Why we all need to know about Iraq

Zoe Hatsios

If I asked you which political party Saddam Hussein rose to power through, I bet you could not tell me. So why were 72% of Americans supportive of the invasion in 2003?

Political elites have an incredible amount of issue framing influence, and this was exhibited most evidently by President George W. Bush’s coverage of the political tumult in Iraq; not only was he able to persuade the public, but he pressured intelligence into an inaccurate report that Saddam was fostering nuclear arms - enough speculation to provide reason to invade immediately.

So when it became clear that Saddam actually did not have a nuclear arsenal, why didn’t we back out?

These are the questions foreign policy theorists should continue to ask. This action violated international law yet was still supported by a majority of the American public 5 years later. When I began to study this issue, I realized that this partially boils down to simple grand strategy alignment. Offshore balancers may criticize the War on Terror from the get-go, but others suggest that it is the duty of the United States to be a global policeman and spread democracy worldwide.

I am skeptical of the latter theory for multiple reasons, but what became most clear to me is that general US leadership and average Americans know virtually nothing about different cultures, specifically those that fall under non-democratic regime types. When Saddam Hussein first took hold of the Iraqi Ba’ath government in mid-1979, the party had been flourishing for a decade and state-sponsored employment was at a high. Prior to the Ba’athist occupation, no government had been in stable power in the region since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, by 2003, despite Saddam’s intense repression and human rights abuses, some citizens felt as though American invasion was an infringement on a safe haven that Iraq had not experienced for almost a century.

Saddam Hussein was not fostering a nuclear arsenal. His regime was (initially) relatively successful and the party is still in power, although weakened, in Syria. Unlike the complete lack of nationhood that was resembled by Afghanistan, the most significant issues in Iraq arose from the treatment of rebels, aside from US distaste for authoritarianism. Tangentially, war is not an effective tactic for long-term state-building. All to say, the Bush Administration made a huge mistake, which the US government is literally still paying for. American intervention actually encouraged the rise of major terrorist groups, such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Yet, we still look at the Middle East and say, “let’s help - let’s democratize.” Public support for troops in the Middle East is actually growing. Despite the immense amount of defense dollars spent and the background rise of new hegemons (namely, China), US foreign policy remains focused on the oil-rich, terror-stricken region.

And maybe this could be beneficial - if a non-violent approach was taken.

Even I could learn so much more valuable information about the Middle East: this is by no means comprehensive. It is just a starting point for holding skepticism in our country’s foreign policy decisions.