Vodkapundit - The Ends Justify the Means

The Ends Justify the Means

Posted by Stephen Green · 19 August 2002

The United States has no business invading Iraq, toppling Saddam Hussein, or even calling publicly for his ouster. Unless, that is, we mean to do for Iraq in the coming ten years what we did for Germany and Japan in the years following the Second World War.

Imagine a world where, after Hitler killed himself in April of ’45, the US simply ceased fighting and brought our boys home. Also imagine that same month, Emperor Hirohito and his ruling military clique had been killed in the incendiary bombing of Tokyo – and Admiral Nimitz and General Macarthur turned around and headed back to Pearl Harbor.

In Europe, the Nazi vacuum we’d have left would happily have been filled by the horrors of Stalinism, uncontested. With all of Germany under his belt and France as his willing collaborators, Stalin would have had little difficulty making a Soviet client of our materially, financially, and emotionally exhausted British allies.

Unconquered and unvanquished, divine-right militarism would have survived and prospered in Japan – giving Stalin an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the heart of the North Pacific.

The Cold War would have been lost before it started.

While alternate history scenarios are wildly fantastic, it isn’t much of a stretch to claim that our nation would be a poorer, much more heavily militarized, and much less free place today had we not followed through our "regime changes" in Tokyo and Berlin.

Instead, we fought both our Pacific and European wars to their bitter ends – and, in peace, became magnanimous benefactors to our former foes. Along with millions of occupation troops, we also sent in written constitutions, parliamentary democracy, and the rule of law.

Now, often as we might quarrel with our friends in Germany and Japan, they are our friends. And, in hundreds of little ways, they are much more like us than different. Ten years of US support, tutelage, and friendship, completely undid many decades of militaristic rule in both nations.

Had we done anything else or anything less, the results would have been catastrophic.

Today, the hot debate is over whether to invade Iraq. Really, it’s a moot question. We’re at war with Islamism – or, rather, Islamists are fighting a terrorist war with Western culture. Saddam supports Islamist terror with money, materiel, and, perhaps, with a safe haven. So Saddam’s regime cannot be allowed to survive, for reasons both military and diplomatic.

The question isn’t whether to invade Iraq, but what to do once victory is won.

The only thing worse than doing nothing is toppling Saddam, then leaving the peace up to the Iraqis. Like the Japanese and Germans of 1945, the people of Iraq know only war, terror, oppression, and authoritarianism. From the very first records of history, the peoples living in Babylon have suffered under an endless series of brutal strongmen, from Hammurabi, to the Ottoman Turks, to Saddam himself. Some were more enlightened than others, but never have the people been given the chance to rule themselves.

Without the same help and presence we maintained in Germany and Japan, Iraq would fall apart. The Kurds of the north, free from Baghdad’s iron fist, would go about their ancient tradition of “slaughtering one another over trivia.” The mullahs of Tehran could bolster their fading regime by reuniting – by force – with their Shi’ite brothers in the south of Iraq. The center, as always, would be governed by whichever strongman held sway in Baghdad.

The poor people of Iraq, along with the rest of the world, would put the blame on us for their new woes. And with good reason.

People are people the world over – and most just want to get on with their lives. The average Iraqi is no worse today than your average German or Japanese of yesteryear. Our WWII enemies picked up the good habits of democracy and the secular state in just a few short years of American stewardship – and it is racist to claim that the good people of Iraq can’t do the same.

The fact of West Germany was irresistible to East Germans – thus helping us win the Cold War. Japanese democracy gave proof to South Korea and Taiwan that they could be free, too. Might not a free and happy Iraq prove a similar beacon to the peoples of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Palestine?

The only sad part is that it will take us finishing a war they started to get us all there.

And have no doubt – we will win this war. The United States beat Germany and Japan simultaneously, so talk by Brent Scowcroft (and others who should know better) that we can’t handle Iraq is, well, just talk. Like any war, this new campaign will be fraught with risks and nasty surprises. But the reward is more than worth it, both to us and the people of Iraq.

Comments

Great post and I agree in theory but I do have a contentions which a later poster point to be wrong, but this is more of a question so it's all good.

