In its invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States sought to achieve its pre-determined goals in this country by using smart management of various resources. Therefore, one of the main strategies of the United States was to dominate the infrastructure of Iraq. This study elaborates on how the United States deals with the hard power resources inside Iraq. Hence, while trying to resolve the question that what are the aspects of the United States’ hard penetration in new Iraq? The current study seeks to outline the methods used by the United States to influence new Iraq especially during the period of its withdrawal from the country. The studies and research, as well as the development of the country, indicate that the United States is trying to dominate the security-military structures of Iraq through arms trades (claiming that it seeks to strengthen Iraq’s defence power), equipping the government’ opponents, using the private military and security companies and their money in order to achieve its goals at the local and international levels.
Despite the scientific and technological developments, as well as the importance of public opinion in the global arena which could change the sources of power and the way they are utilized, the use of hard power is still considered as a common method to implement strategies. This is evident in the events in Ukraine and the conflict in Crimea, and the emergence and expansion of Takfiri movements in recent years. In the meantime, a review of the military budgets of powerful countries suggests that while adopting a realistic approach regarding the current situation they continue to strengthen their hard power resources to influence and put pressure on other countries.
One significant example of using this aspect of power is the United States’ military invasion of Iraq in 2003. At that time, the United States made an all-out effort to use power resources in order to dominate the country. But the United States had to face the challenge of influencing the military-security structures of the country. The United States used military and security tools to influence Iraq’s military structures in an attempt to meet its goals in this country including utilizing energy resources and securing the process of transferring energy, containing the Islamic Republic of Iran, and guaranteeing the security of the Zionist regime. This article focuses on examining the United States military-security tools and practices for influencing Iraq, with an emphasis on military withdrawal from this country.
The Beginning of the United States’ Military Presence in Iraq
The political-social history of Iraq shows the United States' intervention in this Middle Eastern country. Suppressing the Intifada of the Shi’ahs of Iraq in 1991, the United Nations’ sanctions against Iraq, the Operation Desert Fox in 1998, the attempts to unify the Ba’ath party advocators, and finally launching a military strike against the country in 2003, are part of the United States’ interventions in Iraq.
In March 2003, The United States attacked Iraq and occupied the country in order to achieve its goals. The immediate victory in the military scene in Iraq facilitated the process of implementing the United States' plans in the country. Thus, since the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, the number of American and international companies and institutions in Iraq was significantly increased all of which sought to exploit the country’s resources and influence its various structures.
Due to unfamiliarity with the Iraqi society and the domestic dilemmas in the United States, American officials became enmeshed in the tangle of Iraq. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the United States’ unilateralism regarding this country has led to public hatred and widespread distrust. The presence of Ba’athist agents in the army and carrying out various terrorist attacks, showed the United States' failure to bring security to Iraq. Meanwhile, the key role of the Shi’ah maraja’ (religious authorities) and the spirit of anti-arrogance existed among the Iraqi people as well as the economic crisis which has become a major obstacle in the way of spending huge amounts of money in Iraq, all in all, are indicating that the United States is facing a strategic defeat in Iraq. As a result, the United States turned to sign security and strategic agreements in order to deal with this situation and relatively accomplish its goals in Iraq.
Meanwhile, although the Baghdad-Washington Security Agreement was considered a plan upon which the military forces would withdraw from Iraq, on other hand, it sought to legalize the United States’ military-security interventions in this country. Because based on the agreement, the American forces were required to provide military equipment and training for the Iraqi army so that the security of the country will be increased. However, this pretext helped them to influence various military-security levels in Iraq without creating a strong army and a powerful intelligence agency for the country.
Another matter that caused the United States to impose this agreement on Iraq is the issue of oil and the danger of Iran’s presence in Iraq. It seems that the agreement was signed for a decent withdrawal. The death of 4,500 American troops in Iraq and the high costs of this occupation reflect and confirm the failure of the United States in this country. In addition to signing the “Security Agreement,” a “Strategic Agreement” was also signed between two countries, in which the importance of reinforcing security, contributing to establishing stability and international peace, combating terrorism in Iraq, and security and defence cooperation are emphasized.
This agreement, in addition to focusing on the two countries’ military and security cooperation, addresses the issue of the United States' withdrawal from Iraq. For example, Article IV of the agreement, refers to military corporations between the United States and Iraq, training the Iraqi forces to defend their country and carrying out operations against terrorist groups. In addition to the security agreement, the conclusion of a strategic agreement between Iraq and the United States, which illustrates the future relations of the two countries in all domains, has provided more legitimacy for the United States interference in Iraq. The third article of the strategic agreement refers to defence and security cooperation between the two countries. “In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq, and thereby contributing to international peace and stability, and to enhance the ability of Iraq to deter all threats against its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, the parties shall continue to foster close cooperation concerning defence and security arrangements. Such security and defence cooperation shall be undertaken according to the agreement between the United States of America and Iraq on the withdrawal of United States’ forces from Iraq and the organization of their activities during their temporary presence in Iraq.”
