The Quagmire

May 9, 2005 9:35 PM

If it comes to civil war, the disintegration of Iraq will be extremely bloody. "The breakup of Iraq would be nearly as bad as the breakup of India in 1947," says David Mack, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state with wide experience in the Arab world. "The Kurds can't count on us to come in and save their bacon. Do they think we are going to mount an air bridge on their behalf?" Israel might support the Kurds, but Iran would intervene heavily in support of the Shiites with men, arms and money, while Arab countries would back their fellow Sunnis. "You'd see Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt intervening with everything they've got -- tanks, heavy weapons, lots of money, even troops," says White, the former State Department official.

The Quagmire
posted by y2karl (112 comments total)

Maybe things will eventually get so bad we'll be forced to talk about this in a sane way?
posted by hackly_fracture at 9:43 PM on May 9, 2005

We already do talk about it in a sane way; it's the administration that doesn't.

... The United States military does not control Baghdad. It doesn't control the major roads leading out of the capital. It does not control the downtown area except possibly the heavily barricaded "green zone." It does not control the capital. The guerrillas strike at will, even at Iraqi notables who can afford American security guards (many of them e.g. ex-Navy Seals). If the US military does not control the capital of a country it conquered, then it controls nothing of importance. Ipso facto, Iraq is a failed state. ...
posted by amberglow at 9:48 PM on May 9, 2005

See... we just need to give them a common enemy. A gift from our nation to theirs. That way they can all unite in opposition together as one people, under Allah, indivisible, with some liberties and justice for most.
posted by trinarian at 9:49 PM on May 9, 2005

"Maybe things will eventually get so bad we'll be forced to talk about this in a sane way?"

That sounds like wishful thinking of the worst kind. Can't we be critical of Bush without wishing for the destruction of Iraq?
posted by hurting.the.feelings.of.thechinesepeople at 9:51 PM on May 9, 2005

Well, yeah, that's sort of what I mean. Not trying to set up any strawmen or anything. I was just reading about the recent movements against the foreign fighters newly arriving from the west, and believe me, I've been reading about this shit every single day for over two years now, and it seems like the only thing anyone agrees on now is that this is going to take a long time to fix. So I'm less inclined then I was, say, a year ago, to simply snark against the opposite political side anymore. Even though, yep, its them what got us into this. I'm not sure "just get out now" is the answer, but I don't see any other answer that doesn't eventually involve triple the number of casualties all around. So I'm just wondering if there is a web forum somewhere where people are wrangling over this in a different way.

I am completely critical of Bush in every way. This war is his fault. Absolutely. I hope Republicans pay in 2006 and well into the century. Now how do we get out of this?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:02 PM on May 9, 2005

We pull out now, and give reputable international organizations (not headed by our neocons) rebuilding money to parcel out.
posted by amberglow at 10:05 PM on May 9, 2005

To vaguely make up for the incoherence:

1. The "foreign fighters" thing refers to is this, and

2. I realize "another web forum somewhere" won't end the war either. Self snarked.
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:07 PM on May 9, 2005

amberglow,

Who's gonna even do that?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:08 PM on May 9, 2005

It's what i think we should do (and pulling out means no permanent bases there too). I have no expectation at all that anyone will do it--they're profiting too much.
posted by amberglow at 10:11 PM on May 9, 2005

"We pull out now, and give reputable international organizations..."

As from the beginning, I'm extremely critical of any pullout plan that doesn't involve truly assuring the stability of Iraq. The US military is doing a crappy job now, but it would take a military commitment equivalent to what is there now to keep a lid on things. We're talking about an enormous international military presence. The thing is, though, that there simply isn't the will to commit to such a large project.

While I think (or hope) that amberglow and y2karl are examples of progressives/leftists that would refuse to simply abandon Iraq and put US domestic interests ahead of all other concerns, it's simply the case that much of the left and much of the right in the US really could not care less about the US's moral responsibility for the mess in Iraq. If not even us, then why should Europe do so?

There's considerable strategic interest, of course, as this link discusses. But oil will likely flow regardless.

You know, as we look at the situation with Iran, it's easy for me to see why the neocons were as self-assured as they were. There's been a variety of big problems about to come to a boil in the region and the neocons plan was a grand plan that seemed to offer an ideal solution if everything worked out. Unfortunately, tragically, they were delusional about the chances of "everything working out". And now things are worse than they'd be otherwise. (Cue the right-wingers in outrage asking how I could claim such a thing.)

Sigh. Always beware people with the utopian impulse.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:21 PM on May 9, 2005

I'm extremely skeptical of any invasion / occupation plan that doesn't assure the stability of Iraq
posted by warbaby at 10:30 PM on May 9, 2005

Isn't it safe to say that the invasion was about managing the oil wealth in Iraq and setting up a more strategic staging ground for additional military action in the Middle East if/when needed or desired? When is that going to change? It's not. That will always have been the motive, and always be a reason to stay. Conservatives would never give Iraq to the UN. Even if that means trying to keep the peace with US military force, for a long time. Any of these other countries that might send their own forces into a fractured Iraq--as the article talks about--would just get bombed by the US.

Remember this now, the US spends as much money on its military as the rest of the world does combined; has for about 15-20 years.
posted by airguitar at 10:40 PM on May 9, 2005

In the last line of the article, Bush says that Iraq is going to be a US colony. Hasn't he been saying the opposite all this time?
posted by dhruva at 10:44 PM on May 9, 2005

What are the chances that if the US leaves Iraq, things will actually stabilize themselves? It's hard to insurge when you don't have an oppressor. Iraqis are going to have to work their disputes out at some point anyhow; maybe if we were gone the country would at least no longer be susceptible to manipulation by extremists for whom our presence is the Greatest Recruitment Tool Ever.

i mean, obviously there is some factional craziness going on aside from the insurgents, and obviously there is a history of resolving such disputes poorly. but somehow other societies manage to deal with factional disagreements without erupting into civil war. what are the chances that Iraq is tired of fighting?
posted by Embryo at 10:46 PM on May 9, 2005

That sounds like wishful thinking of the worst kind. Can't we be critical of Bush without wishing for the destruction of Iraq?

You're hurting my feelings when you discourage me from wishing pain and suffering upon foreigners.

Actually, you're hurting my feelings, period. I'm going to have to kick you out of this country now.
posted by DaShiv at 10:51 PM on May 9, 2005

says a source close to the U.S. military
posted by airguitar at 10:53 PM on May 9, 2005

There is nobody else that can muster the inadequate force of 150,000 thousands troops that America has in country now. Mind you, than number is too small. Yet nobody else can reach it.

So unless you assume that America leaving will solve all of Iraq's problems, there is no solution. I don't think America leaving will make the fighting go away. Indeed, I think it will make it worse, as the power vacuum will become even bigger. Iraq is not a stable country: there are three, warring factions with little incentive to get along, and a government formed under military occupation which is never going to be seen as legitimate.

Reading on Darfur recently brought to my attention just how unique America's ability to project force half way around the world is. There is nobody to take our place. If we left, the UN or whomever could not even come all that close to putting 150,000 peacekeepers on the ground, let alone fixing a situation as chaotic as that in Iraq.
posted by teece at 10:54 PM on May 9, 2005

The takeaway I got from _A Bright Shining Lie_'s expose of John Paul Vann and the Vietnam conflict by Neil Sheehan was that nation-building without a large degree of buy-in from the populace (50%+) is seriously, seriously doomed.

Purple fingers are great and all, but where the rubber meets the road people want to be able to walk to the store without getting blown up, good schools for their kids, and, for Iraqis, I'd argue a return to the good ol' full-blown capital-S Socialism from the 1970s ba'athist heydays, not some Heritage Foundation brainfarts about implementing a New Economy corporatist utopia.

We had the same problem in Vietnam, no sane person would run for office when chances were only middling that they would survive the term in one piece.

US economic and military aid went to the most dishonest. The US-recruited military was riven with sleeper agents and crooks.

Iraq has already been largely defoliated, and is more isolated from neighboring powers, which I assume helps a lot, but one thing I noticed recently about Vietnam was the geostrategic problem was dual-pronged: 80%+ of the country N of Saigon was virtual wasteland, sparsely populated with triple canopy cover making infiltration and establishment of base camps piss-simple; we don't face that issue so much in Iraq... BUT, Mesopotamian Iraq and the Mekong Delta area share very similar attributes, high population density and a plenty of treelines and canals to skulk around in. And we must remember the Maoist strategy of the guerilla swimming in the ocean of people. The insurgency lives or dies on how well in wins hearts and minds in the effort to discredit both our intentions and ability to protect our civil supporters from terrorism and the government forces from infiltration.

