It can be said that the witnessed economic recovery in Iraq was because of the change of regime. In all ways, a government has the machinery to spear head economic recovery. Thus, the leadership of Saddam Hussein apart from suppressing fundamental rights of the citizens also failed to consolidate economic resources so that they could enhance the well being of all. This is the reason for the continued positive trend since 2003 after Iraq got invaded by the U.S. led forces. This reflection seeks to establish the validity of the premise that Iraq would not have been where it is today was it not for the invasion and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as held by Tony Blair.
In the overview, Iraq has had an improved security environment and foreign investors have indicated the willingness to assist the government to grow their economic activity in sectors such as energy, retails and construction. The government has also been focused in implementing fundamental policy reforms. As the reader may be aware, Iraq’s comparative advantage rests on the oil sector where it contributes over 90 per cent of the government’s revenue and 80 per cent in terms of foreign exchange earnings. Other sources indicate that in the period 2009, earnings generated from the oil exports have returned to their normal and preferred levels prior to the Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the period 2012, the budget forecasts indicated a value of 2.6 million barrels per day (bbl/day); according to experts, this was a remarkable increase from the previous average amount of 2.2 million bbl/day in 2011).
Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, expressed that the invasion was beneficial as it led to the current social and economic progress. He also cited the leadership of Saddam Hussein as among the reasons that had suppressed economic reforms in Iraq. Blair was also upbeat that Iraq would be among the countries recording large economic growth in the future.
However, there are other issues that the reader cannot fail to take into consideration. This includes the danger of terrorism and political impasse that still threaten poor families in Iraq. As Blair noted, there was a need for more reforms and policy development in that line.
Well, it is arguably so that the toppling of Saddam Hussein had fundamental economic implications and this time, for the better. In principle, wherever a country goes through poor governance and political mismanagement it would never achieve economic prosperity. This is what must have been the case with Saddam’s long term leadership since it lacked justice, altruism and egalitarianism.
Earlier, findings indicated that Iraq had a problem with equal distribution of economic resources. This is one of the major injustices there can be in a country and as such it impedes economic development because the citizens are not empowered as they should. This, in turn, makes them not to be productive or be part of national economic building.
In general, inasmuch as one can argue that Iraq had experienced economic development since the invasion in 2003 took place there is more need for improvement. This is because Iraq needs a stable economic development trend regardless of the circumstances. It is not much in looking back to see how history has changed, but it is where Iraq is headed. This is what matters.
