US has used their presence in the Middle East towards their benefit

Introduction

Since the start of the War on Terror, the US government has had a lead role in the Middle East issues. It has infiltrated the region through its military presence and other means like diplomatic and economic partnership. With the strong military presence in Middle East, it has been able to gain some control of how things are down there. Whether militarily or any other way, the US presence in the region should be limited to resolving matters that only pose a direct threat to its national security. However, a problem arises where the reasons for involvement in the affairs of the region are questionable. The government has used the presence as an opportunity to benefit itself in the long run but not only to control aspects that do not threaten the country’s security. It has faced indirect competition from the Russian government that has been using diplomatic tactics and sometimes war to penetrate the Middle East region. However, presence of oil in the region has heightened the economic interest of U.S authorities with every President that takes office supporting the reasons for continued complete involvement. Being a major superpower, the US uses its diplomatic, economic, and military prowess to stamp its authority as a key player in the region to satisfy its national interests (Simon & Jonathan, 1). The US has for a long time has shown more concern for the affairs indirectly by resolving to make particular foreign policies that favor its interest. It supported the late Saddam Hussein in the eighties during the Iraq-Iran war because Iran was posing a threat to the region. However, when Iraq under Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait in 1990, it sparked off a war with the US, and that led to the Gulf war. It spearheaded the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq resulting to too much suffering. Hence, resentment grew towards the US by those who were sympathetic to the Iraq people, especially the Arabic nations. The same scenario continues to recent times where the US only get involved in affairs of the region from which it can benefit. In this essay I will discuss how the US should get involved in Middle Eastern issues, because I believe the US has often been reacting to issues that cannot benefit it, or making a big issues out of matters that just serves its wellbeing, and then involve other nations in issues that only work to its benefit.

 The War on Terror has up to today been handled by two different commanders in chief, each of them having different ideologies on how to fight terror. The theories are not only different but raise a lot of opposing arguments. A major difference is seen where President Bush approach has involved a lot of aggressiveness but the Obama approach has erred into idealism a lot of wishful thinking though things have changed with time (Stern par.7).  The first half of the War on Terror was under the command of President George W. Bush. The Bush tactic on the war on terror was based on military action and is the period of the war that faced many questions on morality. The Obama way was more strategic rather than physical. Even though both had different ideas on how to fight terrorism, it seems that Obama has continued to use the Bush approach instead of changing it. The relationship between counterterrorism approaches used by Bush and Obama has as much change as continuity. (Stern par.7). That is a reason to raise eyebrows because the desired thing by many people is to see an end to this global war on terrorism. Aggression tactics or force has been used on some occasions to fight the enemies at the expense of civilian casualties such as in Afghanistan. The presence of American troops in Middle Eastern territories has easily been used not only for other reasons but for tgaining control of the oil market. American troops heavily conquered Middle Eastern armies and counted with much more economic support.

 

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the US policies on terror were changed and its muscle tightened to ensure that it wins war on terrorism. It showed its real objectives when it overthrew the Taliban government in Afghanistan and sent a clear message that it was serious about fighting terrorism (Lynch par.4). The US authority has since then been coordinating with governments with similar objective of fighting global terrorism carried out by terror groups such as Al Qaeda and the ISIS. The big issue is whether the US government is really committed to fighting terrorism or there are other motivating factors for it involvement. There appears to be falsehoods in the true spirit of the American involvement in fighting global terror (Telatar par.6). The livelihoods of many people are threatened by this animal called terrorism and yet the true spirit to fight it is questionable and raises doubts. It should be noted that the war on terror was officially launched moments after the 9/11 attacks where the Taliban and Al Qaeda were targeted. Michel Chossudovsky points out in his bestselling book that the whole attack was preplanned and that America was much aware of it. The war that was launched against Afghanistan within a spurn of few days was hard to believe. It was like that decision had been made earlier and the public was deceived by the state. Different conspiracies have studied the facts and have come to different conclusions that make it questionable. The US was supporting the Al Qaeda in the Balkans, and that meant that there were connections between the two. The US wanted to destabilize the Yugoslavian federation through ethnic conflicts and not just to fight terror. It is highly suspected that the US simply wants its military to be dominant in the world by purporting to fight terror and thereby gain other interests. Other observations about structural loop holes have been made. Those countries that threaten global security are attacked by the military and eventually dominance is established (Gerges ,par.4). The actual nature of America's purpose of fighting terror is unclear. Every successive US administration has been supporting terrorist organizations through top intelligence with the sole intention of creating unstable societies. There were connections between the US intelligence and the terrorist networks whereby they were in constant collaboration. That is never put in the public domain. Economic benefits also come along with the war on terror as the US positions itself to utilize existing resources and also establish its military bases. It is the joy of America to see other societies unstable. The Obama administration has for instance refused to support Syria with military aid, and it tells a lot about the US policy on the civil war in Syria. The military bases established all over the world helps the US to be in a good position to defend or wither any potential attacks to its interests.