It's a tall order to run any occupation like this, which is why I thought this whole thing was "fucking insane" (actual words used on usenet) going in.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:57 PM on May 9, 2005

Wiat until one of these groups acquires a nuclear bomb and uses it. Then the shit will hit the fan.
posted by camworld at 11:00 PM on May 9, 2005

I watched The Downfall recently, and the parallels between the fall of the the Nazis and the current fall of the Neocons were alarming. [Note to potential troll-fighters: ignore any idiot that calls Godwin when Nazis are mentioned in an illustrative manner. Godwin applies only when one participant calls another a Nazi]. Fervent, grandiose vision gone horribly wrong; at one point, the agenda of a few, ultimately the mandate of the people. Opponents of the "war" should learn the lessons of the 2004 US and 2005 British elections: the American and British people want this slaughter to continue. They're sowing the wind, and we're all going to reap the whirlwind to come.
posted by squirrel at 11:03 PM on May 9, 2005

posted by keswick at 11:11 PM on May 9, 2005

squirrel: yeah, I do feel sorta like how I imagine a good German did ca. mid-1942: OK, we've bitten off a lot, let's hope we can chew it w/o really screwing it up more (*cough* Iran).
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:12 PM on May 9, 2005

Godwin!
posted by jonson at 11:19 PM on May 9, 2005

I asserted then and continue to assert now: we lost the war at Abu Ghraib. What I said, the day the news hit, was almost exactly this: "We could lose this war right here. If Bush handles this really well, we could actually gain some ground, but if he handles it badly, we lose."

Had Bush apologized personally to the Iraqi people and ousted a bunch of people, we'd have had a pretty good chance of holding the country... it would have been a demonstration that the leadership actually did have their best interests in mind.

But we don't. We never did. Their rights aren't even ON our priority list. Abu Ghraib showed that, and we lost the war right there. We canned the one general who was willing to publicly criticize the administration (of course), threw a few kids in jail for a long time, and whitewashed everyone else.... when it's obvious to anyone with an 8th grade education that the decisions were made from the very top.

They will never accept us, and for all our military power and borrowed money, we'll never be able to control that country. The war was always for hearts and minds; bullets were just a symptom. We lost that war, and we lost it at Abu Ghraib.

Now, it's just a matter of how many more body bags we want to fill before fleeing.
posted by Malor at 11:24 PM on May 9, 2005

I think it's time we showed them AY-rabs what democracy is all about and let loose a few nukes. We can always fly in Filipinos to pump the damn oil.
posted by davy at 11:33 PM on May 9, 2005

[N]ation-building without a large degree of buy-in from the populace (50%+) is seriously, seriously doomed.

No shit? Damn that's profound! Next they'll be discovering that water is sometimes wet.
posted by davy at 11:41 PM on May 9, 2005

Oh, the Vietnam conflict cost around $500B in today's dollars. We're already half-way there; Iraq really is Vietnam on speed.

Just wait to we the people get the bill on this: $250B / 100M taxpayers works out to $2,500 per taxpayer + interest so far.

Has it been worth it? Guess the jury's still out on that.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:48 PM on May 9, 2005

by my comment, which no one seems to have noticed, i meant that perhaps our prolonged presence creates the added stabilization of rallying ALL Iraqi's against a common cause (occupation), which is tremendously helpful in nation-building. Which is ironic. I thought. Well, I hope, anyway. Because that's what made my comment both poignant and witty. In my head, anyway.
posted by trinarian at 11:52 PM on May 9, 2005

Then you see the irony of trying to transition to self rule.
posted by airguitar at 12:06 AM on May 10, 2005

trinarian, the US occupation has not and will not unify Iraq. The Shiite's support the new democratic state because, by weight of numbers, they will run the show and the Kurds will get enough autonomy that they will be happy. The Sunnis will not have a bar of it.
posted by sien at 12:14 AM on May 10, 2005

They've been trying to blame the resistance on "foreign fighters" since the beginning of the war, and it always turns out to be bullshit.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:17 AM on May 10, 2005

I think sien's right. The Sunnis will be the oppressed minority of the new "democratic" Iraq.
posted by davy at 12:27 AM on May 10, 2005

I never thought the war was a good idea but it seems we're committed. Pulling out would out would just make Iraq more chaotic. If the government really is committed, this is a long term project on the order of decades. The government in the past hasn't shown a willingness to quickly get out of countries aside from Vietnam. There have have been US bases in Europe and Asia since WWII and the Korean War. And Iraq is more valuable economically than Vietnam was.
posted by 6550 at 12:34 AM on May 10, 2005

Now, it's just a matter of how many more body bags we want to fill before fleeing.

And how many money bags. The people who are running this war don't give a hoot about the (poor and/or minority) bodies, and they never get tired of money bags, so... this debauch will end when pigs fly?

An interesting article I read in August's (?) Harpers describes the "honeypot" theory of post-invasion rebuilding through unchecked corporate greed. As in "greed is good," so create an environment where the goals of the greedy and the goals of the Iraqi people are more or less aligned, and then watch the miracle of unchecked markets. Hasn't worked out that way, of course.

Which brings me back to my admiration of the Iraqi people. Unlike the Americans and British, the Iraqis didn't lap up the bullshit, they rejected it. Like half of the American voters, they were forced to eat it, like it or not. Put into a position where their family and friends were being tortured, blown-up and terrorized, with not possibility of legal recourse, they did what we would do: they fought back. Andy they continue to fight back. And regardless of the fact that I have family and friends in the military, I support the Iraqi people's struggle in my heart. They are being gravely wronged, and their struggle for freedom is a just one, despite the fact that they fight beside nihilists and jihadists.
posted by squirrel at 1:16 AM on May 10, 2005

Iraq is undoubtedly one of the most fought over peices of land in human history. Babylonian, Sumererian and Akkadian empires were born, flourished and died there. It was taken over by the British after WWI. The Iraqi people know all about colonization, and they are never, ever, going to accept a White, Christian, American flag waving takeover. Any semblance of a political system organized by America and subserviant to American wishes will always be tainted and never accepted.

They would be only very slightly less vehemently opposed to a european-powered UN task force, which is undoubtedly why countries with a real knowledge of Iraqi history refused to take part in the coalition. We have got to accept this and leave. Will Iraq destabilize after we leave? Undoubtedly. But look at the other countries in the region: Syria, Libya, Jordan , Turkey, Iran... these are not bastions of democracy where people live happy carefree lives. This is the Middle East. It is ugly and beautiful and ugly some more, and this is how it has been for thousands upon thousands of years. America has been around for less than 300 years and we have such a shallow grip on world history it is laughable. The Iraqi people will bleed us as long as we care to stay, and when we leave they will resume fighting amongst themselves as they have been doing for thousands of years. Perhaps someday they will realize the error of their ways and form a civil society, but that day will only come when they are free to realize it for themselves and not with us pushing it down their throat wrapped in American bullshit. Fuck the oil, its all going to run out anyway. I vote we leave now.
posted by sophist at 2:33 AM on May 10, 2005

Pulling out would out would just make Iraq more chaotic.

And staying in makes it more chaotic.

I say we find some secular despot to rule with an iron hand, and turn a blind eye to his dealings with the "rebels."

Oh, wait.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:36 AM on May 10, 2005

Not to derail the subject or anything, but the Vietnam War lasted roughly eighteen years. I think to compare a quick retreat with the Vietnam War is sort of wrong. We might be in for a long haul before dissatisfaction with the war gets to the point it did during the mid-70s. Then again it seems as if the government has been good in trying to keep with the pull-out schedule. Whether this is good or bad is another question. If we do exit Iraq at the planned date, the effects would be much worst than any "lost" Vietnam.
posted by vodkadin at 2:39 AM on May 10, 2005

-- This is a long argument for stepping up military support to prevent the nightmare scenario from happening. I would add replacing the Commander-in-Chief but the slight majority of Americans were more than willing to let him continue running the show into the ground as long as gays don't get married.

-- As for everyone in government publically saying Iraq is going great, couldn't be better -- the hell you expect?

-- Which NGO, exactly, do you think would want to get involved in Iraq right now? Here's a hint: none.

-- What about the UN? NATO? The UN would beg the US to not get out because the UN can't even stymie a genocide on the Arab frontier let alone fix a colonialist project in the oil belt. The last time a world power dumped a FUBAR colonialist project on the UN Israel declared independence and seven Arab armies attacked it. Whatever your opinion on Israel, I think most people can agree that could've gone better.

-- Security could work. Remember what happened during the elections? Hardly anything, because the nation was under martial law, basically. What Iraq needs is about six months of that.
posted by raaka at 3:16 AM on May 10, 2005

This is a terrible FPP. One link to truthout about a hot button issue that has been done to death. What is metafilter coming to?
posted by drscroogemcduck at 3:25 AM on May 10, 2005

When the US pulls out, would Iran take a look at the chaos and invade on behalf of Iraqi Shi'a? If they don't have nukes by then, would the US do something really stupid, like try to invade Iran?
posted by alumshubby at 3:39 AM on May 10, 2005

What were the actual goals in Iraq? I don't seriously believe it was democracy. That has never been a real factor in U.S. foreign policy.

