The war in Iraq presents our nation with many conundrums. Perhaps the most intractable question is ‘what are the downsides of success?” Of course, success is hard to define. But let’s just say that success has been defined down to standing up a government that can defend itself, provide security, and avoid committing horrendous human rights violations to put down internal dissent.
This version of success ignores the larger neo-con wet dream of a pro-western, pro-Israel Iraqi government that happily hosts numerous U.S. military bases and grants U.S. and British energy companies favorable extraction contracts.
But, it still represents a positive outcome of this tragic invasion, at least for the vast majority of Iraqis that are lucky enough to still be alive.
Why?
Because despite some serious downsides of replacing Saddam’s Ba’athist tyranny with a religiously conservative and Iran-friendly Shi’a dominated government, such an outcome would provide the groundwork for a representative government in Iraq. And, if the Iraqi people can put together a government with the legitimacy of a popular vote and they can keep it, it will lead to a better future for everyday Iraqis than any of the conceivable alternatives.
However, the likelihood of this ‘success’ occurring is not particularly good. Part of the obstacle to this success is a real conundrum. The government does not have the ability to provide security for itself, or the Iraqi people, even with American and British help. If they are ever going to be able to accomplish this goal they are going to need some time to get their security services up and running. And that means that Anglo soldiers need to remain in a killing zone for several more years. Yet, our troops not only provide an irritant that undermines the security situation, but if they stay after the December 15 elections and the ratification of the new constitution, their presence will undermine the very legitimacy the elections have the potential of providing.
More than this, there will be a cost of achieving even this limited success. Will turning the lemons of Iraq into a potable lemonade encourage the foreign policy establishment to take more costly risks in the region? Will we fail to learn the lessons of our hubris?
Many people think that it would be best for the Iraqi adventure to end in humiliation for our nation and therefore, for the architects of the invasion. But this mindset ignores the fact that it is the Iraqis that will suffer the most if the country descends into a Hobbesian nightmare and Baghdad comes to resemble 1980’s Beirut.
Other people think the prospects of this limited success are so bleak that it is not worth going any further with the ‘project’. It would be best to leave now, since staying for any period of time is unlikely to stave off disaster for Iraq’s society, and may even exacerbate the problems. The strongest arguments in favor of this view are being made by people like Rep. John Murtha. Essentially, the argument is that we have not made any meaningful progress and our leadership shows no ability to make the types of course corrections that might save the situation. It is very hard to argue with this logic.
I remember the day before the war started a friend of mine told me that whatever the potential upside of invading Iraq, BushCo. would screw it up, and therefore it was immoral to invade. He was right then, and his logic is still valid today as it applies to staying in Iraq.
But, I think we should stay during the period between the elections and the seating of the new parliament. I think it would be disruptive to that fragile process for us to begin talking about an immanent withdrawal. In my opinion, we owe the Iraqis at least a chance to seat this government.
The tricky part is that we should begin leaving en masse as soon as possible after the new government is seated so they can avoid becoming a puppet government that is dependent on us for their security. But, if we do not begin a conversation about a drawdown now, we will not be prepared to leave at the end of the process.
It’s a no-win situation.
Ultimately, the best solution for everyone involved is a change in the American and British governments. A change here would not only lead to new, more realistic, approaches and strategies in Iraq, but it would remove much of the taint of the lies that led to the invasion, the botched plans, and the lack of legitimacy that is attached to the architects of Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition. So, I remain convinced that the impeachment of Bush and Cheney and the replacement of Tony Blair represents the best option available to the Anglo powers and for the Iraqi people.
I do not think the best solution is for Iraqi society to fail in the most spectacular way. That might teach us an important lesson, and it might be unavoidable…but I do not want that outcome (for the well-being of Iraqis, if nothing else).
The fact that we are in such a dire situation is all the justification we need to endorse the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.
.
A majority of the 1,700 people questioned wanted a united Iraq with a strong central government. Most trust in police force, religious leaders and the new Iraqi Army.
At the bottom of trust below 25% were democracy and … occupational forces of the coalition. The survey graph is very telling —
The opinion poll suggests Iraqis are generally optimistic about their lives, in spite of the violence that has plagued Iraq since the US-led invasion. But the survey, carried out for the BBC and other media, found security fears still dominate most Iraqis’ thoughts. Their priority for the coming year would be the restoration of security and the withdrawal of foreign troops.