       The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was not just intended to liberate Iraq, but the US had its agenda well set. The US has for the longest time pretending to support certain political establishments but in scrutinizing, it has always had hidden agendas. As history shows, the US would love to create instability in countries of interest so that it comes in and establish its control more so militarily. Even after Saddam Hussein was defeated and normalcy restored, the alleged weapons of mass destruction were not found. It was just a ploy by the US to gain access and benefit from the oil resources in the Middle East (Lynch par.5). The US support of the Shiite army was defended by saying that it was not helping the ones associated with extremism but rather those Shiite militias that were supporting the Iraq security forces. That was a tactic by the US government to avoid the blame. The US said that the extremist elements would be fought by all means. It acknowledged the fact that some of those militants represented local tribes that had the true intentions of restoring Iraq whereas others wanted to create further instability. Some of the local groups were associated with terrorism such as the Hezbollah Brigades (Simon & Jonathan par.3). Many critics claim that all these was just the Washington propaganda or tactic to avoid the blame. Many welcome the idea of Iran partnering with the US even though it fought against it during the Iraq-Iran war. 

Even though the US's involvement is questionable, some may argue that the US has been placed in a position where pulling out is not an option. And when questioning morality one may say that the US has crossed the line in their immersions in these matters, but others may say that it is immoral for them to pull back from a war they started. After having created much more conflicts, leaving matters like this would be quite immoral as well. “The Arab Spring was a challenge to Obama's tactical approach to the Middle East. It suddenly propelled the region to back the US foreign policy agenda. The majority of Americans want little to do with the greater Middle East, and the US officials are finding it hard to turn away” (Krieg par.3). That brings raises a question on whether the involvement of the US in Middle Eastern matters is more beneficial or not. What is the most moral solution for the US relation with the Middle East right now? Is it to pull back and leave behind the war they started or to keep their presence there while shifting things towards their benefit? Or maybe is the US capable of leaving their military presence in the Middle East just as a mediator without having to shift outcomes towards their benefit? Many questions and dilemmas arises from this.

 U.S.-IRAQ Relations

According to Kuniholm (45) the US under the pretense of building a dedicated relationship, strategic partnerships and also with the Iraqi people decided to withdraw troops from Iraq. It formed a milestone in the two country’s relations as Iraq continued to develop as an independent and sovereign state. The war was fought, and the US already won it war of exerting influence in the countries affairs. Being sovereign is the farce, the diplomatic relations will work for the USA government and even though their troops have left, the under dealings will still exist to benefit the American administration. Iraq is new a key ally of the US government in the Middle East. The US were worried about the growing influence of the Russian government in the Middle East. They decided to stake their presence and turn things in their favor. Oil form an essential part of the global economy, country’s that mine oil is a force to reckon with in the global affair, for the thus reason the US government wanted to be the power behind the power. In the pretense of creating stability and peace in the Middle East, the US government have continued to see their interest and influence sour both politically and economically for this reason (Kuniholm 78). The U.S maintains a vigorous and abroad engagement with Iraq on a diplomatic, political, and economic and security issues. They have influenced every arm of the Iraq government to ensure smooth flow of their interest.

