what did we really want to do in Iraq?

[winterbadger]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4347636.stm

The picture that this article paints is pretty grim. Basically, it suggests that the British have more or less ceded all day to day policing and patrolling functions in Basra to the Iraqi authorities who are either complicit with or helpless in the face of action by the Shi'ite militias. Some people are unhappy with the violence and enforcement of extremist religious edicts by the militas but the elected government and the police are unwilling to confront the militants, either because they are afraid of them or because they agree with them.

The article doesn't address which of those two is more prevalent an attitude, but the US and the UK have to face the possiblity that the majority of Shi'a Iraqis would actually favour a more repressive relgiously-based social order, and that the majority of Sunni Iraqis might agree, though they would differ violently on the sectarian details.

I've always thought that the adminstration's rhetoric about our desire to bring democracy to the Middle East was empty window-dressing, manufactured to cover up the Bush family feud with Saddam Hussein and the desire of the former Bush I holdovers to punish Iraq forcefully in a way they never managed during the first Iraq war. And maybe that's true. But what if we get everything we say we came for: the end of the Ba'athist regime, the end of Iraq as a (conventional military or WMD) threat to its neighbors and the US, and democracy (of a very literal sort) in Iraq? And we just go home.

Responsible foreign policy thinkers said at the outset that Iraq was a tinderbox of ethnic and religious division, and it was dangerous to interfere with it. If we transform that into a nominally democratic tinderbox, have we done anyone, including the Iraqis, any favours? Americans are great at talking about how we favour democracy, but in the end we mean a very narrowly defined democracy that includes not only precepts like the people (variously defined) being allowed to govern their own country, but a specific representative kind of democracy that assumes basic rights for all citzens, that has checks and balances to keep one faction from becoming oppressive of all others, that assumes a basic common vision among the people for what will achieve the nation's wellbeing. The narrowly defined system we have today, which is still in flux even now, is the result of centuries of development of democratic ideals both in the US and beforehand in Great Britain. I think we don't realize how ver customized it has become; even other democracies (like many in Europe, Israel, India, Japan, and Latin America) are strikingly different in their assumptions and expectations. Our system is tailored to us and to our culture. It can't be transplanted overnight into another country with a fundamentally different culuture, different history, different religious factions. We can make it a democracy, but are we prepared to accept that, even if that democracy continues, it will take on a very different form and appearance than our own?

Will we be sorry we didn't set up yet another imperialist autocracy that, while not democratic or representative, would be less harsh on those portions of the country's population that we might most closely identify with? Educated Iraqis are leaving in droves; the people who are needed to build a tolerant, diverse democracy are being driven out of the country by the insurgency and by those who control some of the (relatively) stable portions of the country. Meanwhile the factionalists all remain armed, the government is being staffed up based on political and religious credentials instead of merit and ability, and all the signs point to a legislature that will exist in a semipermanent pattern of gridlock.

Maybe we are creating a democracy *and* achieving just what we intended: a state just stable enough not to completely implode, but one which is too damaged and riven by internal unrest to pose any kind of threat to its neighbors. After all, in the wonderfully flawed logic of the administration, if Islamic terrorists are fighting each other in the Middle East, they'll be too busy to attack us here. (No matter that 7 July put paid to that theory--it's still being repeated, as if perhaps repetition will lend it strength).

Comments

[snow-lion.livejournal.com]

My real issue with nation-building is not so much that it is done, but that the administration feels the need to pretend it's something else. The rhetoric about bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to Iraq is so mindlessly simple that I can only assume it's only there to make the sale to singers in the choir already singing that song. Namely, those idiots who already supported Bush.

I remember one quote from the president, in regards to violence surrounding elections. He said, "[the rebels] will just have to choose if they want to live with freedom or violence." And I was thinking, "What if they just want to live with the government they choose?"

