Frequently Asked Questions About Iraq

- Was the war about oil?

- But why invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or Iran?

- But wouldn’t a US invasion cause more instability?

- How will the US be able to get Iraq to release more oil than it previously did?

- What are the other reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq?

- Does the US truly want to help the people of Iraq?

- Will the US be successful in creating a stable Iraq?

- Who is attacking US and coalition forces in Iraq?

- But what about the accusations that foreign infiltrators are behind the attacks?

- Why though do the guerrilla groups also target multinational (e.g. Italian) troops, and international organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross?

- What would happen if US troops left Iraq?

Was the war about oil?

There are many reasons why the Bush administration decided to march to war in Iraq, one of them being concerns over the global energy supply. Oil is the lifeblood of the global economy. The Middle East has about 65% of the world’s total oil resources. With this in mind, it becomes clear that any instability in the Middle East would threaten the global oil trade. If the global oil trade were disrupted, it would cause a shortage in supply which would cause oil prices to skyrocket. Skyrocketing oil prices hamper global economic growth and threaten the world’s economies. At worst, it could cause a recession in many of the world’s oil dependent countries.

But why invade Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia or Iran?

Saddam Hussein, an individual who at one time wanted to become the leader of a pan-Arab movement, endangered stability in the Middle East. Saddam expressed a desire to harness the outgoing flow of oil in the region, possibly turning it into an economic and military powerhouse with himself at its helm. Such a situation would make oil-importing countries, such as the United States, dependent on the whims of Saddam, a situation that policymakers in Washington sought to avoid.

Therefore, after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, subsequent US administrations have recognized the danger he posed to their interests and worked to stifle his growth. Finally, with the September 11 attacks, the current Bush administration was able to justify an invasion to remove Saddam Hussein from power by tying Saddam’s government to the “war on terrorism.”

But wouldn’t a US invasion cause more instability?

Indeed, in the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, oil prices rose sharply as investors feared that instability would ensue following a US attack. But Bush administration officials were quick to reassure investors that a US invasion of Iraq would be good for the economy, as in the long run the Middle East’s oil supply would become much more stable.

There was also the hope that a new Iraqi government would release more oil into the global supply, pushing prices down and therefore acting as a boon to the economies of oil dependent countries. As the Economist magazine stated before the invasion of Iraq, “In the short term… cheaper oil would be beneficial for the world economy. At a time when recovery is at best sluggish, anything that helps boost demand would be welcome.”

How will the US be able to get Iraq to release more oil than it previously did?

Before the Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was exporting 3.5 million barrels per day - a rate that was limited by UN sanctions. American oil industry executives predicted that after Saddam was removed from power, and Western companies were able to upgrade Iraq’s oil infrastructure, the country would be able to produce as many as 5 billion bpd. This prediction caused Larry Lindsey, the former top economic advisor to President Bush, to state last fall: “When there is regime change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million barrels [per day] of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”

Furthermore, by installing their own government in Iraq, the Bush administration was hoping to guarantee that, on matters of foreign policy, the Iraqi government would toe the US line. Many of the individuals who the administration planned on putting in charge of Iraq, such as Ahmed Chalabi, were Iraqi exiles who had lived in the US for many years and have good relations with senior members of the Bush administration. This would ensure that in matters of oil production, Washington would always have an open ear in Baghdad.

What are the other reasons behind the US invasion of Iraq?

The invasion of Iraq was also launched for strategic reasons. Based upon historical precedent, when the US invades a country, it usually establishes military bases there and in the surrounding area. These military bases can then be used to project US influence into the region. For example, the US invasion of Afghanistan led to the establishment of US military bases throughout the country. It also gave the United States more influence in other Central Asian states, such as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. This put the United States in a strategically important location in Central Asia, close to the borders of Russia and China. These actions have prompted alarm in Russia, as the country still remains a strategic rival to the United States.

