Operation Iraqi Liberation (0.I.L)

Operation Iraqi Liberation

(O.I.L)

 

 

The invasion of Iraq on the 20th of March 2003 has proved to be one of the most controversial wars of the modern era. From square one it seemed obvious to most critics that the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ had dubious intentions for their invasion. In the following article I will challenge some of the invaders specified reasons for the invasion, hopefully leaving the reader with a more expansive perspective concerning the war’s true causes. I will primarily focus on oil, and how it lured America to invade Iraq.

 

The three major reasons given by the United States for the controversial invasion were; Iraq’s alleged possession of ‘weapons of mass destruction’; their supposed harbouring and funding for terrorist organisations; and finally the credence that the Iraqi people must be liberated from Saddam Hussein’s despotic rule. Despite the lack of evidence, and lack of support from the United Nations Security council, the ‘liberators of Iraq’ got to work.

 

In October 2002, a CIA report stated “Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions”.[1] Although it is extremely difficult for anyone to definitively disprove this premise, logic would dictate that such weapons would have been used well before the fall of a fanatical leaders regime. Historian Jeremy Jones, argues that the true reasons for invasion were more likely to be concerned with “oil, global hegemony (and) civilizational antagonism”.[2]  Do these sound like the intentions of heroic liberators? Such a view directly contradicts with the Coalition’s liberalist notions of liberation and freedom which they attributed to the ‘humanitarian’ intervention. In reality it seems that this liberal philosophy was merely a justification for true realist motives of self-interest. After all, this is the same dictator who merely a couple of decades prior, was supported by the American government against Iran, despite the known use of chemical weapons against his own Kurdish people, conveying the opportunistic nature of the American administration. It doesn’t bode well for the legitimacy of the most recent invasion.

 

It is without doubt that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, and as said above, committed many atrocities against even his own people. Out of every reason given by the Americans, the need to remove Saddam and bring democracy to Iraq seemed the most tangible, or perhaps the hardest to disprove. But time would tell that his removal would merely lead to further instability, verging on a civil war. The power vacuum left by Hussein’s removal has created a struggle between Iraq’s Sunni and Shi’a factions, seen by almost daily attacks on one another. Although it’s extremely difficult for anyone to be opposed to an undeniably evil mans removal from power, the swift transition to democracy was certainly rushed, and so far hasn’t worked in favour of the Iraqi people.

 

Ironically, the invasion of Iraq began under the codename ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’, the acronym for oil. Most critics of the Iraq war claim that the real purpose of the invasion was to improve western access to Iraqi oil. When Hussein was in power, he plain out refused to deal with any western oil corporations. Most of the world’s second largest oil supplier’s lucrative contracts were signed down to either Chinese or Russian companies. The mere thought of this concept would surely have enraged any patriotic American. After being ‘liberated’, the newly formed government of Iraq (commonly accepted as a puppet government for the occupation), chose the moralistic thing to do, and tore up all oil contracts which were signed under the previous dictators regime. Sure this seems like a perfectly normal thing to do in order to de-legitimise Hussein’s rule doesn’t it? But conveniently, these contracts which off limits to Westerners for the last few decades, were snapped up by British and American companies including Shell, BP and Exxon Mobil. If this does not seem like creditable evidence implying that oil was a major factor in the reason to invade, surely Dick Cheney’s speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999 would sway any doubters. “By 2010 we will need in the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from…while many regions in the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two thirds of the World’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies”[3]. For the record, Cheney was Vice President at the time of invasion, used to own an energy company which made lucrative profits directly from the invasion, and was arguably the ‘king pin’ in the push for war.