Hopes for future
Interviewers found that 71% of those questioned said things were currently very or quite good in their personal lives, while 29% found their lives very or quite bad.
The poll by Oxford Research International was commissioned by the BBC in association with ABC News, NHK, Time Magazine and Der Spiegel.
The Pasha’s Poll – May 19, 1958
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
I’m sorry, I went to hit a “4” and a “3” appeared in its place. My unintentional error.
Oui wrote: “A majority of the 1,700 people questioned wanted a united Iraq with a strong central government.”
This is exactly what Kanan Makiya wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece a couple of days ago. I had stopped paying any attention to Makiya since he threw in his lot with the neo-cons, but in this piece he seems to be repenting and suggesting that one of the biggest problems in Iraq is the way the constitution is drawn up.
The lack of any serious federal authority, the dissipation of any strong central government means that the old divide and rule ploy has been used all over again by the imperialists. Strenghtening regionalism the way the constitution does is a formula for endless wars and strifes and that, I guess, would be the result most wanted by the US war-mongers. This helps to establish control over the region and its resources, while also helping the arms manufactureres.
I see it as a win-win situation, depending on your perspective.
What is the relevance of the “happiness poll”. Does it suggest that people felt differently before, when Sadaam was in power? No it does not.
ABC News is no longer reliable, BBC is no longer reliabe, Time Magazine is not reliable.
I don’t think that anywhere in the world 71% of the people can say that “things” (what the hell is that0 are very or “quite” (what the hell does quite mean) good.
This poll is not a good poll. There’s something wrong with this. This isn’t how you ask a question and it isn’t how you get an answer.
Who knows what they may mean or what the context is.
questions are out and ruling is in.
Unless GW is ready to push for a draft here, I think Victory in Iraq will be declared for a second time mid 06. A phased pullout, or partial pullout begins with much fanfare then. This allows the military to begin rebuilding itself (Murtha has talked of this necessity), and is a typical GOP ploy just prior to the congressional elections in the fall. In the meantime we will here lots about the brave Iraqi battalions that are taking over the fight against the terrorists and the like.
I don’t believe however, that this will prevent an escalation of the Civil War already underway over there. Like you, I do not see any good options that do no involve a change in our leadership. We simply must attain some degree of measurable success in the 06 elections.
Even if we ignore the functional reality on the ground in Iraq and give credit to the idea that an elected Iraqi government will at some ppoint in the not too distant future be able to establish control of the country and restore some measure of local public security, there is another big problem no one seems to be talking about.
Of the 3 main contenders for the Prime Minister job, Adel Abdul Mahdi has already (quite some time ago) announced that he’d privatize Iraq’s oil industry and give preference to US firms as buyers. Given the history of the criminal Chalabi and the duplicitous nature and somewhat ambiguous loyaltiers of Ayad Allawi, (these are the other 2 frontrunners for PM), I think it’s reasonable to suspect they too might be very likely to go the privatization route also, raking in all those US billions and stuuffing as many of them in theirown pockets at the expense of the very people they purport to serve.
And so, if US, or even multinational western-based companies do become the new owners of the entire Iraqi infrastructure, who’s going to protect their assets on the ground in-country?
My guess is those 14 huge, hardened and permanent military bases our military has built will be more or less permanent garrisons for US troops for the foreseeable future, and one of their main jobs will be to guard and protect the oil infrastructure.
In short, I don’t believe there will be any meaningful drawdown of US soldiers in Iraq at anytime in the near future, despite all the rhetoric suggesting otherwise.
Like I said, we are in a no-win situation. I support staying until the new parliament is seated because that government is the only hope for security in Iraq and I believe the Iraqis deserve a chance.
The government’s prospects are not very good. But I don’t think we should muddy the waters right now with a lot of talk about immanent withdrawal. At the same time we need people like Murtha to talk about exactly that, because we should be preparing (quietly) to leave as some as the new government is seated and we need political pressure for that decision.
Realistically, Bush Co. is not interested in leaving, but the people up for re-election in 2006 are increasingly interested in leaving, and that is where the money comes from.
The best scenario is to drive a wedge between Bush and his party, whereby, eventually, the GOP sees that they are doomed unless they join the opposition.
