|
|
They've Been Wrong Before
Posted by Stephen Green · 16 April 2003
Winning the war was hard. Winning the peace will be harder, as most reasonable people agree. Building a liberal democracy takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, and not a little bloodshed before all the kinks get worked out – ask the French. Then again, there are some unreasonable people who think the peace simply can’t be won at all. Some say defeat is certain because we’re not there to make the Middle East a better place, but because we’re there to take the oiiiillllll. Others think that we’ve awaked the sleeping giant of Iraqi nationalism and/or Islamic fundamentalism. More reasonable is the idea that with the strongman gone, Iraq will become the Middle East in miniature – irrational, mystic-minded tribes with a taste for “slaughtering one another over trivia.” Since most of the people making these arguments are the same folks who were against the war in the first place, let’s take a look at their track record one last time. Inspections, they claimed, needed more time to work. Now we know that Hans Blix, the UN's own chief weapons inspector, was hiding information from us: Hans Blix, who has briefed the council twice since December — and failed to mention his finding either time — was criticized last night by American and British diplomats who believe these disclosures could have altered the tenor of the council’s debate. Who cares if Blix wasn't doing his job? So Iraq maybe had some illegal missiles, but they certainly didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, nor a nuclear program. U.S. forces are reported to have entered the Tuwaitha nuclear research site that U.N. inspectors had previously identified as part of Saddam Hussein's nuclear programme that inspectors dismantled after the 1991 Gulf war. OK, so maybe Iraq was doing naughty things, but none of this has yet been verified. Anyway, it's not like Iraq planned to do anything to us. Yousef's bombing plots gave rise to the notion that a new form of international terrorism had emerged that was not state-sponsored, but said to consist of "loose networks" of militant Muslims, not backed by states.2 Yet, as The Washington Post recently noted, "some critics have disputed this approach, contending that rogue nations like Iraq have managed to slip intelligence operatives in and out of bomb conspiracies, leaving the FBI to chase and catch the small fish that the skilled men left behind." Perhaps then Iraq had banned weapons and worse intentions, but if we go in there, the people will rise up against us. The capture of Hilla mirrored similar campaigns last week in Najaf to the south and Karbala to the west, both of which welcomed 101st Airborne soldiers after attacks by artillery, helicopters, armor, infantry and fighter aircraft cracked brittle defenses. In all three cities, resistance by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitary and Baath Party loyalists proved no match for U.S. military power, and the subsequent happy pandemonium had the distinct flavor of liberation. In any case, we'll find ourselves in a (brace yourself, I have to use the word) quagmire. A, uh, three week quagmire. Iraqi fighters have not mounted "a coherent defense" and major combat there is essentially over, an Army major general said Monday. Even if we win, we'll inflame Arab opinion. Hell, I couldn't even find a story here on Google, because the angry Arab street turned into such an enormous non-event. In every way they could have been wrong, the "peace" crowd got it exactly, precisely, completely, bass-ackwards wrong. Especially lovely was this letter (no link, I'm transcribing from dead tree) to Time magazine from Mike Zmolek of EndTheWar.org: . . .Watching the conflict devolve into the nightmare we predicted is no consolation; it is the worst-case scenario. Ah, yes. The worst case scenario. Zmolek lays out some of his case here: The US has shown no mercy to the innocent and most vulnerable Iraqis, who for over a decade have been pawns in the US's game of gaining political leverage over the Ba'ath regime. Ethically speaking, how far have we come since the days of military feudalism, when mercy came only after you were defeated? Nope, no mercy from us. Under 1,000 Iraqi civilians were killed according to the most reputable estimates. Even hardcore nuts can't claim much more than 1,800. And we put our own soldier's lives on the line to keep the number so low. Keep in mind the source when you're told we can't win the peace. Can't we? Comments
Even if the chronic nay-sayers are right, and we can't build a beautiful shining monument to freedom and democracy in Iraq, the odds are still about 1000 to 1 that whatever the end result is, it will be much better than what was there. I'm OK with that. Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at April 16, 2003 05:15 AMThe anti-war community had only two chances to reverse popular backing for the war. It lay in two questions: 1. Does the Baathist regime have some claim to legitimacy that reasonable people would recognize? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is "no," does it serve American interests to depose that regime, sufficiently so to be worth the cost in blood and treasure? Since the answers to both questions were unfavorable to the anti-war forces, they've done their best to muddy the waters with murky but ominous prognostications based on inappropriate comparisons. But this wasn't Vietnam. As for "winning the peace," that's more the job of the Iraqis than of the American expeditionary force. We'll help, but they have to do the heavy lifting -- and they have to keep doing it after we've packed up our cannons and gone home. It's all over but the shouting. If only there were a little less shouting! Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at April 16, 2003 06:24 AMTerrorism is like the political analog of AIDs. It mutates so fast that the different strains fool the immune system. I mean, we can't possibly act against the "Islamic Brotherhood of Martyrs" when the real culprits are the "Islamist Jihad Brigade," now can we? I used to think peace-niks were like a gullible immune system, but now I wonder if they are not a pathogen themselves. Posted by: ArtD0dger at April 16, 2003 01:00 PMWhilst the protesters are being shot on the streets of Mosul, the hospitals being looted of medical equipment and the shameful ransacking of Iraq's wondrous cultural history is being completed in full view of the US armed forces it's a little early for triumphalism. Why not wait until a freely elected, representative government enjoying popular support throughout the diverse ethnic regions of Iraq is elected? Hold off on the crowing until US troops are withdrawn from the country and the Shiite majority in the South are peacefully brought into a government which reflects their views without repression. Restain your natural urge to cry victory over all who opposed military action until Kurdish separatists in the North are reconciled to being trapped in a nation for which they hold no loyalty. Temper your jubilation until those who fear that the current action is merely a foretaste of years of strife and conflict for the myriad and long suffering peoples of the region are proved wrong. Until the feared outpouring of terrorist atrocities and the consequent expansion of militarist solutions fails to occur. Could you not even wait till they fit the prosthetic arms on that little boy who has bravely paid the price of freedom? Jeff, perhaps you could calculate the odds of those limbs growing back whilst your playing bookmaker? Hell No! Why should we wait, we didn't in Afghanistan. Fine, pass me a flag. I guess pulling a statue down and building a nation are synonymous in the New World Order... Posted by: Matt at April 17, 2003 04:59 AMOf cousre we can't "win the peace". Because, you see, the only way to "win" is to make Iraqi into Switzerland, and do it instantly. We've already "lost". Clever, huh? Posted by: Sigivald at April 17, 2003 02:52 PMYou know, the sad part is that people like Matt I think genuinely believe what they write. So, they live in a world where the fact that people are no longer walking around in danger of being picked up and shot for fairly random reasons is simply a minor irrelevancy. Reading this sort of thing here and elsewhere (and having had "Dean" admonish me for equating freedom/democracy w/ US nat'l interests), I've had to wonder: If these people were around in 1989, what was their reaction? Are these the sorts of people who lamented that, while, yes, gulags were shutting down, but Soviet book sales were going down, too? Or that Soviet authors and painters would no longer enjoy state subsidies? That, for all that East Germany and Czechoslovakia would now be free, that, hey, their systems DID have more paid vacations and access to health care and weren't "elbow societies"? I've seen too much of this at too many weblogs over the last few weeks to even have my dander raised anymore. Posted by: Dean at April 17, 2003 05:00 PM‘a world where the fact that people are no longer walking around in danger of being picked up and shot for fairly random reasons is simply a minor irrelevancy.’ Irrelevant? Of course not, just as the events taking place now are not irrelevant to the notion of whether this course of action was justified. How major were the reasons behind the people shot at the checkpoints, or exercising their new found freedom in Mosul? Where did I mourn the passing of the Hussein regime? I’m glad he’s gone he was a terrible leader at the head of a corrupt regime. I was opposed to his malevolent rule way before the people who are currently lecturing me about the sanctity of human rights, were you? ‘people were around in 1989, what was their reaction?’ Joy, tinged with uncertainty as to what the new world would bring, but primarily joy. ‘ their systems DID have more paid vacations and access to health care and weren't "elbow societies"? You seem to be confusing my opposition to the war policy with my economic and political viewpoints? Is honest and heartfelt opposition to this war equivalent to an endorsement of Communism to you? My posting was emotive however and I apologise for that. I couldn’t reconcile the triumphalist air of the posts with the reality on the ground. The points behind it remain valid however. Calling victory now simply ignores the reality that the hard work has just begun. If you choose to take the path of war your responsibilities to that nation don’t end at the cease of hostilities, they begin. Sigivald, one Switzerland is more than enough, peace freedom and independence will do fine thank you. Matt - I thought Dean argued against your points quite well, but you remain undeterred. Good to see you come back to earth and be a tad less confrontational. Rest assured that I view individual tragedies like Ali the 12 year old boy with alarm just like any other feeling human being - but it doesn't stop me, although it apparently did you, from making the quite reasonable prediction that the prospects