Iraq Interview, Part 4

Here is the continuation of my interview on Iraq. Check out Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 first.

Q: Assuming withdrawing the troops from Iraq is the right thing to do, it will come at a price. What about all of the innocent Iraqis who have helped America during the war?
A: That is a noble sentiment. I think it represents part of the good side of America. I sincerely hope that the administration is not playing on the good side of Americans to keep the troops in Iraq in order to further their own interests there.

As far as those innocent Iraqis are concerned, the United States can provide them with asylum or perhaps pressure its Arab allies to provide them with asylum, if uplifting to a completely different culture is too daunting. But the U.S. can't trade the lives of American soldiers and perpetuate the violence in Iraq for the sake of saving a few lives. It's a sad reality that it comes to down to that type of choice. But the question itself is very telling. It implies that pro-American Iraqis would be in danger without America protecting them, which illustrates the level of hatred that many Iraqis feel towards the United States.

Q: If the United States leaves Iraq completely, who will control Iraq's oil wealth?
A: Good question. I have no idea. Obviously, we hope that the Iraqis can come up with a wealth-sharing solution on their own. There will be international pressure for them to figure out a solution. But the U.S. cannot control Iraq's oil reserves or profit from them. It will only serve to cement anti-American feeling around the world and strengthen the reserve and the appeal of the terrorists. Any U.S. plan would be considered illegitimate for the reasons I've discussed before.

Q: Could Al Qaeda or bandits take control of Iraq's oil wealth?
A: Al Qaeda could disrupt the business of oil distribution, but I don't believe they could take control of it because of Iraqi antipathy towards them. There is a potential that war lords could control particular regions in Iraq, as has been the case in Afghanistan for decades. Those war lords would most likely also disrupt the flow of oil, rather than profit from it. However, I don't believe Iraq's neighbors would let that happen. There is too much wealth at stake.

Q: Speaking of Iraq's neighbors, is Iran's involvement in Iraq cause for concern?
A: Iran is not a serious threat to the United States. But Iran has the potential to continue to be a pest to America's interests in the region. One of the significant consequences of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime is that it was a gift to Iran. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq and Iran were enemies. They fought a war throughout the 1980s. The United States actively backed Saddam Hussein, providing him with lethal weaponry.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq provided the country's Shiites a chance to grab power. Incidentally, Iran, which is also majority Shiite, was the first country in the region to recognize the new U.S.-propagated government in Iraq. Iran supports militants in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, and there is a real chance that Iraq could be influenced by Iran. But it's important to remember than Iraq is largely an Arab country and Iran is largely a Persian one. There is a disconnect between the two ethnicities. So Iran's influence in Iraq is a minor concern, but probably nothing more.

Q: What should be the role of the United Nations?
A: The U.N. and Iraq's neighbors need to take a leading role in stabilizing Iraq. However, they are reluctant to do so because it would legitimize America's invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, the U.N. and the surrounding countries in the region would rush to Iraq's aid. The neighboring countries don't want a failed state touching their border.

Here is Part 5.