This isn’t a column about the thousands of U.S. troops who have come back from Iraq maimed or in body bags. This column isn’t about the estimated $2 trillion the war in Iraq will cost. This is about why we fight and why, every day we stay in Iraq, it becomes an inherently less stable country.
The rationale for U.S. involvement in Iraq has been rather fluid, to say the least. Instead of answering the question of what our rationale is for fighting in Iraq, it may be useful to consider what intention we project to the world and to Iraq. One word: profit.
It’s hard to imagine any Iraqi wouldn’t feel colonized. According to a Feb. 12, 2008, Reuters report, unemployment and poverty remain a huge problem in Iraq. Couple that with a report by The New York Times that estimates there are 126,000 U.S. private contractors in Iraq, and you can instantly see the tension.
The number of American companies profiting off the war in Iraq is astounding. Companies ranging from DynCorp to Halliburton to Kellogg all have multi-million dollar government-subsidized contracts to operate in Iraq. No company exemplifies the extent to which the reconstruction of Iraq has been dominated by U.S. commercial influence more than Blackwater Worldwide. Blackwater, the private security company owned by an evangelical Christian and longtime Republican donor, has thousands of private mercenaries in Iraq performing various security details. Since the war began, it is estimated Blackwater has received more than $800 million in government contracts, many of which were no-bid contracts. This means the government handed Blackwater the money without even seeing if another company would do the work on more favorable terms.
Recently, Blackwater came under fire for the deaths of eight Iraqis. By the State Department’s own admission, “innocent life was lost.” In response to massive outcry from the Iraqi people, the Iraqi government banned Blackwater from Iraq. However, the Iraqi government was later persuaded by the U.S. to allow Blackwater to continue operating in Iraq.
This event serves as a microcosm of what is happening in Iraq. It is true that violence is down. However, roadside bombings and sectarian violence are daily occurrences in Iraq. Moreover, every expert opinion, such as the one rendered by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Report, has said there is no military solution in Iraq. If there is one thing every expert seems to agree upon, it’s that if there is a solution in Iraq, it will hinge on the ability of the Iraqi government to rise to the challenge ahead of it and work out political and diplomatic deals. How can the Iraqi government forge such a solution, and how can the people of Iraq have faith in the power and legitimacy of their government when corporate interests trump its rulings?
By opening up the Pandora’s box of allowing U.S. companies to rebuild Iraq, we have made it impossible to act as a neutral party promoting peace and stability. Instead, we are viewed, fairly or unfairly, as biased outsiders fighting to protect our sphere of influence. As such, our presence has become part of the problem in Iraq.
Albert Einstein once said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. As such, we must change course and enlist Iraqis in rebuilding their torn country. By withdrawing our troops and enlisting Iraqis instead of U.S. corporations in the rebuilding of their own country, we will be sending a signal to the world that we do not intend to occupy Iraq for profit. This will give the Iraqi government the legitimacy it needs to take the initial steps on the long road to rebuild its broken country. On the other hand, every day we stay, every day our military and our corporations have more say over the future of Iraq than the Iraqi people, we send Iraq further into political chaos.
Tim Hiller is a senior microbiology major and former vice president of the College Democrats. He can be reached at thriller@umd.edu.
