Alternate History: How the US won Iraq (in the universe next door)
August 21, 2005 4:02 AM Subscribe
Iraq 2007: A geopolitical fantasy of what might have been
No problem - I thought it was great. I really wish things had gone this way. I am still rather divided on the war but usually am in support of it, but it is logically quite hard to support it looking at the state of the country as it is now. I think earlier I was more positive about it because I envisioned a scenario more like this one.
I believed that the initial cost of the war in both economic and human terms would be worth it as long as things were managed better afterwards and stability returned to Iraq relatively quickly. Now it seems that the job is much harder and difficult mainly through decisions by the Administration (like disbanding the Iraqi army which could have filled the security vacuum).
So we now have a situation that could swing either way - will American might and power prevail and set an interesting precedent for the world? Or will we see Iraq turn into a failed state and a centre for Islamic extremism smack bang in the middle of the middle east? Who knows? Not me, but I am sure interested in finding out as the lessons are extremely important for the future security of this planet.
posted by benny at 5:02 AM on August 21, 2005
I believed that the initial cost of the war in both economic and human terms would be worth it as long as things were managed better afterwards and stability returned to Iraq relatively quickly. Now it seems that the job is much harder and difficult mainly through decisions by the Administration (like disbanding the Iraqi army which could have filled the security vacuum).
So we now have a situation that could swing either way - will American might and power prevail and set an interesting precedent for the world? Or will we see Iraq turn into a failed state and a centre for Islamic extremism smack bang in the middle of the middle east? Who knows? Not me, but I am sure interested in finding out as the lessons are extremely important for the future security of this planet.
posted by benny at 5:02 AM on August 21, 2005
now have a situation that could swing either way
Are you kidding? It done swung already, benny.
posted by ook at 8:09 AM on August 21, 2005
Are you kidding? It done swung already, benny.
posted by ook at 8:09 AM on August 21, 2005
Even if we had done all of those things I think we would be facing difficulty. The single biggest mistake of the war was going it alone. Without international support (and the so-called coalition of the willing was a joke) we lacked legitimacy and that lack of legitimacy has been used throughout the war to build resistance against the presence of US troops in Iraq. If Bush and company had been a little more patient we could likely have assembled the proper coalition, just like his father did ten years before. It would have delayed things by a year or two, and coalition building means ceding some measure of control, neither of which boy blunder was willing to accept.
posted by caddis at 8:31 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by caddis at 8:31 AM on August 21, 2005
we now have a situation that could swing either way
i feel you benny, though i don't think that either of the situations you've laid out is exactly happening. it's going to split down the middle and simply favor one in some ways, and the other in others. the end product, whatever it is, is going to be something liberals call a miserable failure if it is anything short of a completely free and peaceful hippie co-op, and conservatives call a glowing success if it is anything short of one big quran presided over by the returned prophets of islam.
posted by bryak at 8:37 AM on August 21, 2005
i feel you benny, though i don't think that either of the situations you've laid out is exactly happening. it's going to split down the middle and simply favor one in some ways, and the other in others. the end product, whatever it is, is going to be something liberals call a miserable failure if it is anything short of a completely free and peaceful hippie co-op, and conservatives call a glowing success if it is anything short of one big quran presided over by the returned prophets of islam.
posted by bryak at 8:37 AM on August 21, 2005
If Bush and company had been a little more patient we could likely have assembled the proper coalition, just like his father did ten years before. It would have delayed things by a year or two, and coalition building means ceding some measure of control, neither of which boy blunder was willing to accept.
That infuriates me by the way--they say they won't set an exit date for withdrawal, but they certainly chose the entrance date intentionally.
posted by amberglow at 8:42 AM on August 21, 2005
That infuriates me by the way--they say they won't set an exit date for withdrawal, but they certainly chose the entrance date intentionally.
posted by amberglow at 8:42 AM on August 21, 2005
This is cute, but it sure is anemic in suggesting ways to deal with the #1 problem -- convincing the actual Iraqis themselves that invading their country was legitimate.
All the article has to offer is that they'll be immediately "engaged" by an exciting new federal constitution. The author seems to think this is how the Japanese were won over. In fact, General MacArthur went much further: getting the Emperor on the side of the U.S. to declare surrender on the radio ("accept the unacceptable").
