Evaluating Iraq: the legacy of invasion.
Thomas, Mark
From 2003 to 2009, the war Iraq dominated headlines. Regular
updates of bombings and death tolls, centerfolds depicting Baghdad
residents picking their way through rubble, and a continuous debate over
US motives for invading were the standard stock of media. Now, a decade
has passed since the inception of Operation Iraqi Freedom and two years
have passed since the withdrawal of US troops--it is time to abandon the
question of the war's origin and begin examining its legacy.
The Iraq war was a remarkable event. A superpower invaded a country
with the stated purpose of forcing regime change, and, successfully
accomplishing that purpose, subsequently withdrew military forces. With
hindsight as our vantage point, we can begin to evaluate the efficacy of
the US invasion. Barring a collapse of Iraqi society over the next ten
years, the US military appears to have accomplished its goal--a dictator
was replaced by a functioning democratic government.
From its inception, the conflict engendered devastating violence.
Random murders, suicide bombings, and scattered mortar shells became a
part of Iraqi daily life. More than 100,000 civilian deaths have been
recorded by independent monitoring agencies. Following a surge in
sectarian violence in 2006 and 2007, the number of violent deaths in
Iraq declined. It did not return to previous levels, as some predicted,
after US troops returned home. The decline, however, has plateaued at
200 deaths per month with more and more of these deaths are coming from
the police force. That insurgents have switched from targeting the
general population through suicide bombing and are resorting to targeted
assassinations of police highlights how the former now see the latter as
a viable threat. The targeting of police is proof of the efficacy of
their operations, and at least this targeted killing has reduced
bystander casualties.
Though security forces have had some success, the upper echelons of
government are far from effective. President Jalal Talabani has been an
important dealmaker who built bridges between his fellow Kurds and the
Arab Sunni and Shia parties before becoming functionally incapacitated
by stroke since December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki won a second
term in office and formed a national government that includes the three
major factions of Iraq: Shia (al-Maliki's), Sunni, and Kurdish, an
arrangement that has proved as paralyzing as unifying. The Sunni
opposition has criticized al-Maliki's failure to appoint interior
and defense ministers, which conveniently leaves him in control of the
state's security apparatus. He has also been accused of organizing
death squads that target Sunni civilians, but an independent watchdog
group reported that police accounted for only 50 civilian deaths in
2012, while insurgents were responsible for almost 1200, numbers that
hardly indicate organized death squads. Furthermore, most insurgents are
Sunni, many of whom are linked to neighboring Syria's lingering
Ba'ath government. All things considered, al-Maliki appears to be
using reasonable judgment in his administration.
Indeed, Iraq's government has gained strength and stability. A
hallmark of US mismanagement after the 2004 invasion was the Iraqi Oil
Ministry. All of its employees were let go by virtue of being
Ba'ath party members (a practical necessity for government
officials under Saddam Hussein). Thus the ministry lost all technical
knowledge and production came to a grinding halt. But Iraq's oil
production is now approaching the highest levels it had reached under
Saddam: the International Energy Agency recently released a report
estimating that Iraq's oil production will double, to 6 million
barrels per day, by 2020. It is expected to surpass both Iran and Russia
within 20 years to become the second largest oil exporter in the world,
second only to Saudi Arabia. While these estimates seem generous, they
are conservative compared to the Iraqi Oil Ministry's own
predictions, double that of the IEA's. For a country that relies on
oil exports for 75 percent of its GDP, this will provide a massive and
much needed boost in government revenue and per-capita income.
The trends in Iraq, then, seem positive, but the situation is far
from perfect and could relapse into a crisis at any moment--particularly
if volatility in neighboring Syria persists. Nevertheless, the
government is stabilizing, violence is decreasing, and oil exports are
improving. Of the world's stable democracies, none are perfect and
most--such as India, the US, and France--molded their democracies over
decades and centuries. Iraq needs time, but there is reason for
optimism. Someday, Operation Iraqi Freedom may be judged by history
books to have lived up to its name.
staff writer
MARK THOMAS