 

Statistical evidence suggests that the US economy has been boosted by his growing influence in the Middle East. For generations, the infiltration of US commodities into the Middle East market was marred with a lot of obstacles as most believers in Islam termed non-believers infidels and their products not accepted in the Islamic faith. Right now was see doubled figures of US products going round in Iraq and another part of Middle East. In 2011 the two-way trade registered 16.9 billion dollars with US exports to Iraq running at 2.4 billion dollars which were an increase of 46.8% from 2010 while Iraqi exports most notably being oil was at 16.9 billion dollars almost entirely as suggested before consisting of crude oil (Tenet 73). It is a two-fold increase in oil exportation because the figures registered before the invasion way below. In 2012 exports totaled 951.7 million down and imports totaled down from 1.365 billion dollars.

 

To get their oil without much fuss, the US as integrated Iraq into the International community and Iraq for the first time as become a member for accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO). US government being the superpower,  is pulling his weight, resources and influence to please Iraq and make them owe the US debt so that one day it can back out of the deal (Sharp 52). In a way not understood by Western nations religion remains a uniting factor in most countries in the Middle East, to divide and rule them The US government has championed for freedom of worship and allowed Christians to become part of this region without getting persecuted. With their hands tied, the Iraq government has decided to sing to the tune so as to continue enjoying the benefits accorded to them in the international scene. With the creation of division due to the many Christians who leave with a different mindset and liberation of women as compared to Islamic teachings, the US government has been able to boost its trade and gains from the oil exploration. A divided nation focuses on the individual accumulation of wealth. The Iraq people has lived in a condition of dictatorship, and lack of freedom and ideal sovereignty and now they see the US government as Allah sent and will do anything to make sure their diplomatic relationships is not violated.

 

Many world emerging powers depend on oil to survive, so there is a second-order effect to the US if supply is reduced from the Middle East or compromised. They see the essence of control of oil exportation to other countries like Japan which is the world’s largest importer of liquefied natural gas. Control of Middle East means control of other parts of the world. The US needs oil to continue its influence in the world. The only way to do this promotes propaganda and find reasons to invade a country and exert its influence (Kuniholm 45). We see this in Libya case, a country which is now dwindling economically after the death Muammar Gaddafi, who had ruled his country with an iron fist even though at that particular time Libya was enjoying world’s status as a developed country. Libya’s influence in Africa was growing by the day due to good use the leader placed on its natural resources. The world accused Libya's leader for being dictatorial, and he was ousted and killed after years of proper use of natural oil reserves (Tenet 68). The US feared a rebellious country, especially in Africa, and thus decided to end the so called tyranny.  Years after Gadhafi’s death, Libya’s citizens are still in shock of the high instability that has engulfed the country. The same is going on in the Middle East where countries with large oil fields are destabilized and then the world’s superpower comes in to rescue the situation and later leaving behind a system that will ensure that their interests are safeguarded.

The US troops are evenly found all over the Middle East and foreign military presence in a country means that the sovereignty of that country has been violated. It lacks the freedom to conduct government business without the interference of the US government (Sharp 52). Countries in the Middle East will never be sovereign not unless the troops, and secret intelligence of US government totally evacuates.

 

4. "When it became evident in 2014 that the US Air Force was providing indirect air support for Shiite militias and Iranian advisers in Iraq in the fight against the group known as ISIS, the world was stunned" (Krieg par.3). It is this type of actions that have started to raise eyebrows and make the US intentions questionable. As Krieg said the world was stunned, stunned by the US's abuse of monetary power to influence outcomes to their liking. A country that has the amount of power like the US,needs to use its power responsibly. The responsible way of utilizing power is making decisions that are in the best interest of populations of all countries rather than shifting it all towards their nation’s well-being. Even though the US is fighting a war against terror, one might question their integrity on the matter. Since the US started to rise to power they hold today and be one of the most powerful nations (or most powerful) they have used the art of violence to create fear in civilians and other nations. Terrorizing Violence is defined by Bonds as "methods of violence in which civilians are intentionally targeted with the goal of creating fear or intimidation. “This kind of military action involves counter attacking the opponent's military and directly threatening or attacking innocent civilians to create fear and make a statement of power. We have seen the US committing several of such attacks that clearly fall under terrorizing violence. A good example  was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War 2.Apart from destroying a massive amount of civilian territory, the attack also took the lives of thousands and thousands of people (many times more than 9/11 attacks).

