Abstract

 

The war in Iraq is being fought for many reasons. Some of these reasons are known by the world, and some of these reasons are not known. We are not privy to all the information that exists in the world powers’ minds. The UN, the United States, and Great Britain have been discussing the war, how it is going, and what their plans are to ensure success. 

            There should be no conspiracy theories, however many citizens of the world believe that the American interest in the war is primarily being fought for President Bush’s own agenda; to make American oil companies rich. If this were the case, then a war would not be necessary. They could just have lifted sanctions against Iraq, and done trade with the country. The United States is not the only country interested in the abundant oil supplies that lie in wait under Iraqi sand. France, Russia, and China, who were already friendly with Iraq were promised that they would continue to maintain their interests in the oil before they would agree to end the tyranny of the ruler that was conducting atrocities against the citizens of Iraq.

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom is not about democracy, it’s about the Republican and President Bush’s desire to control the oil interests in the Middle East. You will hear this every time the subject of someone’s relative or friend is over in the Middle East trying to do their part for the country. I have heard this many times myself and find that I cannot agree with the concept. There are too many reasons for the war to continue, and only one of them may contain the prospect of oil that can be used to help fuel our SUV’s, our electricity, and our economy. Since the origin of recorded history, Iraq has been attacked for their natural resources, from their fertile land between two rivers, to the water sources in the arid region. Today oil is the popular assumption for the war. I will endeavor to provide viable proof that there is more to Operation Iraqi Freedom than the greed of a single American.

 

The United States government was given information provided by advisors, and those who have been investigating the happenings in other parts of the world, about weapons of mass destruction. This was an original purpose for the invasion into Iraq. The heinous, terrorist dictator, Saddam Hussein, was also an initial cause for the war. When the government of Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1990, the country of Iraq had stockpiled massive amounts of chemical weapons to be used for the mass destruction of their enemies. After the first Gulf War was over, the UN mandated the Iraqi regime destroy all WMD’s that still existed as part of their pact of peace for the region. Saddam Hussein and his political Baath party promised they would do just that. Recently locations have been found with remnants of intact WMD supplies, buried in the sand. Some hold the chemicals sarin and mustard gas, both which are used in the manufacture of WMD’s (Goler, et al, 2004). In other locations the UN security council’s inspection team found warheads and missiles as well. When the United States citizens refuse to pay attention to all the information provided, pick and choose that which they wish to hear, and continue to complain instead of working toward a positive conclusion to the unrest in the Middle East, then the troops who are far from their loved ones, from safety and freedom, will feel a better idea of their purpose in that foreign land.

 

I propose that the war in Iraq is about liberation and freedom. Helping the people of Iraq to allow themselves their own thoughts, and to not be a victim of any other people is the primary goal of this encounter. George Bush is not an evil, greedy maniac who is only looking to get rich off the oil of another country. He is not in the pocket of oil tycoons, even though his money comes from oil. I feel annoyed by the narrow minded beliefs of those who choose to believe that this war is only for the profitability of a single group of people. I am truly patriotic, follow the information that is provided by the media, but know to take it with a grain of salt. I understand that the United States is a free-thinking nation, and I refuse to allow the hate or disgust of a few radical Americans to sway my view from those things I hold true to my heart. Even if the war in Iraq has some foundations in improving the energy situation in the United States, the service men and women fighting and giving their lives do not fight for oil. They have a more honorable mission before them. The more we speak out of ignorance, the more demoralized those brave people become. Let’s back the people, back the cause, and hope it all comes to fruition soon. In a nutshell, I am tremendously irritated by the ‘war about oil’ rhetoric that I hear every day.

 

If the reports are true, those that state the reasons for the war were oil related, but that the US failed in its attempts to secure the oil for their own countries, then why are they not saying the same of other countries? France, Russia, and China have had holdings in Iraq for years, but the sanctions against the export of oil that was imposed by the UN has kept even countries friendly to Iraq from oil profits. The knowledge that other countries are also interested in the oil proceeds greatly reduces the strength of the argument that President Bush is in the Middle East for oil control (Paul, J. 2007). If sanctions against Iraq oil are lifted too soon it is believed that the repercussions would be that the American interests would be the ones profiting from the oil that is produced and sold from Iraq (Mahajan, R. 2003). In addition to this, Deal Hudson, reporting for Catholic City, also discusses facts that not only is the United States interested in fair trade of the oil that exists in the Iraqi desert, but those countries who were friendly with the Hussein regime were promised that they would not lose their interests. Mr. Hudson also adds that the war on terror, which exists because of the cooperation of Middle East countries, must be stopped and that much of the terrorists that are active were funneling through Iraq; and that must stop. The religious leaders of the world agree that there are many more strong and reasonable issues for the war (2007). Those other countries, France, Russia, and China would not have agreed to invade Iraq, as part of the UN, unless they were assured by the rest of the organization that their current interests in oil acquisition would continue to exist.