Personally, I think the government many of these people would choose sucks. If national security really depends on forcing the middle east piece by piece into some form of society compatible with our own (and I'm not sure I buy that, but, hey, what do I know?) then they should do it, unapologetically, fully aware that changing people's fundamental beliefs is a difficult, brutal process, requiring the trampling of civil rights and some complicitly immoral acts. That's your irony, of course, in a nasty civilizing-of-the-natives kind of way. It's so hard to find anyone who speaks Cherokee these days.

I suppose you can't really frame it that way, or no one would buy it, because in the end, americans like to believe that they are fundamentally good, and that by extension, so is their government.

Studying history has brought me to this understanding of warfare: you only win by razing the city to the ground, or by forcing everyone in it to your will. Either way, it's a nasty, bloody process, and in our sanitized western world, it's a tough sell. Who is going to want to send their sons out to become war criminals?

This is the first time I've ever written down my opinion of this, I think.

[winterbadger]

Personally, I think the government many of these people would choose sucks.

I think you're right. The question (as you've identifed) at that point is, would we rather force people to live the way we think would be best (for them as well as for us), or do we accept that if they're going to get where we think they should go that it's going to require their getting there themselves, with a lot of nasty, painful fucking-up along the way that we can't do anything about?

Brits of the Old School (one of whom is one of my favourite authors, despite his bloodthirsty views) would say "Why is there even a question? Of course you civilize the natives, stop them burning their widows and strangling their neighbors for religious purposes, make them go to proper schools and learn about railroads and bureaucracy, and one day they'll thank you for it by kicking you in the teeth, throwing you out of their country, and calling you all the names in the book. But by that point they'll be a fairly civilized bunch, so you just recognize that you've done what you set out to do, brush yourself off, and go on your way."

Other people are horrified by that suggestion.

If national security really depends on forcing the middle east piece by piece into some form of society compatible with our own (and I'm not sure I buy that, but, hey, what do I know?) then they should do it, unapologetically, fully aware that changing people's fundamental beliefs is a difficult, brutal process, requiring the trampling of civil rights and some complicitly immoral acts. That's your irony, of course, in a nasty civilizing-of-the-natives kind of way. It's so hard to find anyone who speaks Cherokee these days.

Exactly.

I suppose you can't really frame it that way, or no one would buy it, because in the end, americans like to believe that they are fundamentally good, and that by extension, so is their government.

There's a reason that Kipling wrote "The White Man's Burden" for the United States, and a reason we were never able to accept its premises. I don't know whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's there.

The problem, as I see it, is that Americnas have just enough selfishness to interfere in other coutries for all the wrong reasons, just enough hypocrisy to pretend it's for noble motives, and just enough idealistic suckers that some people end up believeing in, and sometimes dying for, the hypocrites.

One of the things I remember from my childhood are the pictures of American helicopters flying out of Saigon as it fell. I remember the lines of Viets trying to get into the embassy,the last lucky few waiting in line, most of them people who had done nothing but live their lives trying to believe in all the stuff we said about freedom and democracy, who had tried--most of them--to do right by their fellow countrymen and knew they would probably be killed or put in concentration camps once the NVA arrived.

I didn't want us ever to be in that position again. I didn't want some Americans and a lot of other people to get sucked into the lies that people fed us about why our nation did something because we wanted so much for those lies to be true. But here we are again.

[winterbadger]

Studying history has brought me to this understanding of warfare: you only win by razing the city to the ground, or by forcing everyone in it to your will. Either way, it's a nasty, bloody process, and in our sanitized western world, it's a tough sell. Who is going to want to send their sons out to become war criminals?

There's a story (and it's just s tory, but I've met a few guys who were around toward the end in '75, and they thought it was perfectly plausible) of one of the Special Forces dog handlers who were told they had to shoot their dogs during the Saigon evacuation because they couldn't be brought back, there was nothing for them to do when they got back Stateside and they were too dangerous to keep around. As he was doing it, he was wondering who was going to have to shoot him in the end because he was too dangerous to keep around.

This is the first time I've ever written down my opinion of this, I think.

Thank you for sharing it here. I appreciate that.