So General MacArthur had the last word in endorsements by someone the people respected -- not some grifter like Ahmed Chalabi.
posted by johngoren at 9:21 AM on August 21, 2005
All the article has to offer is that they'll be immediately "engaged" by an exciting new federal constitution. The author seems to think this is how the Japanese were won over. In fact, General MacArthur went much further: getting the Emperor on the side of the U.S. to declare surrender on the radio ("accept the unacceptable").
So General MacArthur had the last word in endorsements by someone the people respected -- not some grifter like Ahmed Chalabi.
posted by johngoren at 9:21 AM on August 21, 2005
The mind boggles at the incompetence. The war became the cock up it's detractors said it would be, the minute it ended and the unchecked looting began. I blame Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Richard Perle and Dick Cheney, but above all I blame Bush. Rumsfeld and the Pentagon should have never ever been given the responsibility of rebuilding and stabilizing Iraq. Professional soldiers are not policeman, nor are they experts on Civic issues or planning. That was a job for the State department and Colin Powell, but the Neocon "heads up their arses" utopianists couldn't afford the risk of being upstaged by a moderate (Powell) who hadn't drank the Kool Aid and was not privy to the inner circle.
Pathetic.
posted by Skygazer at 9:39 AM on August 21, 2005
Pathetic.
posted by Skygazer at 9:39 AM on August 21, 2005
It was obvious in 2002 that the commitment needed to invade, occupy, and pacify Iraq would be too great to be worth the result. Too great even if we were successful.
So the W rolled the dice and attempted it on the cheap. Based on hope. Hope is still all we got.
posted by wrapper at 9:49 AM on August 21, 2005
So the W rolled the dice and attempted it on the cheap. Based on hope. Hope is still all we got.
posted by wrapper at 9:49 AM on August 21, 2005
There are times when one believes this immoral war (which anyone with the intelligence given paramecium knew was utter bullshit) was designed not to influence the future, but to spin the past.
The morons who created and support the likes of Bush et al are still reeling from the fallout and disasters their worldviews created in the last century. They feel an insecurity about their worldview. They sense the contempt history has for their ideas. They can't accept what their eyes tell all of us: that their reliance on violence and greed and vengeance lead to nothing but disaster.
They desperately try just one more time to convince themselves and others their childish philosophies work, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They would be merely pitiable, but for the enormous suffering, unleashed in endless cycles, by those who can not or will not wake.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:17 AM on August 21, 2005
The morons who created and support the likes of Bush et al are still reeling from the fallout and disasters their worldviews created in the last century. They feel an insecurity about their worldview. They sense the contempt history has for their ideas. They can't accept what their eyes tell all of us: that their reliance on violence and greed and vengeance lead to nothing but disaster.
They desperately try just one more time to convince themselves and others their childish philosophies work, despite all evidence to the contrary.
They would be merely pitiable, but for the enormous suffering, unleashed in endless cycles, by those who can not or will not wake.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:17 AM on August 21, 2005
I think the War Nerd speaks for me in this essay explaining why occupation requires the kind of hard work that democracies don't have time for, like slaughtering 60% of a tribe.
The people who conducted the war also came up with the goofy concept behind it: "Wouldn't it be great if we owned Iraq"? The incompetence was just a natural extension.
posted by johngoren at 10:52 AM on August 21, 2005
The people who conducted the war also came up with the goofy concept behind it: "Wouldn't it be great if we owned Iraq"? The incompetence was just a natural extension.
posted by johngoren at 10:52 AM on August 21, 2005
In 2007, Baghdad is no walk in the park, but the murder rate is no worse than that of many American cities in the early 1990s.
Even in fantasy land, this is a huge leap of logic.
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:00 AM on August 21, 2005
Even in fantasy land, this is a huge leap of logic.
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:00 AM on August 21, 2005
fold_and_mutilate: They desperately try just one more time...
Well if only that were true. No end in sight, I would think. I certainly agree with your general point though.
posted by zoinks at 11:03 AM on August 21, 2005
Well if only that were true. No end in sight, I would think. I certainly agree with your general point though.
posted by zoinks at 11:03 AM on August 21, 2005
Even in fantasy land, this is a huge leap of logic.
Even if it wasn't, it's hardly an indicator of success unless it was much worse before the war. Comparing the murder rate to failed states like Washington DC or Detroit in the early 90s is hardly comforting.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:07 AM on August 21, 2005
Even if it wasn't, it's hardly an indicator of success unless it was much worse before the war. Comparing the murder rate to failed states like Washington DC or Detroit in the early 90s is hardly comforting.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:07 AM on August 21, 2005
It's difficult to learn from the lessons of Vietnam from deferments and alcohol and coke binges.