 

In light of historical reasons to deny export of oil in the past, which included the atrocities conducted by Saddam Hussein and his cohorts, the sanctions were in place for good cause, but by poor decision. The UN placed the sanctions on the development of oil extraction for Iraq and in turn their citizens were not given the food and medicine that they needed to take care of their young and their sick. As long as Saddam Hussein was in power, as long as he was torturing the citizens of the country, the UN was not going to lift their sanctions. The United States is a powerful part of the UN, and they were blamed for much of the suffering of the Iraqi people because of the sanctions. If the United States and President Bush were so interested in the acquisition of oil for American interests, why would they have encouraged the sanctions against Iraq?

 

Stephen Hayes has done an extensive report that discussed several viable and non-oil related reasons that the war in Iraq had to be started, and why it needs to be resolved. He speaks of the atrocities of the Baath regime and their cooperation to this day with the terrible crimes against humanity that were conducted with the blessing of Saddam Hussein. That those who still follow those ways need to be stopped before the country can be truly at peace (2003). This justifies my stance that there is more to the war than oil. As long as Saddam Hussein has those who are loyal to his original cause there will be unrest and violence in the Middle East, primarily Iraq. The soldiers who lost so quickly during Operation Desert Storm are still feeling the embarrassment of the surrender. They wish to be redeemed in the eyes of their countrymen by making sure that the United States and their supporters do not defeat them so easily this time.

 

Speaking of atrocities that were conducted by the Baath regime in the name of their religion and because they wanted to show their power and authority, very graphic information has been discussed. The lengths the terrorists, hiding in Iraq, would use children was documented extensively. They would utilize them to kidnap and murder for them. Each was given a bicycle and a gun, and they were paid to do the bidding of the terrorists. The worst thing in the article is mention of an 11 year old child who was abducted. His family was invited to a dinner banquet by the terrorists for the purpose of trying to convince them to join the cause. When dinner was served, their child, the 11 year old boy, his mouth stuffed, was baked and served for dinner to his own family. When terrible crimes as this one become better known, more people will be able to understand why the coalition is fighting (2003).

 

The United States government had an independent study on the war in Iraq, and they found information which they published and provided, to the American people after being distributed, to the United States Congress on December 6, 2006. The study, called the Iraq Study Group Report, found that a premature withdraw of troops from Iraq would subsequently distress the country even more than if they were to stay. There is suggestion that the neighboring countries’ survival depends on whether peace can be obtained in Iraq, that they need to do more to help the coalition. Otherwise, those who are causing the discord in Iraq will filter into the other countries. If the US and coalition troops do withdraw, then there will be no one to keep the insurgents from the other peaceful countries. When other countries are also in danger, then the course of protection for them is clear, and obvious.

 

In reference to the premise about Operation Iraqi Freedom being about American control of oil that is rich under the earth in Iraq, Walton’s theory of an invalid argument can be applied (p. 121, 2007). Yes, there is a war in Iraq, and yes, Iraq has a large untapped supply of crude oil underground, but although President Bush called for the war, he alone was not able to send troops into battle. The United States Congress is required to receive the request, and vote yes for a war to be accepted. This is part of the checks and balances that have been in place for government officials since the beginning of American democracy. In addition to Congress voting for the war, the United Nations also agreed to accept the request for a battle with Saddam Hussein, the Baath party, and Iraqi insurgents. The United States is not the only country that is fighting in Iraq, and President Bush is not the only one interested in Iraqi oil. In addition, Walton’s theory modus ponens can also be utilized in this same premise (p. 110, 2007). Just because the United States uses oil, just because President Bush has interests in oil acquisition and production does not equate immediately to the idea that since Iraq has oil, President Bush wants it. Again, the US is not the only country interested in the oil that exists there.

 

Walton discusses logical premises (p. 109, 2007) which would be To remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminate atrocities conducted against the citizens, enable citizens the right to choice, and hold property, be educated, be safe from tyranny, and to hold property and earn a fair wage. Each of these ideas is globally agreeable, and should be considered viable, and valid in argument.

 

The sanctions were written by the United Nations, and not by the Republican President of the United States. The United States is a powerful nation, and if they had wanted the control of the oil in Iraq badly enough, they could have politically walked into the country and received, without any bloodshed, the oil that exists there. There are many rich oil companies in the United States who would have happily provided subsidies to acquire such a rich acquisition.

 

Interest based conflicts are a logical and viable consideration for the war in Iraq (Walton, p. 109, 2007). The atrocities that were being conducted against those who were against the regime should have never been done, and should have been stopped. Torture, experimentation, and execution of those who disagreed with Saddam Hussein were unacceptable to civilized nations. If terrorists were allowed to continue to filter through Iraq, then the neighboring countries would also have been in danger. Hussein had already proven several times through history that he was willing to fight to take control of more of the Middle Eastern countries, including the unprovoked attack on Kuwait in 1990. If early troop withdraw occurs, then other countries will again be endangered. Terrorists will be able to gain a stronghold. The terrorists would find ways to profit from the oil that is so abundant under the ground. Neighboring countries have a vested interest in peace in Iraq as an integral part of their own security. In addition to being an interest based conflict, it is also global relevance which keeps the war on its current course (p. 78, 2007). If terrorism is allowed to exist no one can truly be free or safe. There will always be someone ready to attack again in the future if they are not shown a better way today. Terrorists have never held high regard for life, other religions, other parts of the world, or something as basic as freedom. They would rather have a few in command, a few who will do their obscene bidding with no remorse for their actions, and the rest being led as sheep to the slaughter.