I've been wrestling with this since the start of the war. Obviously it is about oil but how? The oil won't flow out of Iraq until the insurgency is stopped and no major military occupation has succeeded in a long time. The NeoCons had to know this.

My guess is that is more about establishing uncontested military bases in the Middle East Guantanamo style. With the two largest economies and the two largest armies in the world desperately needing oil this is a resource that will be fought over. It won't matter if the oil flows of Iraq in the short term. Long term the U.S. can control it.

From this perspective seemingly absurd decisions that have hampered the reconstruction of Iraq make sense. After all who cares? The real objectives have already been reached. There is a large American military presence in Iraq with permanent bases.

So what if Iraqi's kill Iraqi's? The U.S. is now well positioned to project force in the Middle East from stable bases that are not threatened by foreign politics. No more asking Turkey for permission. No more worries about Saudis asking them to leave. Protect the bases not the people seems to be what is currently happening.

So you can mock Dubya for his toothsome "What me worry?" presidential style but I think he and his posse have achieved something pretty substantial with a pretty impressive piece of subterfuge. There is now an American beachhead in the middle east in preparation for a possible resource war between two world powers.

As for the internal state of Iraq..I strongly suspect it will never stabilize. After all, what would happen if it did? There is a strong chance that they would ask the Americans to leave. Even if they were pro-US what kind of country would allow another nations soldiers to troop around the country?
posted by srboisvert at 3:55 AM on May 10, 2005

drscroogemcduck:

>This is a terrible FPP. One link to truthout about a hot button issue that has been done to death. what is metafilter coming to?
posted by gsb at 4:41 AM on May 10, 2005

When you find you're digging yourself into a hole, STOP DIGGING!

Nothing good can come of the continued presence of US troops in Iraq. It's way too late.

Someone upthread said we lost this at Abu Ghraib, I say we lost it the day Paul Bremer replaced Jay Garner. That was the day the neocon "greed is good and Chalabi is correct" crowd took over the rebuilding process (or more correctly the destruction process.)
posted by nofundy at 5:07 AM on May 10, 2005

48 hours ago Berlusconi's government coalition lost -- heavily, again -- another special local election.
this morning, Berlusconi's Foreign Minister announced that Italy (until a few months ago the third-largest contingent in Iraq, now it's the fourth-largest) will leave Iraq in February 2006.

a coincidence: only three months after the pullout there's going to be a general election in Italy -- an election that, as of now, Berlusconi would lose in a landslide.
posted by matteo at 5:13 AM on May 10, 2005

Before we started this, we were damned if we did and we were damned if we didn't. Two gulf wars and unspeakable bloodshed later, that hasn't changed. Iraq was chaotic before we invaded. It's chaotic now. The Bush administration talked about surgical strikes and bringing peace to the region. Whether or not we were ever part of the solution, we are in fact now a part of the problem. Bush can't admit that though; it'd be political suicide.

It's not a question of whether or not we should pull out now. We can't. We're in it for the long haul and billions of dollars are being poured into a money pit. America's got finite resources and the insurgents know this. All they have to do is keep the pressure on until we run out, and they're spending a lot less money and resources than we are.

The rest of the world is just waiting for the last major superpower of the 20th century to run out of gas. Then we'll be right back where we were over a century ago. The third one's not gonna take months or years. It'll take minutes and seconds. Don't look up. The sky's falling.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:27 AM on May 10, 2005

"The notion that you can duff up a country for three months, pacify it for a bit longer and then miraculously transform it into a liberal democracy is just ludicrous. You might achieve some kind of democracy: it's the liberal bit I take issue with. How can you possibly telescope 1,500 years of history into a few months to create a representative parliamentary democracy?"

- David Starkey.
posted by Decani at 5:52 AM on May 10, 2005

It's not a question of whether or not we should pull out now. We can't.

Why can't we? We pulled out of Viet Nam in 1975, and while there were reprisals, mainly against the locals whom we hung out to dry, the country eventually got its act together. Korea was supposed to fall apart after we left as well, and it didn't.

If the US troops came home tomorrow, there would be reprisals, but I doubt it could be worse than the current carnage. Ultimately, they have to figure this out for themselves, and my money is on a Shiite theocracy heavily dominated by Iran. Mission Accomplished!
posted by bardic at 7:33 AM on May 10, 2005

Ten bloody days in Iraq: 338 dead, 588 wounded

Thursday 28 April

Roadside bomb leaves four American troops dead and two wounded. Two other US troops die in an accident. Five Iraqis killed in attacks.

Friday 29 April

Seventeen bombs, including four suicide attacks in almost as many minutes in Azamiyah, and 13 car bombs in Baghdad area, leave at least 50 dead, including two US servicemen, with 114 Iraqis and seven Americans wounded.

Saturday 30 April

Eleven car bombings, at least two roadside attacks and several rocket, mortar attacks and ambushes. Five car bombs in Baghdad, six more in Mosul, the worst of which, hidden in a mosque shrine, kills a woman and two children. Total of 17 Iraqis and one American dead, plus 32 wounded.

Sunday 1 May

Car bomb attack on mourners at a funeral near Mosul kills around 30, wounds more than 50. Five Iraqi police shot dead at checkpoint; four die and 12 injured in Baghdad car bomb; and one dies, two wounded in bomb at Baghdad amusement park. Other attacks leave one Iraqi dead and 24 injured. Five Americans injured in six other car bombs in Baghdad. Australian civilian taken hostage.

Monday 2 May

Three car bombs in Baghdad kill nine, suicide bombers in Mosul kill one child, injure 15. British soldier killed by roadside bomb is 83rd to die since March 2003. In the north, car bomb kills woman and injures four. Two US soldiers wounded by roadside bomb in Mosul. One US soldier dies, two injured by another roadside bomb. Two US F/A-18 Hornet planes crash, killing both pilots.

Tuesday 3 May

Two Bulgarian soldiers die in road crash. Firefight in Ramadi kills 12 insurgents, Iraqi soldier and two civilians and injures eight, including a small girl. Two US soldiers die in roadside bombings.

Wednesday 4 May

Sixty Iraqis die, 150 hurt, as suicide bomber strikes in Kurdish city of Arbil. Suicide bomber kills 15 and wounds 16, including 10 civilians, in Baghdad. One dead and two wounded in Baghdad firefight.

Thursday 5 May

Suicide bomber hits Baghdad army recruitment centre, killing 13, injuring 18. Car bomb kills four Iraqi police in Mosul and wounds five. Gunmen ambush police convoy, killing 10, wounding two. Car bomb kills one, wounds six.

Friday 6 May

Suicide bomber in car strikes at southern vegetable market, killing 31, injuring 45. Another kills eight police in Tikrit. Bodies of 12 men dressed in civilian clothes and blindfolded, found in Baghdad.

Saturday 7 May

Suicide car bomb explodes, killing 22 and injuring around 35. US soldier killed, and four more bodies found at mass grave. Two men found executed in Ramadi.

Robert Fisk
©2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
posted by acrobat at 7:41 AM on May 10, 2005

I think we should just stick with bush's plan to kill all the terrorists. once there aren't any terrorists anymore, then naturally there won't be any more terrorism!
posted by mcsweetie at 7:45 AM on May 10, 2005

Any government system that includes the idea of cutting off someone's hand when they steal? Not something to which any human being should be subjected. If that actually stopped theft, I'd be all for it, but there's absolutely no proof that having that on the lawbooks actually stops theft. I mean sure, that one person's right hand may not be able to do anything but attract worms anymore, but people still steal; they just try harder not to get caught is all. I feel the same way about imprisonment actually. It doesn't do more than deter illegal behavior a little bit, and causes people to try harder not to end up in prison, but personally I'd rather be locked up for awhile than have my limbs arbitrarily removed permanently.

There's also a little thing that perhaps some people in this thread don't care about but I find a concern: The theocracy that would replace our interference tends to treat women just a little less respectfully than livestock. Okay maybe I'm a bit ethnocentric and think that equality for women is a good thing, when had I been brought up in Iran all my life I'd wanna wrap my girls up like little presents that only I can unwrap. However, the word "inalienable" in regards to human rights is not limited to my belief system. All human beings intrinsically deserve the freedoms of life, liberty and happiness. It's not that some people are born with those rights and some are born with those rights as privileges and still other people are just screwed from birth. It is a global thing. All human beings have the right live and love and avoid having their body parts arbitrarily removed permanently. Idealistic? Maybe, but that doesn't make it any less right.

So giving Korea and Vietnam over to the communists or the fascists or whatever the hell they called themselves was us FAILING at defending the inalienable rights of fellow human beings, and if we do the same thing in Iraq it means we've failed AGAIN. All human beings deserve these rights; not just those who were geographically lucky at birth, and not just those with the most guns. Everyone. And those who insist on trying to steal those rights must be stopped. Defending their rights is defending our own.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:58 AM on May 10, 2005

All human beings intrinsically deserve the freedoms of life, liberty and happiness. It's not that some people are born with those rights and some are born with those rights as privileges and still other people are just screwed from birth.

