September 14, 2004
Thinking the anathema: Is it time to leave Iraq?
Is it time to leave Iraq? Yes. Our mission was regime change and making sure no WMD got into the hands of terrorists. Mission accomplished. Leave the nation-building to the Iraqis. If they are worthy of democracy and liberal consensual government, they will pay for it with their own blood. If they are not worthy of it, which I increasingly suspect, they will submit to authoritarianism and be glad to move on with their own business. What do we have to prove there now? We came, we saw, we kicked their asses.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
I understand the long-term strategic vision of a democratic Iraq in the middle of a sea of hate and oppression. I think it's a wonderful notion to think of a kind of reverse domino effect. I want to believe it. I am just not sure that Muslim societies are capable of the kind of tolerance necessary for a democracy to work.
Let's take a look at Muslim 'democracies'.
-Pakistan. No longer democratic. Fine with me. Look at what their democracy produced: nuclear weapons and transfers of nuclear plans to rogue nations (such as North Korea and Libya), support for the Taliban, support for jihad against India, madrassas that produced jihadis sent around the world, etc. It seems to me that our national interests are better served by the present non-democratic Pakistan.
-Indonesia. Quasi-democratic. Perhaps the closest thing to a democracy you can expect out of the Muslim world, but not truly democratic. The former President of Indonesia has a long record of anti-Semitism and wacky conspiracy theories. Indonesia has long had authoritarianism with only the semblance of democratic institutions. Could it evolve into a democracy? Maybe, but see Pakistan as an example of an Islamic democracy. Do we really want that?
-Turkey. Turkey is not truly democratic, but is a quasi-democracy. Turkey was forced into becoming a secular state by a dictator, Ataturk. There is forced seperation of church and state in Turkey. If Turks were given the choice, would they change their constitution and adopt sharia? Quite possibly. Lucky for us the Turkish army periodically intervenes in elections. Turkey is an ally--and not the most faithful one at that--precisely because it's elites are Western oriented secularists.
-Iran. Iran claims to be a democracy, but I don't think any of my readers are buying that. Could they be? Well, many educated Persians in the diaspora certainly think that Iran was headed toward democracy before the Shah was ousted. But then again, think of how that path developed. The Shah forced Iran into a forward looking progressive state. Athoritarianism produced a segment of society that was secular.
So, tell me where I'm wrong. Is our present policy wise? Can we really transform Iraq into a semi-stable quasi-democratic state? Increasingly I fear that we cannot. Increasingly I fear that right-leaning bloggers have entered a state of denial--that we must be for the present Iraq policy (in some modified form or another) because the other side is against it. Increasingly I fear that I have been one of those bloggers. I have been cheerleading a policy which may not work. I have been cheerleading a pipe-dream: Arab democracy.
Do I believe with 100% certainty that we should cut and run? No. Call it 40% of me says to leave the mess to the Iraqis. 40% says to stay the course. 20% says I'm full of crap and I don't know either way.
If the Arab world wants democracy so bad let us see them build it themselves. Liberty may be ordained to man as a right given by God, but a right given is not the same as a right appreciated. We won our liberty through the blood and sweat of our forefathers. But it was OUR BLOOD and OUR SWEAT. Consensual government is a precious pearl. Never cast your pearl before swine.
Tell me that I'm wrong. I hope I am.
UPDATE: Some good comments. Check out my response.
UPDATE: Check out the responses by those who sent sandcrawler tracks below (the fatwas). Some good thoughts and rejoinders. It also earns you a place on the blogroll.
Posted by: Rusty at
10:09 AM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 705 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Rusty, you're wrong.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at September 14, 2004 11:09 AM (RkkMK)
2
I'm not a big fan of nation-building, but in this case it is the right strategy. The problem is that if we don't try, the status quo sure isn't acceptable. You have to be wrong. Because the alternative is worse.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at September 14, 2004 11:11 AM (RkkMK)
3
Regarding Turkey:
The split is more between the Urban Turks and the Rural Turks, not the elite and the masses. I suspect that without the influence of the military, we'd see a civil war. I spent a short time in Turkey, but my father-in-law was there for 3 years, and from our observation, there are too many urban Turks who enjoy some decidedly un-sharia luxuries (Whiskey, Sexy -- Turks love their beer, their women have the vote and value their political clout, they love western fashions, etc.) to go peacefully into that goodnight. In other words, the army may enforce secularism, but a good many Turks reap the benefits, and if the extremists ever tried to take away those liberties, Turkey would be a bloodbath.