I would like to have the measured optimism your comments reflect abut how electoral anxiety may possibly lead to some sort of truly effective pressure that would lead Cheney & Co to reduce our troop presence in the Middle East and begin real disengagement with this insane war.
But, I don’t think these neocon sociopaths really care at all about whether the Repubs do well in ’06 or not. My sense is that they believe that if they can continue to inspire fear in the public psyche and can make sure the violence in Iraq continues that there will be sufficient political cowardice in Congress that there will never be a majority of votes to begin cutting off their funding for this war.
Even if the Dems achieve a majority on the House, I frankly, tragically do not see even the Dems voting in the majority to stop funding this war anytime before 2011.
my optimism is rooted in my pessimism. Your pessimism inspires more pessimism. Maybe it is a matter of temperment?
I think my “pessimism” as regards the character and pathology of Cheney and the neocons reflects a certain reality, that being that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that neither any consideration for anyone else’s point of view nor any reality-based reappraisal of the situation on the ground has or will take place within the almost cult-like rigidity of the neocon mindset with respect to the waging of this war.
I see the intransigence, the delusional ideology and the absolute refusal of these lunatics to acknowledge facts on the ground as a realistic appraisal of their state of mind as being virtually clinically dysfunctional and hence beyond the reach of rational argument. As such I think the sooner the public can begin to understand this, the sooner the public can compell congress to shut off the money spigot and send these manicas to the nut house.
Even pessimism is sometimes a more important foundation for action than optimism, especially if it’s rooted in realism.
This is pessimism–
They’re not lunatics.
Good point. I’m glad I’m not that pessimistic.
who stage “elections,” all candidates must be approved by the colonial crusaders.
One can expect the same success as one would should Iran occupy the US and install a puppet “government” comprised of Americans who chose to collaborate with Iranian gunmen.
on all other topics you show an absolutely admirable ability to understand nuance, but on Iraq it always looks like talking points.
sistani has never shown a willingness to vet his candidates with us, nor has al-Sadr, the Kurds candidates are there own, although we are fairly happy with them, and the Sunni candidates are not exactly our puppets. The lack of approval for Allawi shows the limitations of our ability to install puppets.
Will we mess with the election results? Maybe, but I think the elections will create a parliament that is quiet independent of BushCo. They will, though, face the same conundrums that we face.
as readily. Pedophilia, torture, imperialism, women as property, to name a few on my personal un-nuanceable list. Though all are exceedingly popular, within their various circles of enthusiasts.
US corprate media. especially MSNBC, has been very upfront about the “elections,” having mentioned on more than one occasion that candidates must indeed be approved by the crusaders.
As would be the case should Iran invade the US, there are basically two sides: Collaborators with the invaders and the Resistance, though within each group there may be disagreement on lesser issues, basically the collaborators would welcome the Iranian gunmen, and show their loyalty by exterminating Americans who were opposed to those Iranians.
The Resistance would have as their primary and immediate goal the vanquishing of the Iranians from American soil.
I think it is extremely unlikely that Alawi will at this point, join the Resistance, regardless of what rousing speeches he may make for the benefit of his American masters and their domestic admirers.
Arrangements were made with Sistani long ago, I would not hold my breath expecting him to join the Resistance either.
Yes! I’m disheartened that this obvious point is not more widely recognized and accepted.
.
Middle East News Feb. 1, 2005 — If the US stays, the resistance will become even bloodier. In the unlikely possibility of the US leaving soon, this could open the way to civil war and a balkanization of Iraq. If the US leaves following a negotiated timetable, an elected Shi’ite government in Iraq will be more than empowered – a terrifying prospect for its undemocratic Sunni Arab neighbors.
As the Sunni resistance will inevitably become bloodier, balkanization is arguably the preferred Washington strategy – as is widely feared in the Sunni triangle. Sunnis mention the Central Intelligence Agency for promoting suspicious bombings; Shi’ite militias used in the leveling of Fallujah; peshmerga (paramilitaries) used to fight Arabs in Mosul; and the possibility of the Badr Brigades being called back. In a civil war, the Americans would divide Iraq in three parts – the juicy ones attributed to US corporations, the rotten ones controlled by warlords. Just like in a previous “movie”, liberated Afghanistan.