By establishing military bases in Iraq, the Bush administration has been able to remove the burden of stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, a country that frequently placed stipulations on US military operations. With bases in Iraq, the Bush administration has put the US in a good strategic position to influence events all throughout the Middle East. The Bush administration has increased Washington’s foreign policy leverage when dealing with other states in the region that are considered potential threats, such as Iran and Syria.

Does the US truly want to help the people of Iraq?

Rarely do heads of state make decisions based upon moral concerns. The United States is interested in creating a stable Iraq not because Washington is concerned about Iraqi society, but because a stable Iraq would work in the interests of the United States. A stable Iraq, built by the guiding hand of Washington, would most likely pursue policies that followed US interests. An unstable, chaotic Iraq would not be in Washington’s interests since it would threaten to destabilize the entire region; an unstable Middle East will mean higher oil prices; higher oil prices will hurt the US economy and hamper economic growth.

Will the US be successful in creating a stable Iraq?

The Bush administration has two goals in Iraq: creating a stable Iraq, and having the Iraqi government fit in line with US interests. These two goals may not be mutually exclusive. A stable, democratic Iraq could make decisions that would work counter to US interests. This difficulty is now being realized by the Bush administration, which has been trying to find a way to achieve both of these goals despite the rising anti-American sentiment in the country.

Who is attacking US and coalition forces in Iraq?

The Bush administration has been quick to blame former members of Iraq’s Baath Party as being behind attacks against US and coalition troops. While it is certainly plausible that former Baathists are behind some attacks, they are certainly not behind all. Various guerrilla groups in Iraq have told media outlets that they are fighting against the “US occupation” but have nothing to do with Saddam’s Baath Party; indeed, these groups claim that they will fight Baathists just as hard as they are currently fighting the US

This implies that in the buildup to the war in Iraq, various repressed political and militant groups were waiting for a power vacuum to develop. Once Saddam’s government fell, these groups came out into the open hoping to establish themselves in post-Saddam Iraq and to gain power in any new government that forms.

But what about the accusations that foreign infiltrators are behind the attacks?

Once again, it is quite plausible that foreigners have infiltrated Iraq and are carrying out attacks against US and coalition troops. But this does not mean that there are not also plenty of Iraqi guerrilla groups fighting against the US occupation for their own motives.

Members of the Bush administration continue to assert that the resistance is only made up of former Baathists and foreign fighters simply because it would be a political blunder to have to admit that regular Iraqis were resisting the US occupation.

Why though do the guerrilla groups also target multinational (e.g. Italian) troops, and international organizations, such as the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross?

Guerrilla fighters in Iraq realize that they will not be able to defeat US troops militarily. The technology gap between the two sides is simply too large to overcome. Because of this, guerrilla fighters are hoping to isolate Washington politically. In order to achieve this objective, they have attacked international organizations such as the United Nations and Red Cross with the hopes of causing these groups to leave the country. Indeed, so far this strategy has worked, as the UN and Red Cross have limited their staff in Iraq. By attacking small troop contributing countries, such as Italy, guerrillas are hoping to cause the populations of these countries to demand that their troops be withdrawn.

Through this strategy, it is hoped that international organizations and troop contributing countries will flee Iraq, leaving the United States as the sole enforcer and contributor to the occupation. If this would occur, the US population would become growingly disenchanted with the objectives in Iraq and may demand a withdrawal of US troops.

What would happen if US troops left Iraq?

If US and coalition troops left Iraq, there is a high probability that the country would fall into civil war. Iraq is made up of three distinct ethnic groups: Kurds in the north, Sunni Muslims in the center, and Shiite Muslims in the south. This strange national makeup can be blamed on post-WWI British manipulation of the three Ottoman Empire provinces that now make up modern-day Iraq. Throughout Iraq’s modern history, the only leaders that have been able to keep these three disparate groups from fighting have been powerful authoritarian leaders, such as Saddam Hussein. It is not clear whether such a leader would immediately rise following a pullout of US and coalition troops. If no strong leader immediately came to power, the three ethnic groups would likely end up fighting each other in hopes of filling the power vacuum.