 

Logical and sensible premises for the war in Iraq are to rid the world of terrorism, to hit terrorism at its source, in the Middle East, to try to contain the same from other countries. In addition it is known that this form of terrorism was born in the Middle East from radical Muslim groups who have a hate for free thought. They desire to keep their numbers controlled by their radical teachings from a very young age, and they also choose to maintain that it is acceptable to keep their women uneducated, and abused, physically, mentally, and sexually.

 

Operation Iraqi Freedom is being fought for numerous reasons. It is probable that one of the outlying reasons could be oil but why would a fully functional country, with many resources of their own, jeopardize the lives of thousands of Americans, as well as innocent civilians in other countries, to obtain something that is so abundant otherwise? The atrocities of the Hussein regime, the poor condition of the country, and the lack of freedom for the women, men and children in Iraq are great reasons to try to reduce the amount of terrorism in the world. To be the protectors of the world means that one is not always the most popular, but they are the most effective.

 

As long as there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines giving their lives, running for cover, protecting families, carrying orphaned children from harm’s way, then there has to be a greater good, a bigger purpose. When angry Americans, Canadians, Europeans, and others begin yelling loudly about things they do not fully understand, then those same troops will begin to feel as the troops who gave their lives, their health, their limbs for another war, the police action that occurred in the late 1960’s in Viet Nam. Fear and anger that is felt by the loved ones who are safe in America is felt a thousand-fold by those who are under fire every day. The best thing that we can do for them is to bring them home however their work is not yet finished. My children and the children, fathers, and mothers of other Americans chose their path. They chose to make others safe, to make them free. If the war in Iraq is about oil, then the war is a futile attempt at profiteering. If Operation Iraqi Freedom is about liberation, about safety and security, about making a world that is safer for everyone to live in, then those brave souls are doing the very best that they are able to do. We should embrace our country and we should embrace our relatives and friends who have made this choice. We should not feed into the rhetoric of a few people who have strong voices, and uninformed opinions.

 

I, for one, am thankful that there are laws and freedoms in the United States that will allow those to have their negative opinions without losing their lives. I am also thankful that those same freedoms are afforded to me, as a woman, to refute their statements. To be a female and educated is a privilege that I am not going to waste on following blindly behind a few people in the United States who are spreading the same kinds of hate and rhetoric that are spread throughout the Middle East to keep their citizens fighting and killing ours and their own.

 

When the women can learn to read, when the children can play in their front yards. When grass can grow and flowers can bloom, then and only then will the mission of those brave coalition forces be complete. Whether oil is acquired from this country or not, the purpose is to keep everyone safe; those in Iraq, those in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even the United States and Great Brittan deserve this small right. It is not a privilege to be free, it is a human right.

 

 

Baker, J., Hamilton, L., Eagleburger, L., Jordan, V, Meese, E., O’Connor, S.D., Panetta, L., Perry, W., Robb, C., Simpson, A., (2006). The Iraq Study Group, US Government, retrieved on August 28, 2007 from http://www.bakerinstitute.org/Pubs/iraqstudygroup_findings.pdf.

Casey, P. (2007). Why are we fighting in Iraq, The Stump, AOL news elections blog, retrieved on August 28, 2007 from http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/07/23/why-we-are-fighting-in-iraq-from-knowing-individuals/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Felections-blog%2F2007%2F07%2F09%2Fwhy-we-are-fighting-in-iraq%2F&frame=true.

Goler, W. Harrigan, S. McCaleb, I, Porteus, L, Rosen, J. (2004). Sarin, mustard gas discovered separately in Iraq, FoxNews.com, retrieved on September 24, 2007 from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html.

Hayes, S. (2003). Why are we fighting in southern Iraq? The Daily Standard, Management Information Consulting Inc, Washington, D.C. retrieved on August 28, 2007 from   http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/431feqme.asp.

Hudson, D. (2007). War for oil? CatholiCity.com © 1996-2007 The Mary Foundation, retrieved on August 28, 2007 from http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/hudson/warforoil.html.

Mahajan, R. (2003). Don’t lift the sanctions yet, ZNet, online magazine. Retrieved on August 28, 2007 from http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3594.

Paul, J. (2007). Oil in Iraq, Global Policy Forum, New York, NY, retrieved on August 28, 2007 from http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm.

Walton, D (2007). Informal logic, a handbook for critical argumentation, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.