Unlike elsewhere, American bases will be welcome in Kurdistan. And, with its vast oil deposits, it will be an economically viable, democratic success story… unlike anything over two hundred million Arabs have created to date. In other words … something we can really be proud to be a part of. As we have built up despotic Arab regimes militarily, we must also do no less for Kurds who truly share more of our own values.
America’s hope for a united Iraq is a noble one. But it will most likely be unattainable given the bloody realities at hand … realities that date back centuries and out of our control.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
…to 1922 and have the Brits redraw the old Ottoman boundaries with a lot more lines? Kurdistan (Turkish, Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian) for Kurds, possibly provinces for Sunni and Shi’a.
More and more I wish the region was already balkanized because balkanization is coming and it is going to make the most recent Balkans’ wars look pacific by comparison. And that’s whether or not the U.S. stays.
have the Brits stay in Britain and leave the people in ancient lands alone to decide their own affairs?
…stay out of North America, too. 😉
Those people in ancient lands had their own history of interfering in others’ business – the Alexandrine Conquest, the Arab Conquest, the Ottoman Conquest – but I’m no fan of imperialism whoever does it.
such an eloquent voice on Native Americans I’d love to hears your views sometime on at what point in history did mankind reach a point where the possibility of refraining from imperialism became realistic.
In other words, when did it become possible for an expanding population with superior firepower to voluntarily refrain from subduing a culture that stood in its way of acquiring more territory and access to riches?
Because, I see this as a 20th century phenomenon that has been very imperfectly carried out, and is certainly not embraced by the neo-cons.
…possible voluntarily to refrain, I’d have to say long, long ago. Did the Hyksos have to invade Egypt? But in all the intervening millennia, the 21st Century has not, I think, gotten us any further on the road to actual restraint, just made the methods (somewhat) more sophisticated and the declared justifications seem more pure.
i think we are a lot closer. For one thing, we no longer are willing to do the things that make imperialism successful. It seems to me that truly successful imperialism requires not only genocide but ethnic cleansing and forced conversions to the more powerful religion and/or ideology.
This has always been done with little guilt or self-reflection whether it was done by Napoleon, Ghengis Khan, Cortez, or the Arabs.
Now, such confidence in the morality of conquest is utterly lacking, and that means progress in my book.
Genghis Khan never did the forced religious conversion thing and oly comitted genocide against populations that didn’t immediately surrender. Otherwise he was a big beleiver in leaving local government structures intact, he would just shuffle the beaurocrats around so they would have no local connections.
Dude was a mensch as world conquerors go.
did ghengis have a religion other than gang rape?
Somewhat related to contemporary 913th century)Chinese traditional religion.
…engages in imperialism. And all without a single soldier in sight.
that’s the whold mcWorld vs. jihad argument. It has it’s own validity, but it is a lot different from the Arab expansion, or the New Europe, or the Christianization of the pagans in northern Europe, or even the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese, and German empires. The later developing European empires did not succeed in imposing their religion and worldview precisely because they failed to commit ethnic cleansing and forced conversions. So, in some sense their imperialism was not successful.
Whether McWorld represents the same tactics by other means is a good question, but it has been tempered by a movement toward self-determination and human rights.
…relate to your original question? Nations do refrain (mostly) these days from crucifying or cooking people to get at their resources. But they still get at their resources by demanding their government’s pay off the debt they’re encouraged to acquire to develop the infrastructure that keeps the bosses of the IMF happy in the first place. To do this, health care and education and pension expenditures are cut while more of the resource is extracted. There are ways to “voluntarily restrain” from this assault on the toilers, but instead we get the Neo-Liberal Manifesto, which isn’t so very different from Manifest Destiny.
But make that term “The English.”
Let’s go back several million years further and eliminate the formation of the oil in the region. That would take care of the whole mess thoroughly.
On another note MB, great sig line.
… stay after the December 15 elections..
The legal document governing the relationship of the parties in Iraq is UNSCR 1546, which has a timetable terminating the “mandate for the multinational force” on 31 December 2006, following the Iraqi government request for a one-year extension. (UN Press Release).
Rather than screaming about “winners” and “losers” or success or failure, we should be aware of how the rest of the planet views Iraq. Among other countries in the world, the Japanese, Iranians, Russians, and Europeans are well aware of the (at minimum) financial implications of a now-sovereign Iraq, and have already moved to negotiate “assistance” contracts.