[selki.livejournal.com]

If national security really depends on forcing the middle east piece by piece into some form of society compatible with our own (and I'm not sure I buy that, but, hey, what do I know?) then they should do it, unapologetically, fully aware that changing people's fundamental beliefs is a difficult, brutal process, requiring the trampling of civil rights and some complicitly immoral acts. [...] I suppose you can't really frame it that way, or no one would buy it, because in the end, americans like to believe that they are fundamentally good, and that by extension, so is their government.

Well, and the other thing is, I would hope if we were taking such a risk, we would be *very* sure that the gains (that aspect of national security) would outweigh the losses (entrenched hatred against us, backlash and guerrilla action against us, etc.).

I would hope so, if this administration were other. But they believe what they want to believe, and turn their faces away from ... well, what winterbadger said below.

[blueinva.livejournal.com]

I can't say this comes as any kind of a surprise. Iran has long coveted power in southern where the Shi'a were in majority, and aligned more closely in spiritual terms with Tehran than Riyadh. I knew that things were going downhill in Basra as long ago as June, and the fact that the Brits simply didn't have the resources to deal with the money being pumped in by Iran to ensure it was *their* guys in power. I'm certain that the same is true in western Iraq, with the Syrians using their considerable expertise and weight to ensure they have their men in the right places.

It may be seen with hindsight that removing Hussein was ultimately the wrong thing to do, with him acting as a balance in the region (albeit a brutal and sadistic one) against the ambitions of his closest neighbours. Remove the balance and there's bound to be wild swings one way and the other.

[winterbadger]

I can't help but think of all the days and weeks and months of work done by the State Department special team on Iraq about what would happen if... and did we know that... and be careful because these guys hate those guys... all of which got shoved in boxes and stuck in a locked closet with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" (with apologies to the shade of Douglas Adams) because all the neo-con bastards wanted to boot the "softies" at State out of the way and develop their own plans because we all "knew" that the Iraqis were freedom-loving Americans in funny clothes who would break out the flags and flowers as soon as the SRG were safely put to flight. Damn them. Damn them to a very special kind of Hell.

Anguish

[selki.livejournal.com]

I can't help but think of all the days and weeks and months of work done by the State Department special team on Iraq about what would happen if... and did we know that... and be careful because these guys hate those guys... all of which got shoved in boxes and stuck in a locked closet with a sign on the door saying "beware of the leopard" (with apologies to the shade of Douglas Adams) because all the neo-con bastards wanted to boot the "softies" at State out of the way and develop their own plans because we all "knew"

I could cry.

I think that's exactly what happened.

Re: Anguish

[winterbadger]

Oh, it's totally what happened.

http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq12_20030712.htm

A small group of top civilians in the Defense Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to prepare for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.

The officials, led by the No. 3 person in the department, did not develop postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops and that Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile figure as the country's leader.

The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them and resisted White House pressure to back off from their pick to run Iraq. When their scenario collapsed amid increasing disorder, they had no backup plan.

Today, U.S. forces face instability in Iraq, where they are losing soldiers almost daily to escalating guerrilla attacks, the cost of occupation is exploding to almost $4 billion a month, and withdrawal appears untold years away. These conclusions come from interviews the Free Press Washington staff conducted with more than one dozen current and former senior government officials.

One senior defense official said that the failure of Pentagon civilians to set specific objectives -- short-, medium- and long-term -- for Iraq's post-Hussein stabilization and reconstruction even left U.S. military commanders uncertain about how many and what kind of troops would be needed after the war.

In contrast, years before World War II ended, U.S. planners plotted detailed plans for how to administer postwar Germany and Japan.

While most officials requested anonymity because going public could force them out of government service, some were willing to risk exposure.

The Pentagon planning group, directed by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, the department's No. 3 official, included conservatives who advocated using the U.S. military to overthrow Hussein. Its day-to-day boss was William Luti, a former Navy officer who worked for Vice President Dick Cheney before joining the Pentagon.

Other officials, while critical of the Pentagon, say it is unfair to lay sole blame on civilians like Feith working under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Pentagon group insisted their way would transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. allies.