What drivel. First off, no one is saying that there's a desire for a theocracy of any sort in Iraq. It's called Realpolitik, and it means that since we don't have magical democracy dust that we can sprinkle wherever we choose, we have to make cost-effective choices. Do you think a billion a week and tens of thousands of lives are worth a (IMO, very slight) chance at something resembling a democracy? I don't. Why not spend these resources (the monetary ones, not the human ones) on countries that, while far from democratic, have something of an infrastructure in place for political liberalization?

As for history, South Korea is a pretty good example of a democracy (certainly not perfect), albeit one now threatened by the US's inability to check the North's nuclear capability. As for Viet Nam, I've never been, but my sense is that they're much happier with America out than they ever were with America interfering.
posted by bardic at 8:13 AM on May 10, 2005

"Cars are making me very nervous lately. All cars look suspicious- small ones and large ones. Old cars and new cars. Cars with drivers and cars parked in front of restaurants and shops. They all have a sinister look to them these days."

it will be fun to watch bolton grovel for UN help in two years.

these f*ckers.
posted by specialk420 at 8:20 AM on May 10, 2005

Not something to which any human being should be subjected.

Here's a light tap with the clue stick: If enough people want to enter in a social contract where arms are cut off for theft, the government is no less legitimate, no matter if it offends your delicate sense of how it's "supposed" to work.

Our failure to recognize and respect other people's way of getting shit done will sink us in the end. Perhaps they're not ready for democracy, perhaps they don't want democracy, because the only thing they understand is power and powerlessness? Perhaps they're not willing to sacrifice their own self-interest for the greater good of stability, and thus are doomed to a never-ending succession of secular military juntas and fanatical religious extremists.

So giving Korea and Vietnam over to the communists or the fascists or whatever the hell they called themselves was us FAILING at defending the inalienable rights of fellow human beings

Amazing, then, that Vietnam is now so stable and placid. Incredible that they could start to adopt our economic models over time. Stunning that their war-torn nation could now be so peaceful. I wonder how they did it? Without any of our vaulted help.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:23 AM on May 10, 2005

vaulted = vaunted
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:24 AM on May 10, 2005

Zach's Mind:


... and we were damned if we didn't

Why? How would the U.S. (and the Western World) be any different today if the invasion never took place?
posted by zardoz at 8:33 AM on May 10, 2005

Zach, it's not our job nor is it our "divinely-inspired mission" (to quote some in this administration) to protect the rights of strangers elsewhere--especially when we're losing those same rights at home. We didn't do it in the past, and we're not doing it now. We didn't do it when we meddled in Central and South America, Philippines, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, and certainly not during the Cold War. Nor are we doing it in Africa, where they really could use help. And we're not doing it in Iraq right now either, nor was it the intention. Check out some of the rights of people in countries like Pakistan and Uzbekistan (where they boil people as torture)--countries that are supposed to be our current alllies.
posted by amberglow at 8:44 AM on May 10, 2005

All human beings intrinsically deserve the freedoms of life, liberty and happiness.

So ZachsMind: if this is really the crux of your concern (and/or American foreign policy), then why invade the secular totalitarian state of Iraq and not the theocratic monarchy next door? (Hint: I mean the one with the rulers who hold hands with the President when they visit the White House.) For that matter, why isn't there a marine expeditionary force now decamping in Zimbabwe? Burma? Sudan? Liberia or Cote d'Ivoire or Turkmenistan? China, fer chrissake?

So giving Korea and Vietnam over to the communists or the fascists or whatever the hell they called themselves

In the latter case, they called themselves Vietnamese, and the fact that they were Vietnamese is one of many reasons why Ho Chi Minh remains to this day a national hero and quasi-diety in Vietnam while the construction of Lyndon Johnson Square in the heart of Saigon remains on hold. Ho was a nationalist first, then a communist. Even McNamara's admitted he and his big brains at the Pentagon misunderstood that equation.

Oh, and furthermore and for the record, from the Vietnamese perspective "the American War" was a particularly bloody little skirmish at the end of a thousand years of heroic resistance to Chinese conquest. Another bit o' historical detail that gets left out of most of the American reckonings of that time. I can only imagine how badly we're mangling the Iraqis' understanding of the conflict in their country.

On preview: what amberglow said.
posted by gompa at 9:22 AM on May 10, 2005

Amazing, then, that Vietnam is now so stable and placid. Incredible that they could start to adopt our economic models over time.

And they might have done it quicker without the 10+ years of war and 4,000,000+ dead.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:24 AM on May 10, 2005

Civil, Amber: You're making the argument for democracy over liberalism. First off, it is a fallacy to argue that because we don't know these people that their rights deserve less protection, and second, the argument that you're making is a dangerous one. By saying that if enough people want to have a system that doesn't jibe with our view of justice, they should be able to, you're also saying that if, for example, Christians in America wanted to make homosexuals unable to marry or own property, well, we should let them because they have a majority. If you're going to commit yourself to fighting majoritarianism domestically, then you should commit yourself to also trying to fight it abroad. Arguably, since the citizens of US and Western Europe enjoy the broadest defenses of their liberties, we should be working hardest at fighting for those on the lowest rungs, like those in developing nations or failed states.
Certainly, there are practical considerations to be made. But Civil, I doubt very much that you're truly advocating a Bismarkian Realpolitik, otherwise you should be right aboard with this fiasco in Iraq.
Freedom loving people, liberals and academics especially, should be involved with Iraq and the nation building process. The only question should be with regard to the tactics to be used. Inarguably, there is a case to be made that our current direct presence only makes the situation worse. But there's an equal case to be made that pulling out now will also make things worse. The difficulty is similar to one facing those who really do believe in human rights: Is it worth it to take Bush's rhetoric at face value, support his political projects in Iraq and simply assume that it's been a gross and tragic debacle because of his incompetence? Or should the good things that could come out of this (say, a liberal republic in the mid-east, true humanist institutions in Iraq) be disregarded due to the monumental duplicity and bad faith that the President has acted with?
I do wish that everyone would stop pretending that there is a simple answer to the problems in Iraq. There isn't, and neither the administration nor the "Flee Now" crowd seem to grasp that.
posted by klangklangston at 9:25 AM on May 10, 2005

Good points klang, but I'd change "Flee Now" to "Do Something to Stop the Appalling Carnage on a Daily Basis" crowd. And you're right about no simple answers, but what about the difference between 1 bil./wk versus none?
posted by bardic at 9:37 AM on May 10, 2005

it is a fallacy to argue that because we don't know these people that their rights deserve less protection

Fair enough. But it's just as problematic to assume that a foreign occupier can secure the other rights of the Iraqi people without first allowing them the right to self-determination, not to mention assuming that the US military and its corporate adjuncts are the right people for the job. It just might turn out that the Iraqis have their own ideas about this stuff. (The Kurds, for example, appear to feel - probably quite rightly - that self-determination is the necessary precondition for the rest of it.)

Freedom loving people, liberals and academics especially, should be involved with Iraq and the nation building process.

Not even getting into the vague language here (what constitutes "Freedom loving"? "Involved" how?), I have to ask: Can you think of a single successful "nation building" project ever conducted by a world power with the notable exceptions of Japan and Germany after WWII? (Which, it warrants mention, are neither the functional models for the current project nor the norm of American-led nation building in the years since.) Bonus points if you take into account that the mess of modern Iraq's unhappy tripartite population is a direct result of the last grand nation-building scheme in Mesopotamia.
posted by gompa at 9:43 AM on May 10, 2005

"Get out of our country and there will be no more explosions," one policemen shouted in Arabic.

Nation-building is not possible from outside--why be involved in it? It's a fool's game for anyone who ever read any history. There's empire, conquest, and subjugation, with eventual rebellion--we're seeing all of that at once in Iraq right now. We're not nation-building. And it will not become a liberal republic by our means, well-intentioned or otherwise. If Iraqis want a liberal republic, they'll build one. They don't want that, from all indications.
posted by amberglow at 9:44 AM on May 10, 2005

amberglow: "If Iraqis want a liberal republic, they'll build one. They don't want that, from all indications."

'Eh, let the bloody wogs have their dictators. What's that got to do with us? The Sudan isn't our backyard, after all.'
posted by koeselitz at 9:48 AM on May 10, 2005

We've installed and/or propped up many of those dictators anyway, koeselitz--including Saddam. We're all of a sudden crusaders for Democracy and liberal republics--hah!
posted by amberglow at 9:55 AM on May 10, 2005

The only question should be with regard to the tactics to be used

Lead by example, put our own house in order.

Only interfere for humanitarian reasons in other countries where we can separate combatants.

But don't be so isolationist as to not firmly address expansionist powers like Nazi Germany and militarist Japan at the earliest opportunity.