 

In addition to Iraq’s oil supplies, there have been numerous other reasons that critics attribute to America’s decision to invade. These include the Israel lobby’s influence over American politics and also the continuation of Bush Junior’s father’s legacy. Although much is speculation, one cannot deny that the war’s true intentions were remote from those that were specified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs, Central Intelligence Agency. (2002)

[2] Jones, J. ‘Negotiating Change: The New Politics of the Middle East’. Chapter 9, London, Tauris, (2007). p.232

[3] Cheney, D. Address to the London Institute of Petroleum. (1999)

Advertisements

8 comments on “Operation Iraqi Liberation (0.I.L)

  1. karen says:

    Fantastic blog. You have voiced (and researched) what many of us have thought. I remember the protest march in Sydney against the invasion, it was great to walk and chant with people who opposed war.

  2. This blog is a great read. I like how you have sought to expose the motivations for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and have ignored the usual American rhetoric that it was a process of liberation and to remove the “WMD’s”. The American government have a lot to answer for due to their pillaging of the Middle East for Oil. You have hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that their true intentions were far from what they had specified. Well done on picking a topic that is fairly recent and in fact still in progress.

  3. kerrie1974 says:

    I really like your blog. The conflict in the middle east i believe is a conflict over oil, and ideologies. I find it particularly interesting that you talk about oil being the motivation for the invasion of iraq. True Sadam was a dictator i am glad he is gone, however, i like your point on the ‘heroic invaders’ liberating the people of Iraq, yet if they didn’t remove Sadam they would have been denied access to oil. And while we can sit here and discuss it freely, what would have happened to oil prices in Aus if we didn’t have access to the middle east’s rich oil supplies? The point you make about the transition to democracy being rushed and not working in favour for the Iraqi people is an important one, it’s a shame that in most conflicts it is the innocent that become victims. Do we ever stop and ask them what they want, what works for them, what system of government do they want to be run by?
    Cheers Kerrie.

  4. bmoussa says:

    Great post highlighting the ‘humanitarian’ pretexts for the brazen US-led invasion. Also brings attention to the problem of exporting democracy. Effective, stable democracies need home-grown consensus/ a personal stake in it by its own people, not just the removal of tyranny.

    What did you think of the recent intervention in Libya and Western support for the suppression of protests in countries like Bahrain, a strategic US ally? Self-interests at work once again?

    • markkelen says:

      yeah it’s interesting that Syria for example, has experienced similar political unrest to that of Lybia, though due to many of the NATO countries being reliant on the latter’s oil supplies (especially France), it seems that an intervention was necessary (as opposed to threats of sanctions).

  5. pmcdermott6025 says:

    I’ve got no doubt that the invasion of Iraq was based on oil. As you pointed out Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator that was extremely brutal. However this does not justify the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Another question this opens for debate is, if the Americans were “freeing” the Iraqis because of the brutal dictatorship how come they have not been as supportive in other areas on the world such as Zimbabwe where other people have been suppressed?

  6. tifanycentelles says:

    Great post! I have learnt so much while reading through it, always knew a little bit about it but this clearly contributed to my learning!

  7. chrisdumaine says:

    Hi Mark,

    Israel is ruthlessly oppressing the Palestinian people, viciously controlling their water and supressing their economics etc. I call for ‘operation Palestinian freedom’! Or, as suggested above; Operation Zimbabwean freedom. In fact there are many nations that have aggressive dictators in power, who supress minorities and are corrupt, especially in Africa. It does seem a strange coincidence that Hussein in Iraq and Gadhafi in Libya had to be violently deposed, and both nations had oil. We kept hearing about Hussein gassing the Kurds, a terrible crime no doubt, however this incident happened around the time of the first Gulf War, more than ten years before the 2003 invasion. We kept hearing about the Lockerbie bombing and other crimes that Gadhafi had committed in the past. Every regime, even the UK to the USA, have committed war crimes in the past (think Mai Lay and Kent State University for example). It seems under the cloak of democratic ‘sensibility’, Western powers can invade anyone.

    Note: I was watching a documentary film recently, Iraq the Women’s Story; after many interviews the film makers concluded that since the invasion, quality of life for Iraqi women had decreased. It is starting to be clear (much to the embarrassment of USA), that Iraqi women had more personal freedoms and equality under Saddam Hussein. I would not be surprised if this extends to the men and children as well.

    Cheers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s