The problem was that the State Department and CIA thought their [the DOD] vision was badly flawed and impractical, so the Pentagon planners simply excluded them [CIA and State] and other rivals from involvement.

Feith, Luti and their advisers wanted to put Ahmad Chalabi into power in Baghdad. Chalabi is a controversial Iraqi exile leader of a coalition of opposition groups. The Pentagon planners were convinced that Iraqis would warmly welcome the U.S.-led coalition and that Chalabi, who boasted of having a secret network inside and outside the regime, and his supporters would replace Hussein and impose order.

...

The Pentagon planners ignored an eight-month-long effort led by the State Department to prepare for the day when Hussein's dictatorship was gone.

The Future of Iraq project, which involved dozens of exiled Iraqi professionals and 17 U.S. agencies, including the Pentagon, prepared strategies for everything from drawing up a new Iraqi judicial code to restoring the unique ecosystem of Iraq's southern marshes.

Virtually none of the Future of Iraq project's work was used once Hussein fell.

Planning for the future of Iraq started in 2001, and planners raised problems with CENTCOM *before* the war started, but were largely ignored.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB163/index.htm

Re: Anguish

[selki.livejournal.com]

Have you seen this? http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html

about their plan to strip and destroy, er, internationalize Iraqi resources and industries, er, open Iraq to investment, that is. With no protection for Iraqis against, mmm, lots of stuff. Now why would any Iraqis be against such a pure instantiation of laissez-faire capitalism, er, democracy, in their country?

Re: Anguish

[winterbadger]

That's a fascinating article. A little heavy on overblown rhetoric, but that's to be expected from Harpers. But the facts themselves are damning, and I certainly didn't realize the extent to which privatizing the economy was put ahead of restoring basic services, to whihc the elimination of the Future of Iraq project's political work was paralleled by a discarding of its economic proposals.

I don't know how much of this sort of macroeconomic detail most Iraqis are even aware of, but it's the sort of thing that ought to be generating a LOT of heat on Capitol Hill, and isn't, because the Democrats are running scared of challenging the GOP on foreign policy durng a war. Which doesn't bode well for liberty and honest politics, since the Republicans are clearly planning on keeping the coutnry "at war" indefinitely.

Re: Anguish

[motherwell.livejournal.com]

When I clicked on the link, I got the following error message:

"[an error occurred while processing this directive]"

How...fitting...

Re: Anguish

[winterbadger]

Hmmm. Which one? They should all be working...

[pomkeygeekange.livejournal.com]

I could not have put it better myself.

A lot of people I know are still peeved by the fact they were not honnest about the reasons they went to war in the first place. A war that the public was not supporting at least in my area, if they had found the WOMD Then sure it would have been legitamate, maybe, but it was not. The fact Bush tried to link Iraq to sept 11 and people fell for it was even more gauling when they know Iraq was not responsible for that. I know its going over old ground but Americans seemed to have conveniantly forgotten that under spin. Just my opinion.

It seems like there trying to push a squre peg in a round hole, its going to be a messy process and even if religion was not involved its trying to force a whole new way of life onto traditional people. Meanwhile when you add diffrent religions into the mix then its going to take time and negotiations for it even to stand a chance to work. Our trrops are having to police this mess when in places there not even welcome and possibly making the situation worse. There is definitly something wrong with that but what can us little people do about it?

[winterbadger]

The fact Bush tried to link Iraq to sept 11 and people fell for it was even more gauling when they know Iraq was not responsible for that. I know its going over old ground but Americans seemed to have conveniantly forgotten that under spin.

Well, not so much forgotten as were willing to buy the far-fetched reasoning the Bush administration put forward to suggest a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. Of course, they had started plotting the invasion of Iraq a long time before 9/11 even happened! It was just another convenient--and damning--excuse to tack onto their laundry list of BS excuses for the war. And Americans like things to be simple. If SH was part of the 9/11 attack, then the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were part of one whole continuum, all the bad guys were taken care of, and everything was much more neat and tidy.