Don't be so god-damned condescending like we're God's Gift to the planet. The American Experiment is cool and all, but we've got loads of issues yet to figure out (eg. $7.75T national debt as of today, whoohoo!), and it's not like we're so politically mature that we can handle a simple vote recount without making a fucking federal case out of it.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:02 AM on May 10, 2005

Vietnam presumably taught us that the United States could not serve as the world's policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world's midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war. -- Jeane Kirkpatrick, 1979
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:06 AM on May 10, 2005

Successful nation building? Depends on your definition. By a single power? None, so far as I can think. By multiple powers within the framework of the UN and international aid agencies? Aside from the fact that we're looking at a really, really short window from a historical perspective, there's the former Yugoslavian states, which are doing better than might have been expected. Then we've got Ghana, which aside from problems with the IMF, is a pretty stable republic. Panama is doing decently. The Phillipines, Indonesia and Malaysia are all fairly functional for their level of development. You could argue that India is a decent model, even if it was a stinging rebuke to Britian's colonial fantasies (since the British infrastructure is what's allowing it to capitolize on the tech boom).
And Iraq isn't the victim of a "nation building" scheme. Iraq was partitioned as a colony, not as a nation. That's why I wouldn't mention Egypt, who required a Nassar-level politician to form national consciousness (and he still had a dim view of Egyptians).
Something I would mention as the sort of "nation building" that we should be looking into is the sustainable development movement, especially with regards to Thailand. There are still huge social problems, but by creating community-level development and emphasizing local political power, there have been drastic steps made toward an improved economy that isn't coming at the expense of the people living there. (Though, again, nowhere is perfect and Thailand still has huge troubles to deal with).
Amber: A link is not an argument. And while your incessant agitation for isolation is noted, you're arguing against your own interests. Recognition of rights elsewhere also means recognition of rights here (and vice versa). If the Iraqis want to behead homosexuals, you're going to argue that's their perogative, right? Or are you going to complain about the human rights abuses? Here's your chance to weigh in for human rights everywhere.
But hey, I was for sanctions and even possible military intervention in Afghanistan before 9/11, because I saw that human beings were being treated in ways that were unconscionable. But I guess you'd rather whine about not being able to drop off blood at the local bank than worry about gays elsewhere being stoned to death.
posted by klangklangston at 10:06 AM on May 10, 2005

Amber- Pointing out that we did evil in the past is not an argument against doing good in the future. Because America was the last Western country to outlaw slavery, we shouldn't have gotten involved with apartheid?
Heywood- I'm totally in favor of working to make America better. I think that, overall, we have a pretty good system and that most Americans are decent people who want to do the right thing. I think a small and vocal minority managed to win the most number of votes, and that they aren't doing what's in the best interests of the country or the world.
posted by klangklangston at 10:10 AM on May 10, 2005

amberglow: I don't say that we're shining examples of good government. But your answer to our mistakes is isolationism? Is that even possible, much less ideal? I mention the example of the Sudan because I think it's a good example in this case.
posted by koeselitz at 10:11 AM on May 10, 2005

You know what, klang--i worry about where i am first, and rights of others afterwards--it's a pretty common view. I won't expend energy on others until my house is safe. Call me practical, or isolationist or whatever you want. Think of it as a hierarchy of needs thing.
posted by amberglow at 10:11 AM on May 10, 2005

True international cooperation, and diplomacy, and money for worthwhile projects--not invasion and imposition and acquisition of assets--that's my answer.
posted by amberglow at 10:12 AM on May 10, 2005

amberglow: To clarify, I think people called you 'isolationist' because you said things like this:

"Nation-building is not possible from outside--why be involved in it? It's a fool's game for anyone who ever read any history. There's empire, conquest, and subjugation, with eventual rebellion--we're seeing all of that at once in Iraq right now."

'Nation-building' being somewhat vague, it really sounds as though you're saying here, 'it's stupid to be involved militarily in the affairs of other nations. It's disrespectful, and it only leads to civil war.' One can be against this particular war and be wary of going that far; after all, aren't there some humanitarian cases where conscience demands we get involved? Isn't there a way to use power without stepping on toes and without mucking it all up?
posted by koeselitz at 10:20 AM on May 10, 2005

Of course there are--i'm talking about our "nation-building" attempts. We're not on a humanitarian mission in Iraq, and that's proven everyday.

We have power--great power--that doesn't involve military invasion and occupation and death and destruction--we just don't use it lately, tragically. We have diplomacy, containment, money, an influential position in the world community (when there was a world community) to obtain allies, funding, results...
posted by amberglow at 10:25 AM on May 10, 2005

if, for example, Christians in America wanted to make homosexuals unable to marry or own property, well, we should let them because they have a majority

That's the way it works.

If you're going to commit yourself to fighting majoritarianism domestically, then you should commit yourself to also trying to fight it abroad.

Two things: first, what does fighting majoritarianism have to do with the price of tea in China? How does civic action == international invervention?

Second, begging a definition: fight. I would "fight" against the Christian majority you mention above by voting, by protesting, by trying to convince enough people (a majority) that their actions are wrong. Working within the system. See: Civil Rights Movement. If I were in a different country, with a different set of rules (or no rules), my definition of "fight" changes to confrontation, because that is the only available mechanism.

I doubt very much that you're truly advocating a Bismarkian Realpolitik, otherwise you should be right aboard with this fiasco in Iraq.

I'm completely in favor of realpolitik as it is classicaly defined: politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. In the case of Iraq, we should never have entered. Now that we're there, we should get out. Very simple. Our presence is a hindrance to their development, and a drain on our own national resources. It's bad policy all-around.

That said...

Freedom loving people, liberals and academics especially, should be involved with Iraq and the nation building process.

I agree we should stabalize the nation, maybe even promote democracy since it's in our best interests, but invasion and occupation are not only poor ways to do this, they are actively antagonistic to your stated purpose.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:29 AM on May 10, 2005

what CD said.
posted by amberglow at 10:33 AM on May 10, 2005

The Phillipines,

(aside from decades of brazen kleptocracy, gross and endemic official corruption, a long-simmering guerilla war on one of its largest southern islands, etc.)

Indonesia

(aside from its perpetually corrupt and authoritarian rulers, the low-intensity civil wars being fought on several of its constituent islands, etc.)

and Malaysia

(which, like Indonesia, never really experienced a serious external effort to impose order upon it - the British were just there for the rubber and tin - and which owes its developmental successes to the authoritarian nation-building enterprises of one Mahathir bin Mohamad, who last I checked was a Malay, not a Halliburton exec)

are all fairly functional for their level of development.

You could argue that India is a decent model

(except that India can't be viewed as a nation-building model apart from Pakistan and Bangladesh, both of which were born of British rule and its cessation and both of which are different kinds of national basketcase, not to mention India's lingering official corruption [the head of either the Bihari or the Orissan state govt (can't remember which) once won an election from prison], its massively stratified social order [which is what's actually holding India together despite its corrupt govts et al.], its high poverty and low literacy rates, etc., etc., etc., all of which are unlikely to be magically cured by the fact that Infosys is making shitloads of money doing customer-service support for corporate America)

even if it was a stinging rebuke to Britian's colonial fantasies (since the British infrastructure is what's allowing it to capitolize on the tech boom).

Many generations of Indian parents who've cajoled their kids into becoming doctors and engineers plus a native mathematical tradition many thousands of years old plus the Congress govt officials who championed the development of a chain of Indian Institutes of Technology more than a decade after Mountbatten's retreat might beg to differ with you on the centrality of "British infrastructure" to India's engineering might, but that's another debate entirely.

And Iraq isn't the victim of a "nation building" scheme. Iraq was partitioned as a colony

A rose by any other name . . .

But by all means, any and all of these might serve as excellent examples of America's designs for Iraq, if in fact the Bush administration appeared to have any particular design for Iraq, and if in fact said design bore even a passing resemblance to any of these examples.
posted by gompa at 10:41 AM on May 10, 2005

Amber: It's also deeply selfish and flawed. An appeal to common sense does not back up an argument.