Honestly, what do you expect when the guy in charge was a lazy crack head? A weekend a month was too much effort for him when he was in the National Guard and even today he can't be bothered to read newspapers. You think he was going to do due diligence?
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were actually engaged in a 'name that tune' argument on how FEW troops were needed to 'win the war' in Iraq (arguing the fewer troops used, the more impressive the victory).
And putting Chalabi in charge!? A man who embezzeled a third of a trillion dollars from neighboring Jordan who has zero domestic political support or respect...
Honestly, if this were fiction the level of arrogance, incompetence and corruption would appear as cartoonish supervillany a la Monty Burns with Homer Simpson in charge... and the book would average about fourty "D'oh's" a page.
But hey, that's what Central America (the more geographically and politically correct term for the Midwest) loves!
posted by Davenhill at 12:09 PM on August 21, 2005
Honestly, what do you expect when the guy in charge was a lazy crack head? A weekend a month was too much effort for him when he was in the National Guard and even today he can't be bothered to read newspapers. You think he was going to do due diligence?
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were actually engaged in a 'name that tune' argument on how FEW troops were needed to 'win the war' in Iraq (arguing the fewer troops used, the more impressive the victory).
And putting Chalabi in charge!? A man who embezzeled a third of a trillion dollars from neighboring Jordan who has zero domestic political support or respect...
Honestly, if this were fiction the level of arrogance, incompetence and corruption would appear as cartoonish supervillany a la Monty Burns with Homer Simpson in charge... and the book would average about fourty "D'oh's" a page.
But hey, that's what Central America (the more geographically and politically correct term for the Midwest) loves!
posted by Davenhill at 12:09 PM on August 21, 2005
The morons who created and support the likes of Bush et al are still reeling from the fallout and disasters their worldviews created in the last century.
Quite a funny thing for a communist to say.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:30 PM on August 21, 2005
Quite a funny thing for a communist to say.
posted by Kwantsar at 12:30 PM on August 21, 2005
fold_and_mutilate,
Could you elaborate a bit on your post? What "worldviews" are you talking about? I'm not saying that anyone is blameless here, but the ideologies that left tens (if not hundreds) of millions dead and a legacy of brutal oppression in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc are not ones "the morons who created and support the likes of Bush et al" are even remotely associated with.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:20 PM on August 21, 2005
Could you elaborate a bit on your post? What "worldviews" are you talking about? I'm not saying that anyone is blameless here, but the ideologies that left tens (if not hundreds) of millions dead and a legacy of brutal oppression in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc are not ones "the morons who created and support the likes of Bush et al" are even remotely associated with.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:20 PM on August 21, 2005
I was against the war from the beginning but fall now into the "we broke it, we fix it" camp. However, this "article" isn't very useful.
The alternative history that means something is one in which we didn't invade Iraq in the first place, because then there would be clear and obvious differences (a valid point even if you support the Iraq war). This one makes assumptions that letting a handful of corporations and a government-in-exile in on the invasion early would have fixed all the problems. That's a laughable position.
Now, as an exploration of what went wrong, I appreciate the author using hyperbole to show us how tragic it is that we didn't plan this thing better. But nobody should think that following his playbook would guarantee a "win" in Iraq. There are just too many variables in play when you knock off an entire government after 10 years of (justifiably) bleeding the country dry.
Now, if someone wants to write up an alternative history in which we didn't invade Iraq, balanced our budgets, found Osama, and maintained a razor-sharp military, then I'll read it.
posted by socratic at 1:27 PM on August 21, 2005
The alternative history that means something is one in which we didn't invade Iraq in the first place, because then there would be clear and obvious differences (a valid point even if you support the Iraq war). This one makes assumptions that letting a handful of corporations and a government-in-exile in on the invasion early would have fixed all the problems. That's a laughable position.
Now, as an exploration of what went wrong, I appreciate the author using hyperbole to show us how tragic it is that we didn't plan this thing better. But nobody should think that following his playbook would guarantee a "win" in Iraq. There are just too many variables in play when you knock off an entire government after 10 years of (justifiably) bleeding the country dry.
Now, if someone wants to write up an alternative history in which we didn't invade Iraq, balanced our budgets, found Osama, and maintained a razor-sharp military, then I'll read it.
posted by socratic at 1:27 PM on August 21, 2005
The morons who created and support the likes of Bush et al are still reeling from the fallout and disasters their worldviews created in the last century.
