By Karem Muksed ’17, PoliticOle Columnist
I was born in Iraq and lived in Syria. From my experience, the invasion of Syria at this time is wrong while the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was right. Iraq and Syria are totally different countries. In 2003, when Saddam Hussein was dropped of power, there was no conflict in Iraq. It was safe in Iraq in some way. However, financially people suffered a lot. For example, a teacher used to get paid 3 dollars a month. (As a result bribes increased in Iraq) Since Iraq looked safe, no one expected what would happen in Iraq after the invasion. Violence increased in Iraq after the invasion. On the other hand, the economy of Iraq has been rising so much, the people’s wealth has been increasing. Life has become better. However, violence keeps going in Iraq. From my perspective, with all the violence in Iraq now, it is still better than Saddam Hussein era. Saddam Hussein killed many people, limited freedoms, used chemical weapons, destroyed the Iraqi economy, and destroyed Iraq international relations. Also, Saddam Hussein limited Iraq development in the structure of the buildings like hotels, store, houses…etc. Add to that, he dried the marshes, which as result now Iraq desertification is increasing.
Iraq was safe, why did it become so violent? The answer is complicated. However, it goes to the foundation of the American invasion. At the time, America made the right decision to invade Iraq, because there were no al-Qaida or any other group in Iraq. America successfully invaded Iraq. The George Bush administration’s goal was only to invade Iraq and they did not have a plan to make democracy or safety progress in Iraq. America failed miserably in keeping Iraq safe. One reason, is that from 2003 to 2004, America dissolved Iraq military and police, so there were no control in the Iraq region. Also, there was no government in Iraq. So as result, terrorists started to go into Iraq. The United States had should have put a government in Iraq right away after the invasion so America could have controlled Iraq easily.
Also, because Iran is next to Iraq, I believe Iran supports terrorists in Iraq to make America busy in Iraq, and if Iraq is stable then that means Iraq might be an ally to America. To sum it up, even though, Iraq still have violence, but it is better than before. Iraq is developing really fast especial in economics and the building structure. Sooner or later, violence will cease to exist. Iraq violence now is less than the violence in 2007 or 2008, so safety is increasing.
There is now violence in Syria but it is not really good now to strike Syria, because it is too late. There are many rebels in Syria now, and we do not know who they are. Assad should have been stopped since the starts of the revolution because at the time there was only one type of rebels. Also, the UN do not want America intervention and that’s because of Russia and China blocking the UN from intervening. In addition, the United States does not have to intervene in Syria, because the United States economy is still suffering. Let’s say if U.S removed Assad, what would the United States do next? The answer is nothing. I believe that if Assad was removed at the beginning of the revolution than the United States should have put government in Syria to rule Syria for a while and then democracy would emerge slowly. That was the only way to control Syria, but now it is too late.
Karem Muksed ’17 is a Political Science major from Glendale Heights, Illinois. Karem is a regular PoliticOle Columnist for this year. Contact Karem at firstname.lastname@example.org.