for Iraqi children growing up free are now quite good, as opposed to zero like before. Re: "Calling victory now simply ignores the reality that the hard work has just begun." I see - so defeating the other side on the battlefield isn't enough to declare victory on the battlefield anymore? Have you notified Webster's that "victory" now means "preventing looting and chaos and guarding museums and writing a constitution and holding the first free election"? The fact is that Iraqis now don't have to fear anybody except the terrorist imports from Syria, Iran, Jordan, and other places. Kinda like us. This is a victory in no uncertain terms. It is a slap in the face for the families of all those who died in the war to not recognize that militarily at least, we won. The rest of our effort is almost entirely political and diplomatic. We've already seen the kind of messes the U.N. creates in these situations, and the U.S. often gets cold feet too, partly due to political pressure at home from folks who say "spend money at home, not on Iraq" - is that going to be you Matt? What if it turns into another Beirut, which is excatly what Syria and Iran and all their terrorist friends are planning? You still on board? Yes this is the hard part, but it is a political endeavor, not a military one, and is a completely separate undertaking - we aren't obligated to do the political stuff at all, but we will, because it is ultimately in our best interests, and because it's what we (used to) do, until the U.N. decided it was smarter and better at it than we. Not much evidence to support that conclusion, eh? So if you're serious about wanting the best for Iraqis, I assume you'll start campaigning against U.N. involvement then? If not, why not? Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at April 18, 2003 05:50 AMJeff, I regretted the outspoken aspect of my first post almost as soon as I hit send. Although in my defence I’d say that the rhetoric from the other side of this argument has often been off the wall as well (pathogen?). Nevertheless I hope you can accept my personal apology to you for the unwarranted comment regarding Ali. I have no problem celebrating the achievements of our armed forces; they were superb and thoroughly deserving of our admiration. I’d never want to insult any of the bereaved families; anyone who puts their life on the line for their country deserves, (and gets my) respect. I’d hope that you would allow that I could be against the decision to go to war without automatically concluding that I am against the soldiers carrying out their orders in the field? For my part the reasons against going to war were to avoid exactly the situation we now face. War destabilises nations and entire regions and that’s exactly what we now have. It’s a bloody mess. The Middle East is in ferment, populations are enraged, moderate governments endangered. The Arabs feel humiliated, easy fodder for the voices of fundamentalism and terrorism. The natural allies of the West have been silenced by the radical voices. Within Iraq, the various factions who were suppressed by Saddam have been released overnight; the everyday person in that country who was living their life under a vile dictatorship now faces uncertainty and possibly the break-up of the nation. Whilst they may be better off in the future neither you nor I can be sure, all we know is at the moment they are in crisis. Am I in it for the long haul? Sure, now that we have decided to depose the government of Iraq I’d suggest we are morally responsible to see the job done, we have do an obligation to the people whose government we chose to overthrow. So when you ask me if I’ll still be on board when the bombings begin and the body bags fill up I’ll have very little choice but to agree, none of us have that choice anymore, the course is set. That doesn’t mean that I agree that the UN should be frozen out. How are we to reassure Iraq and the Arab peoples as to the purity of our motives if America takes the running of the country on itself? American troops stationed in Iraq will become the symbols of an occupying Imperial power. Arab opposition will coalesce around this symbol and the likes of Bin Laden will exploit it to drum up support. The protestations that this war has been undertaken with no selfish motivation will hardly ring true if military bases are constructed within Iraq to increase US influence throughout the region. The UN offers a chance to disengage honourably, contribute generously to reconstruction and resist the temptation to dominate the region for selfish ends. It would also go some way to regaining the lost international support which is far more important to the fight against terrorism to the quashing of the insignificant threat from Hussein’s Iraq. It will be far harder for Americas enemies to exploit the fall out from the war if the UN can be brought round. Astute diplomacy is called for now; do I have any faith in the current administration to provide it? No, I’m afraid I don’t. A bludgeoning, crude and bullying mode of diplomatic pressure has been employed, needlessly alienating the people who could have made a difference. A vast welling of sympathy following the atrocity in New York has been squandered, old allies needlessly brushed aside, shameful political scapegoating has taken place to secure temporary domestic political advantage at the expense of national foreign policy interests. It may well be effective politics but its shabby and it fills me with disquiet for the future. As I said in my previous