Quite a funny thing for a communist to say.
Oy, namecalling. Thanks for keeping the intellectual level of the conversation high there, pal.
posted by JHarris at 3:34 PM on August 21, 2005
Quite a funny thing for a communist to say.
Oy, namecalling. Thanks for keeping the intellectual level of the conversation high there, pal.
posted by JHarris at 3:34 PM on August 21, 2005
That's the most original explanation of the debacle I've heard in a while, f & m. I'm not totally sure it's true, but it's good to ponder for a while.
posted by ontic at 5:57 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by ontic at 5:57 PM on August 21, 2005
foldy, you are capable of insight, but you can't always hear it under the squawk of the bullhorn.
this immoral war ... was designed not to influence the future, but to spin the past
It's an interesting way to put it, but I don't buy it. They're interested in neither the future nor the past, but the here and now.
still reeling from the fallout and disasters their worldviews created in the last century
Well, what Kwantsar said. No matter what one thinks of American hegemony and its tragic sideshows, the United States is not responsible for either of the two great genocides (or half-a-dozen of the lesser ones), and I hardly think you're a conservative-libertarian on the question of whether fighting Nazism was necessary. Which it was, both in a moral sense and the sense of those who wanted the outcome to favor the American Century.
They feel an insecurity about their worldview. They sense the contempt history has for their ideas.
I highly doubt there is any insecurity at all, and these are people who -- after all -- have contempt for history, so it's unlikely that they feel the sting. At one time, perhaps, they did -- but from the 1970s on the neo-conservative project of think tanks and stealth academics has given them an effective moral claque. They're writing their own history -- like Michelle Malkin retconning Japanese detentions.
They can't accept what their eyes tell all of us: that their reliance on violence and greed and vengeance lead to nothing but disaster.
This is, of course, not what their history tells them. The disasters of which you speak are little noticed by them, the detritus and effluvia of history. cf. Brzezinski's comment, "a few stirred-up Muslims".
They desperately try just one more time to convince themselves and others their childish philosophies work, despite all evidence to the contrary. They would be merely pitiable, but for the enormous suffering, unleashed in endless cycles, by those who can not or will not wake.
I think they would like another outcome that they can add to the monument, since Vietnam was a, you know, tie, and Gulf War I was a bit of a showroom demonstration.
But I really think you misunderstand your enemies, if you truly believe that they are interested in winning an intellectual or moral debate. They only contest those on the way to the main event, which they see as just plain winning: power, money, the whole nine yards.
What you and I surely agree on is that they are indifferent, in large part, to the suffering that those of us on the other side of the fence see as intrinsic. There are some who feel the sting (at least in the old days, most neocons were former liberals), but they've really persuaded themselves that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and they like being the cook. More importantly, perhaps, they don't see the win-win collective outcomes that other strategies would create as necessary or useful. One individual win and ninety-nine individual losers, in their worldview, is worth applause. It's a fundamental assumption that underlies every difference.
posted by dhartung at 7:33 PM on August 21, 2005
this immoral war ... was designed not to influence the future, but to spin the past
It's an interesting way to put it, but I don't buy it. They're interested in neither the future nor the past, but the here and now.
still reeling from the fallout and disasters their worldviews created in the last century
Well, what Kwantsar said. No matter what one thinks of American hegemony and its tragic sideshows, the United States is not responsible for either of the two great genocides (or half-a-dozen of the lesser ones), and I hardly think you're a conservative-libertarian on the question of whether fighting Nazism was necessary. Which it was, both in a moral sense and the sense of those who wanted the outcome to favor the American Century.
They feel an insecurity about their worldview. They sense the contempt history has for their ideas.
I highly doubt there is any insecurity at all, and these are people who -- after all -- have contempt for history, so it's unlikely that they feel the sting. At one time, perhaps, they did -- but from the 1970s on the neo-conservative project of think tanks and stealth academics has given them an effective moral claque. They're writing their own history -- like Michelle Malkin retconning Japanese detentions.
They can't accept what their eyes tell all of us: that their reliance on violence and greed and vengeance lead to nothing but disaster.
This is, of course, not what their history tells them. The disasters of which you speak are little noticed by them, the detritus and effluvia of history. cf. Brzezinski's comment, "a few stirred-up Muslims".
They desperately try just one more time to convince themselves and others their childish philosophies work, despite all evidence to the contrary. They would be merely pitiable, but for the enormous suffering, unleashed in endless cycles, by those who can not or will not wake.