 

 It defeats logic for the US to be at the frontline wedging war on terrorism and yet it has been terrorizing other nations and even its citizens. The US military is reported to have been torturing suspected militants in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also conduct air raids and other military operations that end up affecting the civilian settlements and even causing death (Gerges par.3). The Abu Ghraib horrors and other forms of torture are just clear examples of how the US cannot have the confidence to say that it champions human rights. The blame and condemnation are further shifted to the Obama administration for its failure to prosecute any persons involved in torture during the Bush's administration. It is the same script that is played by every successive regime, and that puts to doubt America's position on protecting human rights. It cannot be forgotten that torture existed in the history of the US more so against the slaves. The police department is blamed for some of the tortures especially against people of color. In the past, an African-American could be tortured to send shivers or fear to the rest of the black community. The US does not regard its actions as terrorism and yet they cause suffering to the populations. Drone attacks are common in the Middle East, and the US uses that as a signal to its enemies that they can be attacked anytime so long as they pose a danger. These drone attacks cause fear to the rest of the population. In general, the US involves itself in both domestic and international terrorism, but it would not admit.

 

Conclusion

 The legitimacy of the US in fighting international or global terrorism is put in doubt because it dishonestly aims to benefit itself either directly or indirectly. The US is not morally right to hide its antiterrorism agenda. Although I started to think really of a solution to solve the question of whether the US has abused its military presence in the Middle East, the answer didn't seem to pop up quickly into my head. Reflecting on this I thought of something I saw, where people voted to raise awareness of corruption with the goal of having some public justice for the crimes committed by corrupt leaders around the world. I believe the court’s judgment on this issue should be open to public opinion since the ability of abuse of power by big nations is common. Most of these hearings where leaders exchange information are closed, and little information is leaked. The world has been overwhelmed by wars in Middle Eastern regions which Iraq started and led the way. The wars have caused increased terrorist attacks all over the world. If the US pulls back from military infiltration, would it be possible to make the war stop? Or will control over terrorist groups be lost, and they become more powerful, thus increasing the threat?

 

The USA government has been known for mediating in civil wars of other countries if there are possible economic, social and political interest in them. It is obvious that their intervention in Middle-East territories is driven by their interest in the oil fields that are not depleting. The US, as mentioned above, first supported Saddam Hussein during his war against Iran and the question is why it had to change that position and later fight him. Although he is dead and buried, US military presence is still heavy in the war-torn areas like Libya. The US mission in Iraq will continue being relevant unless they lose the power to control the region or the oil depletes. Some countries have faced unfairly been mistreated by USA government and the USA military. Libya for instance serves as good case study on the USA dictatorial measures of controlling the most valuable commodity on the planet (Kuniholm 37). After years of mining oil, especially during the Rockefeller days, US oil fields have depleted and owing to the largest yearly budget in the world,they had to find ways to get back into control so as to maintain their country’s status and also exert influence on a global scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Gerges, Fawaz A. "The Obama Approach to the Middle East: The End of Americas Moment?"  Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 11 Mar.  2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.

Krieg, Andreas. "Externalizing the Burden of War: The Obama Doctrine and US Foreign Policy   in the Middle East." Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. N.p., Jan. 2016. Web.    25 Feb. 2016.

Lynch, Marc. "Obama and Terrorism: Rightsizing the U.S. Role." Foreign Affairs 1 Sept. 2015:   n. pag. Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Simon, Steven, and Jonathan ,Stevenson. "The End of Pax Americana: Why Washington's Middle  East Pullback Makes Sense." Foreign Affairs1 Nov. 2015: n. pag. Academic Search   Premier [EBSCO]. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.

Stern, Jessica. "Obama and Terrorism: Like It or Not the War Goes on." Foreign Affairs 1 Sept.   2015: n. pag. Academic Search Premier [EBSCO]. Web. 25 Feb. 2016. 

Telatar, Gökhan. "Barack Obama, the War on Terrorism and the US Hegemony."    Web.b.ebscohost.com. Alternative Turkish Journal of International Relations, 1 Dec.   2014. Web. 25 Feb. 2016.