posts I believe the really hard work begins now. Which is why the time for playing yah-boo politics with the opponents of the conflict has not yet come. I hope for the people of the Middle East and the world that this huge gamble comes off, I hope you get a chance to say ‘told you so’. Wow, where to begin: It’s a bloody mess. The Middle East is in ferment, populations are enraged, moderate governments endangered. The Arabs feel humiliated, easy fodder for the voices of fundamentalism and terrorism. Ah, the Arab street. The same Arab street that was supposedly offended by the first Gulf War. And the Afghan War. The same Arab street that demanded we stop the war in Afghanistan over Ramadan. Is that the same Arab street that is now, finally, realizing that Saddam was actually a pretty bad guy? And the moderate Arab governments that are endangered, where do you put Iran? The same Iran that is NOW tendering offers of IMPROVING relations? The natural allies of the West have been silenced by the radical voices. Which do you think is a bigger factor in offending Arabs (and Muslims everywhere): American troops in Saudi Arabia? Or toppling the dictator that forced us to put troops there in the first place? Do you think we'll retain troops in Saudi for much longer? And which "natural allies" are you referring to? 'Course, if we REALLY wanted to get the Arab street AND the governments on our side, we could end all relations w/ Israel. I notice you don't seem to mention that option at all. Within Iraq, the various factions who were suppressed by Saddam have been released overnight; the everyday person in that country who was living their life under a vile dictatorship now faces uncertainty and possibly the break-up of the nation. And the exact same could've been said about the peoples of Eastern Europe. No, criticism does not equal Communism. Yes, preferring the stability of tyranny is the same, whether that is Communist tyranny, or Ba'athist tyranny. Or should Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, at least, have remained under Communist rule to prevent their break-up? Whilst they may be better off in the future neither you nor I can be sure, all we know is at the moment they are in crisis. You know, if you just keep letting the gangrene extend (your use of pathogen), it's probably a lot less "crisis" than amputation. Ah, but what of the UN. I'm curious, this UN you speak of, how well did it perform in: Kampuchea/Cambodia? And, uhm, exactly which "old allies" have we brushed aside? Did Germany do the brushing, or was that us? Who compelled France to say that they would veto any UNSC move, regardless? Are those the actions of "old allies"? Matt - I see that Dean has replied, but I already typed this out, so ... Well, you and I will just have to agree to disagree on the following: I'd say U.S. troops would be a good thing for the region, and that the U.S. is, while far from perfect, better at nation-and-infrastructure-building than anybody else. Especially the U.N. Reassuring Arabs by relying on the U.N. is not much of an advantage in my book. Arabs sorely need new models for how to run a government and a nation. The U.S. is more qualified than any nation in the history of the planet to do such things. These are simply facts. If you don't trust our President to do it right, that is up to you, but that doesn't change the facts of history. When we put our mind to a task, we get it done. And the Middle East has been a bloody mess for decades now Matt - yours is a tough case to make, if you want to convince me that our "destabilization" there has wrought anything worse now or in the future for Iraq. "Destabilization" is only bad if "stable" is good; this is most emphatically not the case in the M.E. for the last 50+ years, since the day Israel came into existence. Iraq has been a hell-hole for 35 years of Baath rule - at least now there is freedom for most. And your "this is exactly why I was against the war in the first place" argument is best left kept to yourself - it doesn't really make sense to say "let's not get rid of a known thug because the cleanup will be messy". Yes, it will be messy, but Iraq was a strategic goal, and so it was worth it. Posted by: Jeff Brokaw at April 18, 2003 12:22 PMThis post is riddled with errors. The worst is the idea that the nuclear find was new... the IAEA had been over it many times. To get this wrong is a big mistake, although I can't blame the author when the newsmedia got it wrong in the first place. Now you can basically see how gullible people are, they read the papers but the papers are wrong. I feel bad for people who are so misinformed. Posted by: Eric M at April 18, 2003 04:33 PMWARNING! LENGTHY POST ALERT… Dean, Gee, I think I’m beginning to win you guys over! ;-) ‘Is that the same Arab street that is now, finally, realizing that Saddam was actually a pretty bad guy? ‘ They won’t be shedding tears for Saddam but equally they won’t be warming to the States for having deposed him. I think you misinterpret the Arab attitude to Saddam. Outside of his country there was no great love for him, the only time he became a hero figure was when he was perceived as standing up to the US/Israel. Many still remembered him as a puppet of the Americans following his 8-year war with Iran. They also blamed him along with the West for the miserable condition of his people. No matter what revelations come out of Iraq the fundamental distrust of America within the region will not disappear. I don’t know if you caught the pictures of yesterday’s combined Shia/Sunni demonstration against the occupation btw but it should give you food for thought. I can’t see there being any great dividend in terms of changed Arab perceptions of the US for their role as liberators until Iraq is perceived as being a ‘free’ nation rather than an American puppet regime (which is the Arab fear). This is one reason for my advocacy of early UN involvement and a swiftly reduced US presence. If the Arab peoples see American corporations with close links to the US administration winning contracts to rebuild the war ravaged nation using Iraqi oil revenues how do you think they will interpret it? And the moderate Arab governments that are endangered, where do you put Iran? The same Iran that is NOW tendering offers of IMPROVING relations?’ At the risk of being facetious Dean, not with the Arab governments as they’re actually Persian. I wasn’t referring to them as moderate if that was your question. There is a moderate faction within that nation but I would imagine they’re keeping their heads down internally at the moment, as the Mullahs appear in control. I was thinking more about Egypt to be honest, strategically important and its US friendly government only able to sustain its grip on power by massive internal repression. Iran is a tricky customer, renowned for skilful political manoeuvring and extremely difficult to predict. I don’t know how much substance is in the current offers or how they’re being spun but my main concern with Iran is their influence on the Shia majority in Southern Iraq. Humiliate Arab nationalism as the US has just done and where will they turn? Islamic fundamentalism will be recruiting new support throughout the region as a result of this ill-advised intervention. Which do you think is a bigger factor in offending Arabs? Difficult to call, the presence of troops in the Islamic holy lands is undoubtedly a gift to the likes of Bin Laden, however the presence of troops in an Arab nation whose government has been overthrown by those same troops may turn out to be equally incendiary. Time will tell. My fear is that the removal of the troops from Saudi will not produce a dividend in Arab opinion to the US greater than the damage incurred by the invasion and occupation. Remember that the US troops in Saudi have been shielded from the population and have not had to play a role in internal security – that’s not going to be the case in Iraq however so the potential for flashpoints and incidents is exponentially higher. Remember Lebanon? And which "natural allies" are you referring to? Those who would seek to restrain the radicals and promote values of tolerance and restraint. They have been grievously undermined by this war and it’s only by securing their support that any progress in tackling terrorism can be made. You win the battle against terrorists not by the use of armies and sophisticated weaponry but by divorcing the radical from the mainstream. This action will radicalise the mainstream. 'Course, if we REALLY wanted to get the Arab street AND the governments on our side, we could end all relations w/ Israel. I notice you don't seem to mention that option at all.’ Politics is the art of the possible Dean, that’s not going to happen, nor would I advocate it as a sensible path to take. Of course the primary reason for Arab suspicion of the US is the partisan role it has played in the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians, yet I don’t think that the ending of all relations with Israel is what the Arabs want. Better for the US to use its influence, exerting firm pressure on the Israelis to make compromises in the interests of attaining a lasting peace. Preferably based upon the very UN resolutions, which the US has been vetoing with such gusto these past 30 years. Unless Bush makes an honest attempt to solve this to the benefit of both parties any meaningful progress in the region is impossible. Looking at the history of this conflict suggests few causes for optimism in this respect. Domestic political pressures will force Bush to give too much ground to the Israeli side and scupper the chances of an agreement sufficiently agreeable to Palestinian objectives to lance the boil. So I don’t mention it because I don’t see the point, the Israeli lobby wields too much power in US circles to permit Bush to act as an ‘honest broker’ and relations with the other powers who could help extricate the US have been sacrificed on the needless war with Iraq. And the exact same could've been said about the peoples of Eastern Europe. That’s true, although I’d hope you would agree that the circumstances and underlying factors are very different from the Europe of ’89. No foreign power invaded the Eastern European nations; their regimes were toppled from within. I would suggest this is a fundamental difference. There was no external force to act as a lightning rod for political dissent for one thing. preferring the stability of tyranny is the same, whether that is Communist tyranny, or Ba'athist tyranny. Again you seem to be misconstruing my views, just as I do not endorse the Communist occupation of Eastern Europe I do not prefer the ‘stability of tyranny’ to freedom. I hope that we both want freedom for all peoples but we definitely disagree on the best methodology to bring that freedom about. You can choose to construe that disagreement as being tacit support for tyranny but I submit this is disingenuous. If your objective is truly the freedom of the Iraqi people (and not strategic as I believe as does Jeff) then there