Civil: Realpolitik isn't about the nation, though, it's about the actors. Realpolitik is when a leader lies to the populace about the reasons for war (see: Schlesswig & Holstein), lies to the public about the costs of the war (see: the Prussian military budget of 1861-1865), engages in foreign wars in order to weaken liberal domestic power (see: the Austro-Prussian War). It's about disregard for international norms ("No one ever speaks of treaties except when he wants you to do something that's not in your interest.") and eyeing the foreign with a view to the domestic. If you're for Realpolitik, you're for the Straussian neo-con view of the government, and you're for the war in Iraq.
I realize that you think that you're arguing for pragmatism, and for a view of what's best for the nation guiding our principles, but that's not what Realpolitik is. Just like how a mean is not a median, though they're both averages.
posted by klangklangston at 10:45 AM on May 10, 2005

Civil— To continue:
Fighting for rights here is the same as fighting for rights anywhere. And just because a majority of, say, conservatives legislates that, say, you have to remain in "free speech zones" doesn't mean that it's right. That's why we have a Bill of Rights— to limit the powers of the government to infringe on our rights. Those rights are the same for all people, they're just not equally defended around the globe.
We should stabilize the country and promote democracy because it's the right thing to do. While invasion was a stupid thing to do, I missed the time-traveller's convention, so I don't think I'll be able to go back and make sure that Bush's parents never meet. A sense of the concrete requires us to act from the position that we are now in. A sense of the ideal should show us the goals to strive for.
posted by klangklangston at 10:51 AM on May 10, 2005

C_D: "I agree we should stabalize the nation, maybe even promote democracy since it's in our best interests, but invasion and occupation are not only poor ways to do this, they are actively antagonistic to your stated purpose.

This is where you lose me. So you're recommending we 'stabilize' and 'promote democracy' by doing what? Sending them food packets? Asking the U.N. to recruit, outfit, and place more men than they have in the world as immediately as possible so that we can get rid of the fearful feeling that we've done something wrong?

'Occupation' isn't necessarily a dirty word. We have to try now to do it right. I grant that we've made mistakes, but we have to fix them. A lot of the people who were against the war in Viet Nam initially supported the effort after we went in because they saw that leaving abruptly would be the same as consigning millions more VietNamese people to their deaths. They turned out to be right.

On preview:

klangklangston: "...the Straussian neo-con view of the government"

'Straussian' and 'neo-con' views of government: two very, very different things.
posted by koeselitz at 10:53 AM on May 10, 2005

I don't know why anyone hasn't mentioned what seems to me the most logical solution: engage Jordan and Egypt in a plan to rebuild the country. Bring in Jordanian and Egyptian 'middlemen' to disperse funds and jobs, employ local contractors to rebuild schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc. funded by U.S. dollars that should have logically gone this route in the first place. The arab fear of westerners is well-founded and the only way to fix this problem is to allow middle-easterners to fix it themselves without western interference. Westerners have bungled things far too much already. With this latest and greatest bungle we've destroyed what was left of any credibility in the region.
Some may mention 'cronyism' on the part of the Egyptians and Jordanians, but hey, look at Halliburton, Brown and Root, Dyncorp, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
posted by mk1gti at 10:57 AM on May 10, 2005

Gompa: As I noted, none of them are perfect. They're all less-developed nations, and all of them are fairly young countries. But what's your point? That since there isn't a perfect state anywhere on earth that all nation building is flawed? Might as well argue that since there's corruption in Detroit, all of America is a failed experiment.
(Further, there is a substantial difference between Iraq's colonial experience and the experience of countries that have been involved in late-20th century nation building. Colonialism is not nation building. The emphasis in nation building is to create a functional and cohesive nation, with internal institutions and a collective identity. The goal of colonialization was the extraction of resources, usually accomplished by setting a minority above a majority and enforcing that with foriegn weapons. To imply that Iraq's colonial history is the same as the attempts at nation building within, say, the failed states of West Africa— even though I'll grant that much of that has been disasterous as well— is like saying that all Africans are the same).
posted by klangklangston at 10:58 AM on May 10, 2005

In the last line of the article, Bush says that Iraq is going to be a US colony. Hasn't he been saying the opposite all this time?

That struck me too, but it's not Bush, it's "a source close to the U.S. military." GWB could/would/should never say that.

I convinced my girlfriend to kill her Rolling Stone subscription a while ago (the trend in covers helped my cause), but I admit that their Iraq coverage has been solid.

What is metafilter coming to?

LOL. Where has it been?

a hot button issue that has been done to death.

OMG. ROTFLMAO. You're right. Iraq? Old news, man. Nothing new happening there.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:01 AM on May 10, 2005

One conclusion to draw from the unlovely spectacle of democratic governance in Iraq is that the two dominant American views of the war were both wrong. Iraq is a far less modern, less united, and less friendly place than the fondest hopes of the war’s architects would have had the American public believe. At the same time, the ability of those architects to control the outcome for their own purposes is close to zero. Some war boosters, in and out of the Administration, have nonetheless been quietly declaring mission accomplished redux, with a shrug: they never thought Iraq would be perfect, and everything from here on out is just footnotes. In public, they seem to want Americans to forget all about Iraq...

Two years ago, there was a moment when the Americans might have molded Iraq after their own desire, for better or worse. Their incompetence surprised no one more than the Iraqis. The country has long since hardened into its own shape, and whether it holds together or breaks into pieces is largely up to the Iraqis who now have it in their hands. But the least debt that Americans now owe Iraq is to realize that the footnotes will control the lives of Iraqis for years to come, with plenty of time left for great improvement or great damage.

Footnotes
posted by y2karl at 11:03 AM on May 10, 2005

Koesy- Strauss is the ideological father of the neo-conservative movement. Wolfowitz, Perle, both Kristols, all disciples of Strauss.
Mk1- The reason to avoid Egypt is that it's an authoritarian waste, with Mubarak running a corrupt junta. Jordan and Lebanon are better bets, but still lack the sheer population and size in order to truly handle the reconstruction. It would be nice if there were an effective Arab League, but that's pretty much bullshit now.
posted by klangklangston at 11:05 AM on May 10, 2005

Nice link, Karl.
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on May 10, 2005

the Kurds have set their sights on Kirkuk, a multiethnic city that sits atop Iraq's vast northern oil fields. Even though the city lies outside of Kurdistan, Talabani calls it "the Jerusalem of Kurdistan," and Barzani says, "We are ready to fight and to sacrifice our souls to preserve its identity."

That sounds bad.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:11 AM on May 10, 2005

But what's your point? That since there isn't a perfect state anywhere on earth that all nation building is flawed?

Something along the lines of how top-down nation building (by any name, regardless of intention) has pretty much never worked (again, with the exception of the extreme, post-total-war cases of Germany and Japan, both of which notably were given the tools to figure out how to rebuild themselves as soon as it was feasible. You could make an argument for Yugoslavia, but I think of it more as a very complex and involved peacekeeping mission.) Even in the best cases you listed - Malaysia, India - the successes you cite occurred after they were freed from their colonial masters and given more or less total autonomy.

Ergo: if the US plan in Iraq is anything other than "Self-determination ASAP, Whether Our Guys Stay In Charge Or Not, Whether We Approve Of Their Interpretation Of The Rule Of Law Or Not, Etc.," it'll probably fail. Spectacularly.
posted by gompa at 11:20 AM on May 10, 2005

klang: "Koesy- Strauss is the ideological father of the neo-conservative movement. Wolfowitz, Perle, both Kristols, all disciples of Strauss."

This is a side-issue, I know, but this isn't true. First of all, most of the first-wave neoconservatives, ex-socialists and ex-communists (hence the 'neo') of the middle and late '60's, probably hadn't even heard of Strauss. Indeed, Strauss wasn't mentioned so prominently until maybe the late nineties. Until then, there were others: Podheretz, and both Kristols, were much more famous, and much earlier, in the group. Second of all, even if they mention him, it's really important to note that Wolfowitz and Perle are hardly 'disciples of Strauss.' True students of Strauss, people who've actually studied with him or look to his writings for guidance, exist: Allan Bloom, Seth Benardete, David Bolotin, Christopher Bruell, Thomas Pangle, Stanley Rosen, and a few others. One notices immediately that the most political any of them has gotten is writing a popular book.
posted by koeselitz at 11:22 AM on May 10, 2005

What have I been saying for three years? We are mirroring what happened to the British in 1917. Only MUCH worse.

engage Jordan and Egypt in a plan to rebuild the country

Because:

A) they don't have the resources

B) they don't want too get caught up against Iran or look like they are overtly complicit with US foreign policy in any way

In a way the US is doing what you describe in that they are hiring Jordanian contractors and pork-barreling the region with US largess. But the local political communities would be hostile to their neighbors getting directly involved. Almost as much as they are to us.

Westerners have bungled things far too much already. I would agree but I must reluctantly state that this round has gone, as far as the objectives the Bush Administration set, fairly well so far. Not for the Iraqi's. But we never did this for the Iraqi's. That is the big lie. The only thing Bush has not, and probably will not, achieve will be free open access to the sweet sweet Iraqi crude. Nor will they get enough oil profits to "pay" for this misadventure. Otherwise he has got pretty much everything he wanted. Including re-election.
Now he has to face up to the big lies. The neo-cons don't care though. Bush is out and he will withdraw 50% of our troops before he leaves and declare victory (again).

The next cabal of Neocons in 2008 will be riding on the anti-homo coat tails of the religious right and will get right back in there. Iraq will be simply a side show. The main show will be the culture wars.