I think they would like another outcome that they can add to the monument, since Vietnam was a, you know, tie, and Gulf War I was a bit of a showroom demonstration.
But I really think you misunderstand your enemies, if you truly believe that they are interested in winning an intellectual or moral debate. They only contest those on the way to the main event, which they see as just plain winning: power, money, the whole nine yards.
What you and I surely agree on is that they are indifferent, in large part, to the suffering that those of us on the other side of the fence see as intrinsic. There are some who feel the sting (at least in the old days, most neocons were former liberals), but they've really persuaded themselves that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, and they like being the cook. More importantly, perhaps, they don't see the win-win collective outcomes that other strategies would create as necessary or useful. One individual win and ninety-nine individual losers, in their worldview, is worth applause. It's a fundamental assumption that underlies every difference.
posted by dhartung at 7:33 PM on August 21, 2005
Hey, there, JHarris, pal. I'm sorry you didn't "get" my post-- it wasn't really namecalling. If foldy isn't a communist, he's a pretty close facsimile, and it is pretty weird to read someone write about "the fallout and disasters their worldviews created in the last century," (refering to someone else's worldview) while espousing the Twentieth Century's most deadly ideology.
ps-- dhartung (he of substantial liberal cred) got my point, and you didn't, schmendrick.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:04 PM on August 21, 2005
ps-- dhartung (he of substantial liberal cred) got my point, and you didn't, schmendrick.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:04 PM on August 21, 2005
Okay, I know this thread is more stale than last weeks french bread but something has not been asked yet.
At what point would the money for all this preplanning be earmarked? If Bush's administration was to theoretically start all this prewar nation building business a full year ahead of scheduled invasion, how would that have gone down with Congress, let alone the voters?
"Um, hi, listen we're gonna need about oh, say 100 billion dollars for this war we're gonna start a year from now, and oh, by the way, is it okay if I start a war with Iraq?"
And what kind of shit would this have started in Iraq, with Hussein KNOWING, without a doubt, that he would be invaded shortly? And how would US public opinion of that invasion change in a year? The pure simple political logistics of getting something like this off the ground boggle the mind.
Aw fuck it. I could be wrong. Who wants pie?
posted by Parannoyed at 10:02 PM on August 21, 2005
At what point would the money for all this preplanning be earmarked? If Bush's administration was to theoretically start all this prewar nation building business a full year ahead of scheduled invasion, how would that have gone down with Congress, let alone the voters?
"Um, hi, listen we're gonna need about oh, say 100 billion dollars for this war we're gonna start a year from now, and oh, by the way, is it okay if I start a war with Iraq?"
And what kind of shit would this have started in Iraq, with Hussein KNOWING, without a doubt, that he would be invaded shortly? And how would US public opinion of that invasion change in a year? The pure simple political logistics of getting something like this off the ground boggle the mind.
Aw fuck it. I could be wrong. Who wants pie?
posted by Parannoyed at 10:02 PM on August 21, 2005
Quite a funny thing for a communist to say.
I thought the term was "pinko".
posted by chuq at 11:26 PM on August 21, 2005
I thought the term was "pinko".
posted by chuq at 11:26 PM on August 21, 2005
Planning would have been the (relatively) easy part and not very expensive, compared to the overall war expense.
Simply set up how you will do things, such as keep the Iraq Army intact, determine how much of the occupation budget will go to pay the Iraqi soldiers, and then actually spend the money to pay the soldiers once the occupation is funded.
The planning part would have been secret so there wouldn't have been any information leaked to the Iraqi gov't.
Every option on Ronald Bailey's list could have been handled this way.
posted by pandaharma at 1:59 AM on August 22, 2005
Simply set up how you will do things, such as keep the Iraq Army intact, determine how much of the occupation budget will go to pay the Iraqi soldiers, and then actually spend the money to pay the soldiers once the occupation is funded.
The planning part would have been secret so there wouldn't have been any information leaked to the Iraqi gov't.
Every option on Ronald Bailey's list could have been handled this way.
posted by pandaharma at 1:59 AM on August 22, 2005
the Constitution Iraq should have? (it's the actual one from 1970)
posted by amberglow at 9:24 PM on August 26, 2005
posted by amberglow at 9:24 PM on August 26, 2005
« Older Heed! Pants! Muuuve! | The Great Queers of History Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Besides, I'm a fan of alternative histories and thought I wouldn't be alone in that level of interest.
posted by pandaharma at 4:07 AM on August 21, 2005