are other ways to go about achieving it. Labelling those who oppose the war as automatically being pro Saddam/tyranny is ‘Straw man’ debating at its worst. Or should Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, at least, have remained under Communist rule to prevent their break-up? Simplistic analogies abound. In the case of Czechoslovakia definitely not! Go to Prague, it’s a lovely city (with beautiful women and fantastic cheap beer;) ). The divorce from the union with Slovakia was peaceful and democratic. Two affluent nations with little history of ethnic strife performed an amicable separation within the stable central European area. The former Yugoslavia was a very different construct. Artificially cobbled together from myriad disparate groups (sound a bit familiar?). Different ethnic groupings with long seated enmities stretching back centuries. Tensions and resentment long repressed were suddenly released, look at what happened. Is this what you wish for Iraq? I’m not saying that the tyranny should be allowed to go on, more that the process of removal should have been a gradual managed process secured with the support of the regional powers. It was an option discarded by Bush, foolishly in my view, in favour of a raw display of US military might to ‘shock and awe’ the other nations in the region. Sledgehammer diplomacy if you like. You know, if you just keep letting the gangrene extend (your use of pathogen), it's probably a lot less "crisis" than amputation. Wasn’t my use of pathogen look further up the post. Still, a poorly performed amputation can lead to sustained arterial bleeding and eventual death so as a metaphor it works both ways. Ah, but what of the UN. I'm curious, this UN you speak of, how well did it perform in: Have mercy Dean! There’s only 24 hours in a day so if you forgive me I’ll answer with a generalisation. The UN performed probably as well as any global body could do given the conflicting interests of its members. I never claimed it to be perfect but at present it offers the US a way out of a potential disaster. My own feeling is that the institution has been under attack in US political circles for reasons that have little or nothing to do with its actual effectiveness. Even if you find the institution repellent as many seem to, you should recognise the immense respect it still commands in much of the rest of the world and seek to use that to achieve your aims. If your motives are pure there can be no room for the denigration voiced by the likes of Richard Perle of this body. It worked in 1991 for example; the broad coalition assembled then prevented much of the fracturing in global relations we have seen over the past few months. If the institution is pure anathema to you then fine we’ll disagree, I suspect that any institution that required a compromising of US power and independence of action would attract the same opprobrium however. And, uhm, exactly which "old allies" have we brushed aside? Did Germany do the brushing, or was that us? Who compelled France to say that they would veto any UNSC move, regardless? Are those the actions of "old allies"? Now we come to the heart of this administrations diplomatic ineptitude. America compelled France to threaten its veto when it made it clear that it had already made the decision to use force (I think we can agree that decision had been taken?). Check the chronology of the statements coming out of the administration. The French move was then seized upon (especially in Britain by a teetering Blair) to justify the abandonment of a diplomatic process bound for failure. This was a process, which had failed abysmally to persuade the world of the case for war. They couldn’t make the case so they drummed up Francophobia to cover their failure. Now if you’re content to allow them to pass the buck and evade the consequences of their actions then fair enough but blaming everything on the French won’t wash. Careful handling and perhaps some compromises could have brought the French and others on board an initiative to bring peace to the Middle East. Unless you expect unquestioning obedience from sovereign allied nations then diplomacy requires careful handling and discretion. Can you honestly say that the last year has seen any of those qualities from this administration? HONESTLY? . Jeff, (pauses, deep breath ;-) ) These are simply facts No, they would be opinions presented as facts. Given the history of Arab US relations in the past 50 years I can think of other nations and troops more suited to nation building in the region. Destabilization" is only bad if "stable" is good; this is most emphatically not the case in the M.E. I have some sympathy with this point of view (wow!) and indeed with the impetus to try and make good a region benighted by conflict. However you exhibit the same optimistic thinking in your previous post without any substance to back it up. the odds are still about 1000 to 1 that whatever the end result is, it will be much better than what was there. I'm OK with that. To suppose that things in the Middle East are as bad as they possibly could be, and that any intervention must therefore make things better strikes me as political naivety on a quite stunning scale. The history of the region and any cursory examination of the geopolitical and social forces at work there would not go far to support such a rose tinted perspective. Like I said previously, I hope for all our sakes you’re right. Having laid out some of the reasons why I’m unconvinced (and I thank you for your