As for blood and sweat, yes, it WAS primarily ours, but dare I remind you of Lafayette, Von Steuben, etc.? OR the assistance the Dutch and the French gave us? To be sure, they had their own interests in mind as much as or more than our liberty, but we did not win that liberty entirely without outside help.
Posted by: Brian B at September 14, 2004 11:13 AM (OnnW3)
4
Keep in mind that many more Iraqi police have been killed than US troops. This is also an all volunteer force and many are drawn by patriotism in addition to the paycheck. The have more volunteers than they can train.
Posted by: Jane at September 14, 2004 11:17 AM (AaBEz)
5
Also, what was Iraq like BEFORE the Baathists? That's a good indicator too.
Posted by: Brian B at September 14, 2004 11:28 AM (OnnW3)
6
"Transform Iraq into a copy of US democracy" or "get out" aren't the only options, Doc. How about "try to get them to be more democratic, but if that fails, rule them like a colony, and in either case, keep the Army there as a base against others" could work too.
Posted by: Steve Johnson at September 14, 2004 11:39 AM (UBgzo)
7
Matt-I don't get it? Which alternative is worse? And this is a question of empirical reality, not of motives or of hoping for the best. Either we can force democracy or we cannot. I hope we can, but doubt it.
Jane-Agreed. But is our presence there helping the situation any? One major problem that I see is that many Iraqis don't like us there simply because we are outsiders. Wouldn't us leaving kind of take the fire out of some of the insurgency? And if they have so many willing fighters, good. Why wouldn't letting them punch it out in a civil war (which is already happening) be the right course of action for our interests?
Steve-I think that is my point, sort of. I am no fan of colonialism and there is a reason the European powers got out of the business--it costs more money and blood than it is worth. So, I like the idea of negotiating a long-term lease with the Iraqi government (like Guantanamo) and using that base for future operations. The problem with that idea, though, is that Muslims are not like Cubans or Panamanians. Our very presence there offends them on a deeper level. We are 'infidel crusaders' who must die. Maybe the Cubans don't like us there, but Cubans value there own life enough to know not to risk suicide bombings at Gitmo.
Look, this is a serious question for me. Can Iraq follow the German or Japanese model of forced democratization? I don't think so. Why? Because we haven't levelled the whole country and completely demoralized the population. It may be the sad reality that in order to quell resistance, you have to massively destroy. The Iraqi insurgents believe they are winning. That is enough to keep any insurgency alive.
Posted by: RS at September 14, 2004 12:35 PM (JQjhA)
8
Funny you should bring that question up right now. On AMERICAN SOLDIER, he's asking the same question before he allows himself to be redeployed over in Iraq. (http://soldierlife.blogspot.com) The Iraqi people are not doing enough to stop the bombs, the RPG's, the destruction, the getting rid of the guns, the cleaning up of their country, protecting their pipelines, stopping the terrorists, insurgents, Al Sadr and his Mehdi army and others from entering their country and taking it over. Until they do that, Iraq is a waste of our time and is killing our troops, in more ways than one. Let them fight it out or kill each other. We are not occupiers but we are considered occupiers and they will blame us for everything. Another person was kidnapped today that we know of and until the Iraqi's get off their butts and clean up their own country; it's time for everyone else to leave and let them kill one another until it finally forms something. We're done and before any more damage is done to our troops, their lives and their health, it's time to go.
I agree with you, Rusty.
~Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 14, 2004 01:08 PM (D39Vm)
9
Rusty,
The alternative (pulling out) is worse because it is much more likely that some Islamofascist will take over and we're right back where we started.
As Jane pointed out, the Iraqis are taking their commitment rather seriously. It isn't a matter of "enforcing" democracy", but rather getting out of it's way when it is neccessary while still providing guidance when asked.
But, as Cindy points out above, the Iraqis do need to step up some more.
My point of view is this: we're not Darth HALLIBURTON! over there imposing our will with an Iron Fist of Death. And we shouldn't be...
The choice is theirs to make: it is their destiny that hangs in the balance.