Germany and Japan were basically civilized outside of their militaristic regimes for decades before the war (especially before the depression anyway). Irag has never been so, why should we believe they can come out of the stone age in any timeframe, let alone one in comparison with the Germans and Japanese. It's no so much a cultural thing as an issue of prectice. Changing from one civilized society is much easier than starting one for the first time.

Also, how would Saudi held Arabia or Palestine benefit from Iraq being peaceful? This seems counterproductive to their goals of destroying their enemies as if Iraq were peaceful said countries could no longer point at them to take the heat off of themselves.

Perhaps I'm wrong and I hope I am but perhaps not, either way, you're right that if we plan to start something we need to finish it all the way and not just go in and run like so many want us to.

Posted by: Joshua Ferguson at August 19, 2002 12:28 AM

I think you are being a wee bit harsh on the people of Iraq Joshua. And they deserve a chance to give democracy and peace a chance.
It certainly won't be easy, though. I wonder if the US leadership has prepared folks over there for the long haul that an Iraqi occupation will entail.

Posted by: Scott at August 19, 2002 09:50 AM

Joshua raises an excellent point...long occupation may not necessarily be a precursor to a stable country. The US was in Haiti for about 20 years early in the 20th Century, building roads, putting down organized gangs of insurrectionists, overseeing elections and ensuring that government was generally free and fair. It was the most prosperous, peaceful time that Haiti knew for all of its existence (first as a colony, then as an independent nation). One would think that the example would stick, but after we left, everything went to shit in a surprisingly short order.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't have an Iraq Occupation -- your point that we can't just scroll Saddam's nerds and then leave is also well-taken. Just pointing out that the result is not forgone.

Perhaps the best thing to to would be to Balkanize Iraq -- create Kurdistan in the north (sure to PO the Turks and Iran -- everybody hates the Kurds [to paraphrase Tom Lehrer]), something for the Marsh Arabs in the south, and a central entity called Lesser Iraq. All of these portions would contain oil fields, so they'll have an early means of obtaining foreign capital. None of them would be militarily mighty. They'd be more-or-less ethnically homogeneous, so there'd be lesser temptation to atrocitize their own citizens...thoughts?

Posted by: Brian Swisher at August 19, 2002 10:00 AM

Brian, the Middle East has enough tribal-based states already. Giving lessons on democracy AND individualism would do so much more than just democracy alone.

Posted by: Stephen Green at August 19, 2002 10:04 AM

I'll be honest, this whole Iraq thing just annoys the hell out of me. We in the Blogsphere can sit and posturize about it and talk about the social issues and what not but it's all going to come down to some asinine idea cooked up in Washington that's going to result in my friends (who are in the military) getting killed.

No matter what great ideas we may have, and I don't disagree with you Brian, they will never be implemented and we will never convince the left to go along with any of them.

Posted by: Joshua Ferguson at August 19, 2002 10:22 AM

... the Middle East has enough tribal-based states already. Giving lessons on democracy AND individualism would do so much more than just democracy alone.

Granted...seems to me, then, that an occupation would require much longer than 10 years, maybe even longer than 20...it long enough for the older generations to die off and the younger generations to have the inculcation of more Western-style values abosorbed into their bones...half-measures in this regard just won't work.

It might take less time than that, but I think we are working with memes that are not common to the area and require more cultivation...

Posted by: Brian Swisher at August 19, 2002 12:09 PM

Brian's idea is much like mine of 11 years ago, but I added one thing -- give east-central Iraq to the Palestinians as theirs so long as they (1) recognize the right of Israel to exist and (2) refrain from any hostilities against any state not contiguous to their new home.

That being said, I'd prefer to hybridize and preserve the idea of Iraq as a multi-ethnic pluralistic society, but I'd still like to see an option of Palestinian resettlement to Iraq for, say $20k per person to forever forfeit any return to Israeli lands.

Posted by: Gregg at August 19, 2002 04:03 PM

Gregg,
You'd have to overcome immense hostility from the Iraqis and other Arabs to this idea. Their "Arab Brothers" hate, despise and fear the Palestinian Arabs, whom they see as cannon fodder for the war of extermination against Israel and nothing more. Another tribe to massacre and to be massacred by (which is what happened in Lebanon).

Posted by: Michael Lonie at August 21, 2002 12:05 AM