Alex Thorn

International Relations

Mr. Chris Gurry

09.23.03

Security is the Way in Iraq

The most important thing in achieving democracy in Iraq is for the United States to ensure that the nation is physically secure within its own borders. Once amiable relationships are built between the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunni’s, the borders are brought completely under control, the car bombs that explode every few days cease, a reliable, strong, and respected local police force is in control, and once Saddam is brought to justice, Iraq will finally be ready to move forward on the other important fronts: education, health, economy, solidifying Middle Eastern relations and the reemergence into international politics. Ultimately, the goal of the United States should be to create some sort of democratically elected and operated governing body – made up of Iraqi’s voted on by Iraqi’s from the beginning – that will be capable of maintaining stability within the country on all fronts, not just security. However, because the country is made up of three different ethnic groups and it borders on some volatile nations, whose leaders aren’t often heard with the word “democracy” flowing off their tongues, there is a great potential for both local and regional unrest and violence. Thus, a maintained military presence – whether from the UN or predominantly US – will be required for at least a few more years in order to maintain the peace in Iraq aid the local law enforcement in serving as the safeguard of the new Iraqi democracy.

Although the Sunni Muslim’s make up the majority of the world’s Muslims, they only make up about 35% of Iraq, while the Kurds make up about 20% and the Shia Muslims are the clear majority. While both the Sunni’s and Shiites are ethnic Arabs, their have severe religious differences that date all the way back to the death of Mohammed, when the question over who would become Mohammed’s successor created the two groups. For the last thirty years, the Sunni’s have oppressed the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south, further escalating the tension between the three ethnic groups. However, things are getting better. With the Baathist regime out of power, the oppression by the Baathist Sunnis will end and, subsequently, the tension will ease. However, until that happens, in trying to unify all Iraqis, regardless of ethnicity, under the common banner of democracy will require a strong policing presence through the country, but especially in Baghdad, so the three major ethnicities may, hopefully, meet in peace. For that reason, a strong policing presence, such as the UN or the US, will help ease the transition from a more disjointed nation to a unified democracy. And, because the current governing body of Iraq is a twenty five member panel made up of members of all three ethnicities, the military presence will aid not just in securing the nation and helping to end the terrorism, but will also aid in enforcing the laws and regulations that the governing panel creates.

Just as security within the borders of Iraq is important, so is maintaining or creating, in some circumstances, good foreign relations with the neighboring states and actually controlling those borders equally as important to protect the sovereignty of a free Iraq. Most importantly, the United States must provide and maintain the defense of the Iraqi people on the international scale while the Iraqi army is defunct. If the UN or US military doesn’t maintain an active presence, Iraq will left vulnerable for possible, although unlikely, attacks from regional adversaries like Iran and Turkey. With maintained US or UN military occupation, the deliverance of United States and UN aid would be guaranteed.

If the United States were to pull out of Iraq too soon – that is, before the Iraqi government is ready to reassume control of its military (which is, now, virtually non-existent), economy and cultural systems – we would only reaffirm to the Arab region and the entire world that the United States is only interested in more than just securing in power a US-loyal autocrat. Instead, sticking it out and helping to recreate Iraq in the eye of democracy – not necessarily Western-style democracy, but perhaps the first Arab-style democracy – will show the Arab region and international audience that the United States is not only interested in, but is devoted to improving the lives of the Iraqi people. Thus, as Bush eloquently stated in his address to the United Nations on September 23, we should neither “hurry nor delay” the complete turning over of power to the Iraqi populous. However, the turning over of power to the Iraqis – a symbol of their achieved democratic society – would not necessarily mean the withdrawal of US or UN troops from Iraq. Instead, the United States must slowly fade out of Iraq, on all fronts, only as Iraq fades in. As such, the Iraqi political body would likely be ready, in the UN’s eyes, to retain complete control over Iraq long before it has raised a large enough army and police force to protect itself – from international warfare to petty theft on the local level – and so the United States must offer its services, essentially, as long as they are required.

Critics argue, though, that an increased or maintained US presence would cause more unrest and resentment among the Iraqi people, as visible in the recent terrorist bombings throughout the nation. However, it is widely known that those responsible for the terrorist attacks are members of Saddam’s Baathist party and, even on occasion, former members of Hussein’s elite Republican Guard, while the vast majority of the Iraqi people have welcomed the coalition’s presence in Iraq and are reveling at the idea of a democratically controlled government.

Once the Coalition Forces and the UN have ensured that Iraq is physically secure – both outside and inside its borders – they will be able to move on to aiding in the reconstruction of Iraq. With security present, the UN and United States could focus on building an economy that is not skewed by omnipresent corruption and is not overly dependent on imports, a national army, capable of defending Iraq, whose focus is on conventional warfare and defense instead of WMDs, a strong educational system that would allow Iraq to become politically self sustaining and relieving tension between the different tribes. However, at least at home, the citizens of the United States are impatient, partly because President Bush neglected to tell his people that the reconstruction of Iraq would take as long as it has already, and partly because the United States population resents whatever it deems as “over involvement.” Yet, in order for A) Iraq to succeed as a democracy and B) for the Arab region and the international audience to see that the United States operated not based on our sole interest, but also out of a devoted concern about the welfare of the Arab states, the United States must maintain an active military presence until Iraq is ready to police within and around its own borders, which could take more than a few years.