Iraq Interview, Part 5

Here is the continuation of my interview on Iraq. Check out Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 first.

Q: Will granting Iraq's neighbors a role in stabilizing the country give them added clout in Iraq? Wouldn't that allow Iran and Syria more influence within Iraq?
A: Well, we've talked about Iran, but I understand your point. No matter which countries you name, there are the same negatives and positives in allowing Iraq's neighbors a greater role in Iraq. Fundamentally, we need to get away from the "Great Game" style of thinking. These are not spaces on a chessboard; these are nations with human beings residing within their borders. America's actions directly impact the lives of these people.

Q: What will be the positives and negatives of an increased role for Iraq's neighbors in stabilizing the situation?
A: The negatives include heightened influence for countries that the U.S. deems as enemies. Whether or not Iraq is allied with Iran or Syria does not constitute a significant threat to the U.S. unless America perceives it as one. For example, Iran is a poor country that does not possess a nuclear weapon. Even if Iran did, the military mite of the U.S. far exceeds that of Iran. The Iranian threat has, to a large degree, been manufactured by politicians and policy-makers. The very same ones who told us that Iraq was a grave and urgent threat to U.S. security.

But let's look at another country in the region that is an American ally. Turkey, with reluctant support from the U.S., has invaded northern Iraq to go after the PKK, a Kurdish group. Turkey has a history of brutal repression against their own Kurdish minority. We must realize that American allies are not always right and America's so-called enemies are not always wrong. Much of the anti-American feelings among average Muslims are due in part to America's support of corrupt and repressive regimes in the Muslim world.

Q: Can you conceive of a situation where U.S. troops would have to come back to Iraq after withdrawing?
A: No. Iraq is already in chaos. The sad fact is that there have been civil wars all over the world in recent years. For example, in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Angola, Liberia, Tajikistan, Sudan and others. America has either exacerbated these conflicts or ignored them. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, Iraq will not be peaceful. So, as much as we would like to think that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq will prevent deaths, the opposite has proved to be, and will continue to be, true. As I've mentioned, there is no impetus to negotiate for peace from outside forces because of antipathy towards the U.S. If peace only helps the Iraqis and does not legitimize America's invasion, the wider world will step in.

The U.S. must realize that its interests are not the most important entity at stake. The lives of the American soldiers and those of Iraqis are the most precious resource. Every action must be taken to limit the killing. The only logical thing to do is to cut off the source of the killings, which is America's presence in Iraq.