patience if you’ve read all this, I seem to have been typing for bloody hours!). I have a question for both of you Do you believe there has been an honest and democratic debate based on the real reasons for going to war? Or, in other words, if 4 out of 10 Americans continue to believe that Iraq was responsible for Sept 11th is the administration colluding in a wilful deception of the American public? The answer for Iraq as for all nations who want to join the Constitutional democracy movement is more communications. Get the phone system back up and get those uncensored Internet channels operating. This will do as much to change the culture as anything else we could do. It will take time. Roughly two years. Maybe five. Posted by: M. Simon at April 19, 2003 11:06 PMMatt, You're making the same mistake that you accuse the other side of making. Is it wrong to trumpet the inevitable success of US attempts to convert Iraq into a wealthy, free society? Sure. It's also wrong to piss and moan that we'll never be able to succeed in the effort. These things take time to resolve. The problem with your position is that it assumes inevitable failure - or at least a high probability of failure - without waiting for things to develop. Claiming that were just plain screwed at this point is NOT helpful, and I'd argue that it's potentially dangerous and self-defeating. Pollyanna claims that Iraq will blossom into a free society in six months are also dangerous. It COULD happen, but probably won't, and saying that it will just gives the nay-sayers more ammo. The contradiction in your position is that you admonish triumphalists for the same thing you are guilty of: making predictions based on insufficient information, before things have a chance to shake out. The problem with your position is that defeatist attitudes are more likely to be self-fulfilling. If failure is inevitable, there's no point in putting forth our best efforts; any setback is proof of failure and another reason not to try. The other side of the coin has better dynamics - if success is expected, setbacks are signs that our methods need to be adjusted, not stopped. Posted by: Doc at April 20, 2003 10:49 AMDoc, I see where your coming from but respectfully disagree, I responded to Dean, Jeff (and Stephen's original article) to my mind ill considered triumphalism so obviously my 'wake up call' may seem overly, er, Cassandraesque. My dismay at the policy choices of the administration may have given my post a more defeatist tone than was my intention. Yet I've also outlined a potential escape route , one that won't allow the radicals and terrorists to win. I'd submit this is a more postive response on my part than swinging my support in behind an aggressive approach which for the reasons recounted (at painful length) above I consider inherently flawed. Or in other words, if your're in a hole, stop digging.
Matt, obviously opposed to the former-war, states: "...it's a little early for triumphalism. So our apparent options were do nothing (nothing other than watch Saddam do whatever he wanted) or do something, but only if we could achieve success of Panglossian proportion? The disturbing part is that Matt probably thinks himself something of a progressive/liberal kinda guy. But his actual position is nothing if not pure paleoconservative (ala Peter Hitchens) and negative reactionary to any form of change. Or maybe he just liked Saddam and his fascist tyranny. First rule of holes: When you are in one. Stop digging. Posted by: ThomasD at April 20, 2003 10:11 PM'Matt' sees DANGER in crisis, 'Jeff' and 'Dean' see OPPORTUNITY. I'm on the opportunity side. Can the M.E. get worse? Sure. Can it also improve? Yes! Which will it do? Now comes the excitement - and sometimes the tragedy - of a people [or peoples] constructing something themselves. It's called freedom.
ThomasD, ‘So our apparent options were do nothing (nothing other than watch Saddam do whatever he wanted)’ In no way in the previous posts did I advocate inaction; I simply did not support this particular course. Do you seriously think the President was only offered two options? Invade or do nothing? I find that extremely hard to believe. ‘or do something, but only if we could achieve success of Panglossian proportion’ I’m a realist, of course no course of action is perfect, unfortunately that does not mean that any action, no matter how ill advised, is to be preferred to the status quo. Incidentally, since when did said elected government represent a panglossian objective to you? “The disturbing part is that Matt probably thinks himself something of a progressive/liberal kinda guy.” What disturbs me is how swiftly you abandon the issue at hand, to speculate on how I choose to define my philosophical standpoint. I’m not so arrogant as to attempt to pigeonhole your political standpoint Thomas on the basis of your post. ‘his actual position is nothing if not pure paleoconservative (ala Peter Hitchens) and negative reactionary to any form of change.’ Having arbitrarily classified me as progressive/liberal it seems a little unfair that you then accuse me of failing to live up to how you think I perceive myself! I’m not opposed to any form of change, merely a foolish and ill-advised one. I can advance alternative methods to the one chosen by the administration if you like. ‘Or maybe he just liked Saddam and his fascist tyranny.’ Of course, it all fits, my opposition to the war policy, criticism of the diplomatic failures of the administration, concern about the consequences for the region and the world, failure to take the military victory as a complete vindication of the conflict - I must be a Baathist sympathiser! Quite conclusive, Thomas I congratulate you on a tour de force of ‘straw man’ playground tactics. Clearly I’ll have to shave off this large moustache and hide my beret before the Marines arrive but before then I must put you straight on one thing. Opposing the decision to go to war is not the same as supporting the Saddam regime. When you start implying people who take a differing view to you fascist sympathisers you debase the process of debate and swiftly undermine your credibility. Ironically enough, the fascists themselves employed exactly the same kinds of innuendo and veiled insults in their political ‘discourse’. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be associated with the tactics of Dr Goebbels but that’s precisely what you just employed. All this pontification on the moral justification of Iraq begets one thing. Doubt. Though I believe dissent is what makes us American, anti-war crowds aren't dissenting because of political ramifications of the projection of American power, but because they doubt American motivations. Examples follow. Take the "No blood for oil" slogan pervading the culture. They don't realize that taking Iraqi for ourselves would precipitate a retaliatory response from OPEC. WE DON'T DARE! Fighting for a single jewel just isn't worth risking the whole gold mine. There's all this talk about "Disarming Iraq: Ali style", and I agree, care should always be taken to protect children. I'd like to point out several facts (sorry, they're incontrovertible). Each time we use a "smart bomb" instead of a "daisy cutter", a child or two is saved (give or take one due to probability). We spent an INCREDIBLE amount of energy making sure Ali isn't a regular occurence. I can't say the same for the Baathist regime (or for that matter, the Russian military in Chechnya). There're plenty of folks out there willing to play "pluck the boys arms like a daisy, and blame it on the daisycutter". There's so much complaining about what we took from the boy, that we overlook that we're THE ONLY NATION to give them back or more. (Prosthetics or in metaphor, the point is clear. The fact there are any human shields prove that we at least care, be it for the wrong reasons or not, and that we are willing to sacrifice to repay innocents for their suffering. Would Palestinians do that for the Israeli familes of their victims? Never! Case sealed in blood!) Just as we are too kind to criminals in our system (think O.J.), we worry too much about the rights of terrorists to Risk civilians in a game of Revenge. For Al- Qaeda, the die is cast. We're still rolling. Pray that we roll high. As Abbas was captured, and Italy tries to nab him, we have to ask ourselves this question: How to we value a terrorists life? I must agree with den Beste (denbeste.nu) that the best measure for his worth as a human being be on HIS measure of others. He valued Klinghoffer life less than a bit of "trouble" the old cripple could possibly stir. For such a decision, he can be worth no more than he valued Klinghoffer. So should I face the same jury for making such an evaluation. Irritatingly not, as the buck has to stop somewhere. We spend so much time worrying about the single life, no matter what, that we risking losing the many. Has Spock's word faded into the past? We're so hesitant to sacrifice a two of hearts, that we risk losing the whole deck. It's funny how we don't dare use such philosophy to regret engaging Hitler. It all comes down to one point: the willingness of the one. If it means dying to free my country, then HELL YES, I would do so proudly. Nothing could be worse to an Arab parent than wathing his/her child die in VAIN. Whatever happens to Ali, pray that as his parents look down from above, that they have something to proud of. Should Ali survive, don't you find it heartwarming that however much we harm him, we're perfectly willing to make a home for him here? Your local source of power, Has anyone noticed how, according to most Western journalists, Arabs are always "seething?" The streets of Baghdad "seethe" with anger at the U.S. Ramallah "seethes," Cairo "seethes," and, well, damn, the whole Arab world just "seethes" at us. What is the deal with that? Posted by: Brant at April 21, 2003 04:19 PMBrant, That's okay. Asian regions are always "teeming." Posted by: Dean at April 21, 2003 04:39 PMI wish I could share your optimism, but I just can't. Pretty soon and I mean very soon, the Iraqis are going to want us out of their country. I just don't think that the country will stay intact. There are too many forces preventing it from doing it. We have the Iranians, the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Kuwaitis, the Turks, and the US all wanting to have a say in their future. I really think that no government installed by us will be accepted. They will be seen as puppets for the United States in the eyes of the Iraqis and in the eyes of practically everyone in the world. The Iraqis are too suspicious and skeptical about our motives. We came saying that we are going to give them a better life, but we still haven't even given them electricity. I'm praying for our troops; I'm afraid that this will end up as our own West Bank. I wish we hadn't done this. Posted by: J.Roth at April 22, 2003 06:32 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"Mordant wit and stylish cynicism."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
