The Iraq War is dragging into its fourth year amid spiraling violence. While peace remains elusive in Iraq, opinion polls in the United States have shown that support for the war is sagging. However, U.S. President George W. Bush has outwardly expressed his confidence on more than one occasion. “I’m optimistic we’ll succeed. If not, I’d pull our troops out,” he said at a recent press conference.
　　As a matter of fact, the United States has reaped remarkable benefits from the war in spite of its appalling costs. This revelation comes from Tian Wenlin, an expert on Middle East issues with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. It is his belief that the greatest sufferers of the devastating war are the Iraqi people. His main ideas follow:
　　When he ordered troops into Iraq on March 20, 2003, George W. Bush probably would not have imagined that the country would be plunged into such a chaotic situation three years later.
　　Despite its victorious offensives, U.S. forces have not been able to root out anti-U.S. resistance, which in effect has seen a drastic resurgence recently. The U.S.-dominated democratic process has largely been completed, but the country’s political fabric is becoming increasingly vulnerable in the wake of the mounting sectarian violence. Although Washington continues to increase economic assistance, Iraq has made little progress in its reconstruction, leaving Iraqi people with severe water and power shortages. In particular, ever since the bombing of a famous Shiite shrine on February 22, the feud between the Sunnis and the Shiites, Iraq’s two major religious sects, has degenerated to the brink of a complete loss of control.
　　At present, the United States can neither come up with a quick answer to the Iraq problem, nor rid itself of the heavy burden easily. Behind the “Iraq syndrome” are the staggering costs on the part of the United States: over 2,300 troops killed and $200-250 billion spent. More alarmingly, as it is deeply mired in the Iraqi morass, the strategic leverage of the United States has been so adversely affected that it appears helpless in the face of Iran’s hard-line nuclear policy.
　　However, despite the high price it has paid, the United States, a country boasting a tradition of being pragmatic, has received remarkable war dividends. Stakeholders of the “U.S. Corporation” will not allow it to lose money.
　　First, the geopolitical situation has been made more favorable to the United States. One of the underlying reasons why the United States seeks a transformation of Iraq is to smash Arab nationalism so as to keep a firm grip on Arab countries. If their advantages in population, natural resources and geographic position are integrated and they speak with one voice, let alone establish a unified Arab country, the 22-nation Arab world will be capable of resisting intervention by big powers. Unity means power and provides the best screen against the interference of Western superpowers. Arab nationalism, championed by former Egyptian Premier Gamal Abdel Nasser, was at its height in the 1950s to 1960s. In 1956, Nasser successfully defended the military aggression waged by Britain, France and Israel. In the Fourth Middle East War, or the Yom Kippur War in 1973, the Arab countries effectively protected their dignity and interests by using the oil weapon. Although Arab nationalism gradually declined after that, with conflicts emerging among the various nations, the basis for political integration still exists. For the United States, which has long coveted control of the Middle East region, the Arab world is, of course, too large.
　　Iraq is poised squarely at the core of the Arab world. Its former leader Saddam Hussein had been going out of his way to revive Arab nationalism by taking advantage of the anti-U.S. sentiments prevalent in the Middle East, something inauspicious for Washington. It is for these reasons that the United States set about changing the nature of Iraq through the Iraq War, the post-war democratic transformation, and especially supporting the Kurds. In the new Iraqi Constitution, the country is no longer labeled an “Arab country.”
　　The United States has therefore succeeded in disassembling the Arab world from within, stifling the possible revival of Arab nationalism and neutralizing the biggest threat for it to control the oil and strategic zones in the Middle East. In the meantime, as Iraq is turned into a dependent, pro-U.S. country, the United States will be able to establish a new strategic foothold in the heart of the Middle East. A curve linking Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan is in the making. It is expected to enable Washington to rebuild a pro-U.S. alliance comparable to the former Central Treaty Organization along this broad “strategic fracture zone.”
　　Second, the United States has subjected Middle East countries to its democratic transformation. Promoting democratic transformation is an essential part of the U.S. Middle East policy, on which it relies to eradicate terrorism and reshape the Middle East order. Iraq provides a perfect laboratory for the U.S. democratic transformation experiment.
　　In 2005, the Iraqi political process made headway despite frequent setbacks. Not only had the preset objectives been generally fulfilled, but the public also showed an ever-greater eagerness for political participation. For example, some 8.5 million cast votes in the election for the transitional National Assembly January last year, but by December when the formal legislative election took place, the number of voters had soared to 12 million.
　　Under the influence of Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Egypt also held presidential, parliamentary or regional elections last year. “Democracy” has become something that all Middle East nations need to contemplate. Some critics even dubbed the trend an “Arab Spring.”
　　Aside from the actual effects of the elections, the introduction of the concept of “democracy” in itself is a boon to the United States. Branded “non-democratic countries,” many Arab nations, which have been in a disadvantageous position in power politics, have to bear a new stigma of “dictatorship and backwardness.” The United States, however, has turned itself from a hegemonic power to a guardian of democracy, maintaining a high-handed control over the Middle East region.
　　Third, the United States has strengthened its control over the oil resources in the Middle East. Even before the Iraq War, some insightful people had pointed out that the war would be mainly targeted at oil. If Iraq had not been rich in oil, the United States would have thought twice before going into the war.
　　As is known, Iraq has an oil deposit of 112 billion barrels, ranking second in the world. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that an additional 220 billion barrels might be discovered in the deserts in western Iraq. If this estimation is true, Iraq will exceed Saudi Arabia to become the world’s No. 1 oil-rich country. Moreover, due to the lingering war and the lack of funds, only a small proportion of Iraq’s oilfields have been explored. There is boundless potential for oil exploration in Iraq.
　　
　　By toppling the Saddam regime, the United States got access to the oilfields, a victory that ensures its long-term, stable oil supply. Washington’s intention has become evident in the wake of the series of initiatives it took after the war. The Iraq War was purportedly launched to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to “l(fā)iberate the Iraqi people.” However, as soon as it occupied the country, Washington dispatched heavy troops to seize Iraq’s oilfields, turning a blind eye to its social chaos.
　　To date, 63 of the 85 oilfields in Iraq have signed long-term contracts with U.S. multinationals. Under these contracts, up to $194 billion in Iraqi oil revenues are going to multinational oil companies, and no political force in Iraq can change these contracts. Obviously, the United States has become the biggest owner of Iraq’s oil interests. Observers pointed out that people have increasingly come to realize that the Iraq War actually resulted from oil, interests and possessiveness.
　　To put it bluntly, the Iraq war is a big, unpredictable business deal for the United States, a rash experiment in Utopian democracy, and even a video game that only a superpower can afford to play. Bush may consider pulling the troops out as a last resort. But the Iraqis, who were deprived of homes, jobs and loved ones and might face a possible split of their country, have become perpetual victims of the bitter war.

相關(guān)熱詞搜索：Pains Gains Ｐａｉｎｓ　ａｎｄ�。牵幔椋睿� no pains no gains no pains no gains翻譯