factor for this action has been the collaborative lobbying of neo-cons and pro-Israeli supporters in the United States and Israel. In the United States for instance, the Bush Administration was dominated by a coalition of the Zionist lobby group and the arms lobbies (Hinnebusch, 2007: 14). Hinnebusch (2007: 14) highlighted some the changes in approach taken by the lobby groups that is- instead of cordial relations with the Arabs when it comes to Business; the arms lobby within the Bush Administration vouched instead for a pro-Zionist state which eliminates all Arab states hostile to it. Again, the Iraqi invasion would arise as the solution to all these woes.

The second part of the paper dissects the effects of the invasion on Iraq; where Hinnebusch brought together a wide range of discourse to stress what he has already emphasized in the beginning; that the invasion of Iraq for counter terrorism purposes was a farce. Nonetheless, some of the comments given summarized how the situation was better off prior to or after the invasion. The dissolution of the Iraqi army by the US proconsul Paul Bremer caused a vacuum filled by the resistance militias (Hinnebusch, 2007: 17). Indeed one of the many failings of the invasion was the idea that America as the model of democracy would be successful in liberating the Arabs from dictatorship; however, the plan backfired as Anthony Shadid found, since Iraqis were nationalistic and there was growing discontent towards the United States and her trans-Atlantic ally the UK. The reputation of the US armed forces and the country as a whole was also tarnished a view reflected in Western media which showed that 82 percent of Iraqis were in opposition

to the occupation and 57 per cent wanted an immediate ejection of foreign troops; figures which showed support for occupation were in the minimum. For others such as the neo-cons, their expectation for transforming the Middle East through conquest was thrashed (Hinnebusch, 2007: 17). It was also found that Muslim liberals who had backed western occupation had become vulnerable to fundamentalists. One of the most interesting question the author pose and which I believe is parallel to the curiosity of those who have understood the situation on the ground was “why the US policy has produced results the opposite of what Washington intended?” and “whether the Iraq war will advance or set back the US ambition for global hegemony?” and whether it sustains global leadership (Hinnebusch, 2007: 23). Moreover research has shown that foreign occupations only seek to generate terrorism (Munson n.d & Hinnebusch 2007). It is worth noting that Hinnebusch considers this crisis a test case for foreign occupation especially in the 21 st

century; a test case for the doctrine of "preventive war" and of the neo-cons' belief that ‘overwhelming military superiority can be translated into unchallenged hegemony in the Middle East’ (Hinnebusch, 2007: 24). It was also to prove US capabilities and of whether the right of pre-emptive war would be welcomed by both friend and foes.

After reading and summarizing some of the main arguments; I was startled at how much I have learnt. The United States which I have always viewed as an icon of liberty and opportunity was not the utopia I thought it was. We, in the pacific have seen so much- yet understand so little about the situation in Iraq; I have come to understand the motive of the United States in protecting its interests especially when it comes to something as politically sensitive as oil. When American interest is threatened alternatives mostly through extreme means would always be found. A fact which startles me the most is the United States foreign policy; which applies double standard when it comes to dealings between Israel and the Arabs- especially the Palestinians. Under the Bush administration as was highlighted in the article, the regime became more pro-Zionist instead of balancing relations with the Arabs whose oil is central to America’s hegemonic rise. As like all other conflicts, the invader’s reputation is always questioned by the international community; the US is no exception and with growing distrust the cost eventually outweighs the benefit. It is comes as no surprise that some literatures have shown that "terrorism" is fueled by foreign occupation; and thus the longer the occupier stays the more radical the militias can be. All in all, the American ‘imperialist’ ideals for a more liberal and democratic Middle East

has failed; the failure of which has given rise to terrorism and religious fanaticism.

(Word count: 1,277)