I'm sure SH was gleeful about 9/11. After all, his greatest enemy was suffering horribly. But I see no convincing evidence that he had anything to do with it, and I can't believe that he would be enthusiastic about giving credit or power to religious extremists who opposed him just as violently as they did the US.

Our trrops are having to police this mess when in places there not even welcome and possibly making the situation worse.

Well, and the problem as I see it is that our troops are *not* policing it. They are being pulled further and further back into their shells, having little to do with day to day operations, less and less to do with Iraqis, leaving that to the local security forces who are a mixture of capable units and guys who have guns, uniforms, and a weeks' worth of training. Most of them are totally unable to act in an independent role or operate in defiance of local armed factions, and I would guess that many or most of them have been infiltrated by militants from some or all of the different factions. There's no way these guys are going to keep the peace or maintain the rule of law, but we're handing things over to them as fast as we can.

There is definitly something wrong with that but what can us little people do about it?

Well, we need to do what we *can* do, as citizens in a democracy: lobby our elected representatives, support political action groups that work for our views, protest, and vote. That's about all we can do, but it's more than most Iraqis can do. :-(

[pomkeygeekange.livejournal.com]

Sorry I meant to put forgotten in " " marks. It does seem a bit shady how he was creating fear instead of trying to calm the public down. I guess thats the diffrance between America and England though, of course Sept 11 was on a whole diffrent scale to 7/7 here and it would be wrong to compair. I just find it odd how we where just getting on with it whereas Americans , well did what they had to do but took it to extreams.

One thing that could be said about Bush, and I say this grudgingly, is that he spotted an oportunity and went for it. Americans got swept along with it, rightly or wrongly. Though it could have been made more believable if he had acted more appropriatly at the time of sept 11, that was unbelievable!!!

Now of course he is somewhat safe as he knows how to appeal to certain communities in America. The man is an idiot though but its scary to think that he is in charge of one of the most powerful countries in the world. He does not need the Eu or whatever support to do whatever he wants...and seemingly he does not need evidance either.

Though I do agree with the fact there was a whole load of BS surounding the reasons to go to war. And neither do I see any evidance Iraq was involved in sept 11. However what has happened has happened and we are having to live with the consequences, or rather Americans are.


Well, and the problem as I see it is that our troops are *not* policing it. They are being pulled further and further back into their shells, having little to do with day to day operations, less and less to do with Iraqis, leaving that to the local security forces who are a mixture of capable units and guys who have guns, uniforms, and a weeks' worth of training. Most of them are totally unable to act in an independent role or operate in defiance of local armed factions, and I would guess that many or most of them have been infiltrated by militants from some or all of the different factions. There's no way these guys are going to keep the peace or maintain the rule of law, but we're handing things over to them as fast as we can.

That is also true however is it not better that Iraq people are taking control of there own country. The training should be improved arguably, and stricter checks on who they are letting into their police force. That would be in an ideal world I guess, when the war first started I was oposed to troops being sent out there, but someone needs to supervise and make sure things are going to be safe for the natives. Now I think it may be better to slow down our withdrawl of our troops till the nation stabalises a lot. Surely someone should have warned our leaders this situation would have been likely before they went in all guns blazing, they need to get the regeams working together but that takes us back to religion and belief systems. That is the reason it is unlikely to work, people are not going to change their beliefs and whilst diffrent ideologies are oposing each other it does not look likely that our versions of democracy are going to work.

Btw would you mind if I linked to this post, I have a few people on my friendslist who may be intrested in this....

[winterbadger]

That is also true however is it not better that Iraq people are taking control of there own country.

Well, that's my question. Is it better to let Iraqis fight each other (literally) over who should run their country and how it should be done, or to keep control of it away from them until they are able to do that in what we would call a civilized manner with some respect for the rights of minorities?

The training should be improved arguably, and stricter checks on who they are letting into their police force. That would be in an ideal world I guess, when the war first started I was oposed to troops being sent out there, but someone needs to supervise and make sure things are going to be safe for the natives.

Exactly. And I think all we're prepared to do at this point is try to get rid of the terrorists who are attacking our troops and the government directly, while doing nothing about the terrorists who are not fighting us but are still intimidating the population.