The left has lost this one - as our VP says - BIG TIME.
posted by tkchrist at 11:25 AM on May 10, 2005

Koesy— We've derailed this one, but I don't really care: Wolfowitz, who studied under Bloom and worked with Shulsky, is undeniably a believer in Strauss's political philosophy. He's said as much in interviews (one with Terry Gross on Fresh Air). And while the Kristols are more famous, their policy work is undoubtably Straussian in scope.
While there are plenty of neo-cons who got to where they are without Strauss, the think tank leaders and policy makers definitely have a high regard for him.

Gompa- You forgot Ghana (good example) and Panama (mediocre example). But no, I wouldn't argue that a top-down imposition is likely to be a generally successful model without a lot of resources being poured into it (staggering though it may be, I mean an order of magnitude greater than our expenditures in Iraq), but we've already invaded. Working with what we've got, it's better to try to frame the structural components of Iraq's emerging society in as liberal a way as possible than it is to simply abandon these people to civil war and collapse. Nation building, like liberalizing trade, is something that can have good results if done with good intentions and a deft touch.
posted by klangklangston at 11:44 AM on May 10, 2005

Iraq? Old news, man. Nothing new happening there.

it's a paradox, but it's true. nothing new, in a way:

BOOM! --> people die --> BOOM! --> people die --> BOOM! --> people die

etc., over and over

now, discussing the why did the US fuck up so bad is interesting. trying to imagine a way for the US to get out of the mess is extremely interesting, too.
but the day-to-day news coming from there are hardly interesting if one is into analyzing stuff -- with very few exceptions (ie Saddam's arrest, various war crimes -- Abu Ghraib, the shooting of unarmed wounded enemies, etc) news from Iraq is just a body count. nothing new, sadly, unless people stop getting blown up, which won't be soon.
posted by matteo at 11:57 AM on May 10, 2005

So you're recommending we 'stabilize' and 'promote democracy' by doing what? [...] food packets? [...] the U.N.

How about let's try what worked in Germany and Japan: dump shitloads upon shitloads of money into their infrastructure. Basically, we should swap the money going to fund military efforts with the money going to rebuilding efforts. A few hundred billion bucks can rebuild more than a few bridges, if you catch my drift.

'Occupation' isn't necessarily a dirty word.

YES, IN FACT IT IS. "Occupation" means invader. It means them versus us. Occupation is a giant fucking piñata to target their aggression and frustration at.

We have to try now to do it right. I grant that we've made mistakes, but we have to fix them.

Ok, so you've got this fever. A doctor comes along, and without you asking, says he's going to cure your fever by chopping off your legs. "No!" you protest. But he goes and chops your legs off anyway. "Whoops!" the doctor later admits. But don't worry! "Since I fucked up so bad, I'm duty-bound to fix you up, proper this time!"

Do you really want him to continue operating, or would you rather he kindly fuck the hell off?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:12 PM on May 10, 2005

Oh, one more thing we need to do: Publicly apologize to the Muslim world, and in particular the people of Iraq. Humble ourselves before them. Then pull out. Then dump money.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:25 PM on May 10, 2005

yup. what CD said, again.

Amber: It's also deeply selfish and flawed. An appeal to common sense does not back up an argument.
You know what? It's time we used common sense and got the hell out of there before we further fuck it all up. It's way past time, actually.
posted by amberglow at 2:30 PM on May 10, 2005

This whole 'apologizing to the Muslim world' thing is so crazy, so insanely unexpected, that I really do wonder what sort of impact it would have if done publically and loudly (followed by action).
posted by verb at 2:49 PM on May 10, 2005

Amber: You know what, it's time we used common sense to see that we have to remove gays from the population before they spread their promiscuity and diseases. Do you see why appeals to common sense are a logical fallacy? And do you see why I, as a straight guy, still support gay rights even though it does me no personal good? Weren't you one of the people on about the tsunami? Why were those brown people better than the Iraqis?
posted by klangklangston at 4:02 PM on May 10, 2005

This whole 'apologizing to the Muslim world' thing is so crazy, so insanely unexpected, that I really do wonder what sort of impact it would have if done publically and loudly (followed by action).
posted by verb at 2:49 PM PST on May 10

It's just so crazy, it might work!!
It's certianly the last thing they's expect!

But winning over their hearts and minds, and giving them the gift of democracy (capitalism), and WMD's are certianly not the reason we are there.. as referenced above.
posted by Balisong at 4:04 PM on May 10, 2005

Amber: You know what, it's time we used common sense to see that we have to remove gays from the population before they spread their promiscuity and diseases. Do you see why appeals to common sense are a logical fallacy? And do you see why I, as a straight guy, still support gay rights even though it does me no personal good? Weren't you one of the people on about the tsunami? Why were those brown people better than the Iraqis?
You know what? When gay Americans cost a billion a week (that we don't have), and many deaths, and enduring enmity for generations across a wide swath of the world, you'll have a point, maybe. We gave a pittance to help tsunami victims and should have given more--maybe if we weren't bogged down in Iraq we could have helped more--are you really equating humanitarian aid for a natural disaster with an horrendously bloody and expensive invasion and occupation we started and continue?
posted by amberglow at 4:09 PM on May 10, 2005

The fact that you think we're actually there to help anyone other than US companies/interests is laughable. We've done nothing to help them, and continue to kill them daily. (That's not even mentioning the torture and abuse that is still going on.)
posted by amberglow at 4:12 PM on May 10, 2005

klang, maybe you can explain why we haven't rebuilt Fallujah, a city of 300,000?
posted by amberglow at 4:30 PM on May 10, 2005

There's some confusion of terms here, which is understandable since there's genuine ambiguity. There is a connection between "Straussian", "neocon" broadly defined, and "neocon" narrowly defined. The narrowly defined "neocons"—Wolfowitz is a prime example—are undoubtedly influenced by Strauss. Some are directly in Strauss's academic/intellectual lineage. "Neocon" entered into common usage via what I'm calling this narrowly defined usage. This usage efers to a group of conservative foreign policy wonks who advocate an imperialistic use of American military power in an idealistic (and well-intentioned) crusade to advance democracy and capitalism throughout the world, particularly the Middle East. It's very important to understand that in this usage—which is dominant these days—"neocon" very specifically refers to a conservative school of thought on American foreign policy. While there is a direct personal connection between Strauss and these foreign policy neocons, I'm not aware of any specific aspect of Straussianism that explicitly talks about American foreign policy in this way (I'd gladly be corrected if I'm ignorant).

The broad, and older, use of the term "neoconservative" refers to people like Bill Kristol and others who were greatly influenced by and part of the "Reagan revolution". Their ideology with regard to American foreign policy is extremely similar to that of the foreign policy neocons: interventionist, idealistic and repudiating Kissinger-esque "realpolitik". But these neocons really were/are new conservatives in the same sense that neoliberals are new liberals. They had a new view of and approach to a great many conservative issues, quite definitely including domestic concerns. They are also quite apart from the Christian conservatives. What is most true, then, is to say that Wolfowitz et al, what we are currently calling "neocons", are really a subculture of the larger and older neoconservative movement.

Here's the thing, though. I'm pretty sure that there's not a strong connection between the older neoconservative movement and Strauss. There is a connection, but I don't think the Kristol and friends neoconservatives were, have been, or can be characterized as "Straussian". (Well, maybe Bill Kristol's father, Irving, had a connection to Strauss.) On the other hand, these foreign policy neocons have a very strong connection with Strauss. Yet Strauss wasn't a foreign policy academic.

All in all, I think the common use of these terms is usually misuse and greatly confuses matters. The foreign-policy ideologues who were the "intellectual" force behind the Iraq war, Perle and Wolwowitz et al, should be referred by something which disambiguates them from the larger Kristol-esque neoconservatives. "Straussian" should be used to refer to students of Leo Strauss and followers of his school of thought, centered at University of Chicago, that is built around a theory of an "esoteric" reading of the political philosophers of the Western Canon.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:32 PM on May 10, 2005

"The fact that you think we're actually there to help anyone other than US companies/interests is laughable."

Amberglow, with all due respect, this sort of assertion drives me up the fucking wall. I'd really like to think you're smarter than this. I have no doubt that a variety of corporate interests were involved in the impetus for the Iraq invasion, Cheney's not the least among them; but the view that US foreign policy is really the result of a sekret cabal of corporate CEOs is nutty. Why is it that, for example, you see the conservative boogeyman of "the gay agenda" as something closer to paranoia than a useful description of reality yet don't bat an eye at, for example, the term "corporate interests" (which I just used!)? Reality is so much more complicated than the conspiracy theories of the paranoid.