The United States’ Military-Security Measures in Iraq
The United States defence and security influence in Iraq indicates that financial support for the reconstruction of the army through establishing various funds, training military forces and selling weapons to this country and the efforts to rebuild Iraq’s ground forces, navy and air force, using private security companies and combating terrorism are the most important settings for United States influence in the defence and security sectors of Iraq.
Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF): This fund was founded in 2005 to support the Iraqi security forces. These forces include the army, police, special operation forces and border guard forces. The fund includes all United States’ funds in the field of training, equipment and counterterrorism programs in Iraq between 2005 and 2011; it has three sections:
Rapid Response Fund budget: Supporting the combat units and foreseeable actions that have been repeatedly occurred. The fund would provide financial assistance for safeguarding the forces, training, and equipment. In general, concerning the security crisis in Iraq, the capital of this fund is $23 billion for six years. In 2010, the United States Department of Defence has concluded that while there is sustained growth in terms of capacity and professionalism in Iraqi forces, they still need American troops. This suggests that, for the United States government, the Iraqi security forces are still unable to independently provide the security of the country. Accordingly, with the pretext of providing financial supports, the United States aims to penetrate the Iraqi defence structure instead of strengthening the defence capabilities of the country. Therefore, despite providing the Iraqi defence sector with financial assistance, the United States, under various pretexts, does not allow the Iraqi security forces to act independently, because as it was stated, the main goal of the United States is to maintain its influence in the military-security structure of Iraq.
Training Iraqi Forces and Selling Weapons
One of the most commonly used methods of the United States' influence in the military structure of Iraq is training Iraqi military forces and law enforcement as well as selling weapons to various military units of the country.
The Role of the United States in Organizing the Iraqi Army
The initial American plans for arms sales include selling weapons to Iraqi ground forces which worth $4 billion and $2 million, but these plans have remained uncertain. In recent years, the Iraqi army has begun to create military units that possess modern heavy weapons. In the third quarter of 2010, Iraq received 11 American M1 Abrams tanks, the number of which was increased to 140 up to December 2011; this equipment did not significantly increase the military power of the country due to the lack of military capabilities in other sectors of the Iraqi army. On the other hand, the United States' initial plans to sell weapons to the Iraqi ground forces have not yet been put into effect. Accordingly, the United States’ goal of arms deals with Iraq has not been increasing its military capability, rather such deals only serve as a means of influencing and dominating Iraqi military-security sectors.
The Role of American Private Military and Security Companies in Iraq
Since the beginning of the 13th century, when piracy occurred for the first time, governments allowed the use of private military and security forces. In the 14th and 15th centuries, large private armies were found everywhere, and in the 18th century, mercenary armies became prevailed.
There should be insecurity in the world so that private security companies could strengthen their industry and gain profits; therefore, the nature of these companies is not consistent with their peaceful slogans and plans. However, promoting peace would put an end to the activity of these companies. The statements of Muqtada al-Sadr – one of the opponents of the United States invasion of Iraq – regarding these companies are of importance. He states that the private security companies were constituted of the American criminals who had been released and sent to Iraq.
In the shadow of the White House privatization policies under the Bush administration, we are seeing the presence of the powerful and influential private security and military companies in Iraq such as Black Water and Halliburton.
When the United States defeated the Iraqi army in 2003, more than one out of every ten personnel deployed to the theatre were civilians employed by private military and security companies performing functions formerly handled by soldiers. As United States forces were stretched thin by the chaos that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein, an “army” of private personnel surged into the country to train the Iraqi police force, the Iraqi army, and a private Iraqi force to guard government facilities and oil fields and to protect expatriates working in the country and to bolster staffing in military prisons. Retired military or police — from countries as varied as Fiji, Israel, Nepal, South Africa, El Salvador, the United Kingdom, and the United States employed by a multitude of private military and security companies.
A 2008 Congressional Budget Office report found the number of contractors working for the United States in Iraq in 2007 to be at least 190,000 — greater than the number of American troops—and explained that the ratio of contractors to troops was at least 2.5 times higher in Iraq than it had been during any other major American conflict. The number of American contractors in Iraq gradually declined to approximately 120,000 as of June 2009.
leave your comments