We backed down from confrontation with the armed Shia factions in order to get on with things. I think we should have stood our ground and disarmed them, no matter what it took.

[pomkeygeekange.livejournal.com]

Hum, Well, that's my question. Is it better to let Iraqis fight each other (literally) over who should run their country and how it should be done, or to keep control of it away from them until they are able to do that in what we would call a civilized manner with some respect for the rights of minorities?

Well if we let them fight themselves then that is going to be happening long after we leave this earth I fear. As I said before they are never going to be able to agree over which group gets to be in charge and their idiologies don't seem to mix well from my limited knowledge on the matter. However if we stay and wait till they can be civalized that is potentally a long wait whilst the fractions continue to blow things up. Whilst they are fighting it out amongst themselves then people are going to die still. Our civalized seems to differ from there idea of civalized. I see this situation getting a lot worse before it gets better.

And I think all we're prepared to do at this point is try to get rid of the terrorists who are attacking our troops and the government directly, while doing nothing about the terrorists who are not fighting us but are still intimidating the population.

We backed down from confrontation with the armed Shia factions in order to get on with things. I think we should have stood our ground and disarmed them, no matter what it took.

Yes, exactly, in agreement with you there. though it could be argued that whilst they are intimadating the population then they are fighting against the ideal "we" are trying to instill into Iraq. The troops need to stamp out, somehow, all the terorists nomatter what confrontations they are going to get into. Because after we deal with one theres going to be someone else who wants to take over.

[redactrice.livejournal.com]

I think all we're prepared to do at this point is try to get rid of the terrorists who are attacking our troops and the government directly, while doing nothing about the terrorists who are not fighting us but are still intimidating the population.

That's been our script in Afghanistan, so far as I can tell.

[winterbadger]

Is it my imagination, or has the rhetoric about bringing democracy to Afghanistan been much more muted than in relation to Iraq? Maybe it's just because the Administration does talk about Afghanistan when they're not forced to; Iraq is clearly their top priority, whihc I find ironic since Afghansitan is where pretty much everyone think bin Laden & Co. are.

Yes, there was a great deal of fanfare about the elections when they had them, but it just seems as if they don't expect much or want much from Afghanistan, despite the fact that the situation there, while not stable, appears to be a whole lot more under control than in Iraq.

[winterbadger]

Btw would you mind if I linked to this post, I have a few people on my friendslist who may be intrested in this....

Sure, that's fine. Hmmm. Problem. It's friends-locked, for various reasons. I guess I can change that. If anyone would prefer your comments not to be public, I guess you'll need to delete them. :-/

[pomkeygeekange.livejournal.com]

Oh sorry, I forgot you where friends locked, don't change its status on my behalf. I can just link to the origional artical and see if any debate gets sparked from it...

again sorry about that.
*silly ange will check if post is friends locked before asking again!*

[motherwell.livejournal.com]

The problem is not that Bush and his chums were only pretending to want democracy in Iraq; it is that they believed so firmly in the rightness of their old grudge against Saddam that they simply deceived themselves into sincerely believing that everything they thought was right for Iraq was also possible. That, combined with Americans' sincere desire to see democracy flourish everywhere, made a compelling and believable story, and managed to convince a lot of us for long enough to get the invasion going. Think of it as a faith-based initiative.

Thanks for the link. It's old news, but that's kinda the point.

[winterbadger]

I'm not sure whether the neo-cons really wanted democracy in Iraq or not. I was just reflecting on the fact that, even if that's what we're trying to promote, it begs the question: what *kind* of democracy? Even if we somehow manage to help steer the new constitution into place, some sort of representative democracy takes over, and we continue to step back from the security situation like a parent who has taken the train wheels off his kid's bike. If the insurgency can be reduced to something less constantly debilitating as Chechnya but still more violent than the worst of Northern Ireland, and the Iraqis are actually electing governments under the proposed constitution and showing us their version of democracy. Is it going to be something that, at another time and another place (Kossovo, Haiti) the US would have invaded to stop?