In truth, there were a whole range of interests behind the Iraq invasion. Some were truly idealistic (if delusional) and believed the "democracy and freedom" schtick. Some were realpolitikal. Some were financial/corporate. Some were internal US partisan-political. Some believed the WMD claims. Some were motivated by long-term strategic US interests related to oil. And others. There is some overlap between these. Some are distinct and some are even opposed to each other in fundamental ways. Specifically, the idealistic foreign-policy neocons (and, yes, it pains me to defend well-intentioned but disastrously stupid fools) were motivated, at least partly, out of concerns for the Iraqis. Some of them had almost grandiose plans for an occupied Iraq, true nation building. However, those that had the more humanitarian aims undermined their own position by putting forth the proposition that the Iraqis would be so ecstatic with the US invasion and occupation that, for the most, it wouldn't be difficult to do. Their own assumptions undermined the arguments for any real effort at a successful occupation. When things proved much more difficult than they anticipated, they couldn't really argue for what needed to be done to achieve their vision since the assumption that it would be relatively cheap was one of their chief selling points.

It's really hard for us to be successful fighting our enemies if we deeply misunderstand them.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:52 PM on May 10, 2005

It's really hard for us to be successful fighting our enemies if we deeply misunderstand them.

Who? Which enemies? The Iraqi's or the Neocons?

Bligh - While I agree with you about the diverse interests converging on IRAQ I think Amberglow's point is that the group that pulls the most weight and convinces the guys that have to do the dying (the pentagon) these are the long term geo-strategy guys and they HAVE to think about money. Ultimately oil was the tie breaker AND the instigating factor in all of this. So we better scrutinize interest group the most.

Good posts above by the way.
posted by tkchrist at 5:24 PM on May 10, 2005

It's really hard for us to be successful fighting our enemies if we deeply misunderstand them.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know your self but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tzu
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:03 PM on May 10, 2005

the view that US foreign policy is really the result of a sekret cabal of corporate CEOs is nutty

Except that's not what amberglow said, he said we're not there to help anyone other than US companies/interests, which is in my opinion indisputably true. This is where you get into trouble: in your impatience with popular anti-intellectualism and refusal to argue logically, you logic yourself into corners from which you can't actually tell what's going on. Not seeing the forest for the trees, I think it's called. Yes, there are a lot of loony lefties who trade bug-eyed conspiracy theories about cabals; that doesn't change the fact that the US government these days is devoted to big-business interests with a thoroughness and focus it hasn't had in over seventy years.

And we have no good reason to be in Iraq.
posted by languagehat at 6:35 AM on May 11, 2005

EB: Except for the fact that it would be chatfilter, this would be an interesting discussion to have on the mainpage. Like, the shift in American conservatism that happened after WWI and especially WWII. Conservatism used to be closely associated with a policy of isolationism, but after WWII that was discredited in the eyes of the public. In fact, good ol' Irving Kristol was a wild isolationist even into the '50s and '60s, and wrote editorials against involvement in both the UN and Korea (I suspect he was against Vietnam too, but I can't find any sources to back that up). One big part of the shift was the policy of proxy wars with the Soviet Union, which many conservatives supported as part of a Cold War strategy. So, I'd say that the biggest difference in conservative policy under Reagan was a shift to greater influence from the religious right. I gotta look around and find my books and coursepacks on American 20th century conservatism... (unless I sold them....)
Amber: Done nothing to help them? Do you just sit around and huff your own bullshit? We should help gays because it's cheaper, not because it's right? Y'know, it's cheaper not to enact anti-discrimination legislation. It's cheaper not to allow gays to marry or have civil unions. It's cheaper not to have any social services at all, ever. And to fix the mess in Iraq, it's going to cost even more money than what we're throwing in now. The fact that you think we have no responsibility to those in need would be laughable, if it weren't so tragic.
On preview Languagehat: I'd say that we had a couple of good reasons to go into Iraq, but it was an impractical choice and one where we could have done much more good elsewhere for the same amount of money. But we're there now, and trying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure is a pretty good reason to be there now (as in, we're really about the only country that can do it).
posted by klangklangston at 7:13 AM on May 11, 2005

We only went to Iraq to bring them democracy.
Which is why that before we invaded Iraq Bush kept saying that if Saddam would disarm everything would be peachy.

The only reason Cheney doesn't want his secret energy partners meetings minutes released is they were discussing how to divvy up Iraq's oil fields.

The Blair memo talks about how the invasion was a done deal long before the lies changed and the invasion started.

There's nothing left in Iraq for the US military to do except DIE. It's too late. Has been since Bremer replaced Garner and the neocon dream replaced hard nosed reality for occupation strategy. Everything these guys touch turns to shit.
posted by nofundy at 7:30 AM on May 11, 2005

trying to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure is a pretty good reason to be there now

No, it's a good reason to get out and spend the money we would have spent on (inadequate) support for our troops on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure.
posted by languagehat at 7:38 AM on May 11, 2005

"Except that's not what amberglow said, he said we're not there to help anyone other than US companies/interests, which is in my opinion indisputably true."

But it's not indisputably true. Was the majority motivation charitable? No, I don't think it was. Was a minority motivation charitable? I think it was. If this reduction of the Iraq invasion decision into very cynical US-centric realpolitik existed in isolation, then I'd be more charitable and wave my hands and say, "maybe so". But for the left, a very cynical US-centric realpolitik explanation is provided for every US foreign policy decision, past and present. That's what so insufferably simplistic to me. And make no mistake: in a great many particular cases, and a large number of related (regional) cases, I think these sorts of motivations were exactly what was behind US foreign policy decisions. If anything, in many of these cases I'm more cynical than the typical American leftist. (Best example that comes to my mind is the US foreign policy and history of interventions in Latin America, such as Dole [fruit] instigated invasions.) Hell, I take as axiomatic Brezinski's assertion that anti-democratic realpolitik in US foreign policy has been easily the single largest destroyer or American credibility worldwide. But all this being the case, it's still not true that you can accurately characterize the Iraq invasion, or any other recent US military action, as being purely about business interests. US interests more broadly defined? Okay, that's almost certainly true. Even then, though, there's Bosnia and Kosovo and Somalia which all were either mostly or almost completely humanitarian in nature. Yet the "it's about corporate interests" refrain was heard from the left in each of those cases, as in every other.

To my ears, this claim, while often enough true, ends up being an obfuscating cliche rather than an illuminating perspective. To my ears, it's as tired and hollow as the right's supposedly benevolent "American Values" claim for US foreign policy.

Much of the left believes without question that both Iraq invasions were very specifically and almost exclusively about oil. But I've seen no real strong arguments for this; an economic analysis of the impact on the US economy with regard to oil as a result of these two wars is, if anything, contrary to this assertion; US business/corporate interests in access to foreign oil and its pricing are mixed and in many cases in opposition (similar to, for example, US business interests regarding the strength of the US dollar); with the previous point in mind it's particularly salient with regard to these two wars that people/businesses with ties to domestic oil producers (like the Bushes!) actually benefit from higher (not lower) oil prices and decreased foreign oil production. I could go on. And in opposition to the "it's about oil" view is the "it's about regional stability and Israel" view, which is far more persuasive. (And, yes, ultimately our interests in regional stability have much to do with oil, but that's different than saying it's really all about what the oil companies want.)

Finally, I think I'm more frustrated about this issue with regard to this war than I usually am because I strongly believe that the only way to really understand why this has been as huge of a clusterfuck as it's been is if one understands the pervasive incoherence behind its impetus. As much as it looks sometimes like this is the Cheney adminstration, it's not. This admin is frequently at war with itself and it's headed by a President who is both shallow and headstrong. It's not the well-oiled Machiavellian machine so many on the left think it is. I mean, thank God it's not!

On Preview: "We only went to Iraq to bring them democracy." I certainly made no such claim. Yes, many conservatives claim this, many even believe it. But it is certainly true that part of the reason we invaded Iraq, part of the motivation of some of the people behind the war, was to bring democracy to Iraq.

On Preview Again: "No, it's a good reason to get out and spend the money we would have spent on (inadequate) support for our troops on rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure." Well, if I could believe that an adequate international peacekeeping force would be put in place and that American dollars would keep flowing to Iraq absent US troops, then I'd completely agree with you. But that won't happen. It won't. There are no good solutions here. Only least terrible ones.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:08 AM on May 11, 2005

I am sure every thing has been said yet it occurs to me to ask:
How can an abuser make things ok for the victim of abuse when the victim's response to the abusers presence is insane rage?
You can talk about our responsibility to the people of iraq but the abusers are still in charge- building more prisons (sadam didn't have enough!), stealing money, torture,...
whatever you or I feel, our govt has no intent to heal things.
posted by pointilist at 3:25 PM on May 11, 2005

Here's a great intereview that shows that the big arm of big oil is tossed out Wolfowitz because his plans would infringe on their profits.

More recently, Seymour Hersh has said that Iraq is going towards civil war.
posted by john at 8:03 PM on May 11, 2005

EB: our geopolitical interests include ensuring a ready supply of oil...that has nothing to do with corporate conspiracy theories. Stop twisting things to make your point. (but i'd still love to see the minutes of the energy meetings Cheney had.
posted by amberglow at 8:19 PM on May 11, 2005