Further, the Iraqi government is neither operating in a vacuum, nor wholly dependent on the U.S. They have had legal control over their country since February of this year. They have managed to get debt-reduction agreements, as well as billions in pledges of aid from a fair amount of countries, including those listed above. And lest we forget, their leadership basically asked us to set a timetable in their announcement at the conference in Cairo.
I have faith that our people on the ground, working with the people of Iraq, may yet succeed in providing some level of security and increasing infrastructure services in spite of the current administration. In spite of equipment shortages, 20,000 mercs, “insurgents”, and the lousy food served by Halliburton in the chow halls.
We need to focus our conversation on the actual situation on the ground in Iraq, and the very real sovereign nation that will emerge sometime in the next 30 days. Murtha’s plan meets the needs of the Iraqis and the United States; and recognizes that a “clean” transition, serves the best interests of the people of both countries to end the occupation.
Neither Bush nor Dean have it right. Perhaps they should both take a vacation in Anbar. Then come back and tell us who “wins” and who “loses”. I suspect the perspective is a little different in the rest of the world.
Boo Man said “The government does not have the ability to provide security for itself, or the Iraqi people, even with American and British help.
The Americans are not interested in providing security. There is no securtiy. They are interested in satisfying thier paranoid assumptions by proving their paranoid assumptions true by acting on them. The actual intention of the United States is to create a terrorist state from which it can defend itself. When that is accomplished Bush will rest easy because he will, along with 1/2 America feel justified in all their actions. They will fail. Simply because Iraq does not have the basis to become a terrorist state either culturally or politically.
The United States policy in Iraq is simply madness. I mean madness. It’s really quite insane. it is produced from disturbed minds. That is one of many reasons why we must leave now.
Booman said:”Essentially, the argument is that we have not made any meaningful progress and our leadership shows no ability to make the types of course corrections that might save the situation.”
There is no progress becuase their is no intent. The United States is not interested in progress of Iraq. Someone called this the worst political decesion in war since 9 B.C. America wants terror, not progress.
Look at the actions of the United States and disregard the words that go with the actionss and you can see that the actions have produced choas, torture, rape, pillage, theft, antagonization. That is the intent of the United States. Behavior ….not words…tell you what people are doing. It’s right in front of you. Look at it. drop the internal dialogue. It is what it is. It’ is disturbed. It is madness. It is pathology. It’s crazy.
That’s all there is to it. That people say that they “believe” that they are doing the right thing or they support this war is, representative of the power of culture to get them to say that what they see is not really there….but somewhere or something else.
It is what it is.
intends on providing true security, it is Iraq’s insecurity that will keep us there and our finger in the oil pie!
the voters that you are making an honest attempt at providing security. Already got caught lying about training Iraqi troops…..oops!
but I take issue with this “we owe” thing. My husband is a United States soldier and is one to protect you and Constitution of the United States. He never signed up for peacekeeping missions in other countries, if he desired to be trained and work such for such things he would work for the U.N. or run away to Canada and join their military (which is an option). Our soldiers are not trained for peacekeeping. Also as far as the “we owe” thing, soldiers lives are real things not theories and it is the soldiers who PAY for all of our “theories” here – not us. They never signed up for this, Iraq is breaking your country’s military. Many soldiers are disillusioned about why they are even in Iraq and putting their lives on the line, they have been abused and are angry and over deployed and divorced now and are a danger to others right now in violence prone situations. The U.N. needs to completely take over with U.N. peacekeeping forces and all that that entails! Peacekeeping missions are far different from “The War on Terror”. One has a goal of peace and the other one has a goal of war and the war goal is still the goal of BushCo and is still the mission that our broken soldiers are being given. UNITED STATES SOLDIERS AREN’T TRAINED FOR PEACEKEEPING! THEY ARE TRAINED TO KILL THINGS LETHALLY WHEN PEACE FAILS AND THAT’S ABOUT IT! YOU CAN’T MAKE A SILK PURSE OUT OF A SOW’S EAR! And now I will go do what I’m really an expert at and scrub a toilet.
I would argue that we need to start training our soldiers for peacekeeping because we keep deploying them for that purpose. And they are not very good at it. When we actually need to go kill people we will know it. But other than wiping out al-Qaeda’s terror camps we haven’t needed to go kill anyone since World War Two. And yet, we keep doing it. We need a different military and, dare I say it, a more humble foreign policy.