Your post questions the "worthiness" of the Iraqis for democracy. I find such sentiment revolting. Freedom and liberty are for everybody, not just the Chosen. If the quality of "worthiness" is whether or not a people can defend themselves against insurgents, then I have to say it is time to look at the criteria again.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at September 14, 2004 01:43 PM (RkkMK)
10
Worthiness of Muslims, or willingness?
Rusty, it strikes me that you want an iron-clad guarantee that our efforts to instill Iraqis with the desire for democracy, sufficient to motivate them to make it happen, will succeed. Okay, I know you're not that hard-over, but the answer to the question "Can we do it?" is unknowable.
Nowhere have we, or any other democracy, worked in a Muslim state to encourage them to establish a democratic government. Personally, I think we've got a pretty good shot at making it happen, and even if we fail, it's worth the effort.
And I say that as the father of a Marine scheduled for a little jaunt to a certain spot in the Middle East.
Posted by: Boyd at September 14, 2004 01:54 PM (xgS/i)
11
Many would argue this as an easy way to point and blame the outside world for all the ills taking place in ones world, some fields of psychology could even call this the denial stage of coming to terms with ones self realization. But which country has not gone through these stages of recovery from supposed crimes perpetrated by outside forces? What are the results in the end that the world seen of these other “victims”? China moved from a once strong dictatorial regime to suffering under outside political spheres of influence, a savage invasion and ensuing world war, all culminating in a bloody civil war. Finally China rose from the ashes of a turbulent repressive internal purge and is now standing on the precipice of becoming the greatest socio-economical world power and an almost unquestioned reason for much talked about expansion of the G8 to a future G9. India overthrew an oppressive invading foreign power, fought a bloody and devastating sectarian internal war, suffered under stifling economic problems and continuous tensions with many of her neighbors. Today India is the world powerhouse of computer brainpower, the most populous member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and one of the most prolific movie industries in the world. The Ottoman Empire a.k.a "Sick man of the East" was invaded by the allies, divided into protectorates. The people rose up against the allies fought a bloody civil war and rose to stand on her two feet through 80 years of trail and tribulation. Finally let’s look at the United States. A nation impregnated through religious intolerance, born through a war waged on hatred for a foreign tyrant imposing harsh taxes, came of political age through civil war and finally tempered by racial and social tensions of the latter half of the 20th century.
What we are very quick to forget is all new countries at one point or another were started by another's war, festered in their own division's, and finally have stood on their own two feet. This time has always been measured in dacades of hard work, sacrifice, and determination. Alas, the Iraq experiment will take just as long and will have just as many curves in its path to success. Once roled a coin will follow the path of powers greater than those exerted by the hand that started it into motion.
Posted by: Salamander at September 14, 2004 02:00 PM (W2YA6)
Posted by: David O'Gwynn at September 14, 2004 02:22 PM (935pb)
13
These days my thinking is that Islam can kiss my fat ass. Let's stick around and shove democracy down the recalcitrant Arab throat.
Posted by: ccwbass at September 14, 2004 02:41 PM (AT05/)
14
I don't think that'll work, cw. Normally I would say to stay and keep trying but after reading as many soldier blogs as I have and seen what they've seen, the Iraqi's just don't care. They don't even care about themselves, how they live, the waist deep shit, or stepping up against the terrorists, the insurgents or other groups. They HATE the "American Forces." That's how they say it, too. "American Forces" as if it was one word. A dirty word at that, too.
Now we all know that there's been a lot of fighting and bombing going on in the Fallujah area. There was also a car bomb that made a huge crater and killed lots of people. They don't blame the car bomb, they don't even recognize the car bomb; what they are saying is that the "American Forces" bombed them and the people are dead because of the "American Forces" and that's whom they blame. Not the terrorist who made the car bomb, but the planes that dropped bombs. They don't deserve us or any of the coalition forces over there.
I also watched the c-span hearing with five soldiers who had been in Iraq and cannot watch the news today. They were complaining that there is a lot more good going on over there than is ever reported and were witness to that fact. I felt for them but overall, we are not doing anyone any good if they do not want to help themselves. They don't care. Maybe it's all those years of torture, of being complacent, of avoiding trouble to stay out of Saddam's hands that made them that way but they have a real chance of making a change and they are not doing it. With all these terrorists and whatnot coming from other countries taking over and the Iraqi's are not fighting it, why should we? Look at whom they are hurting!!
Right now, in our own country, we could take all those soldiers, send them to Florida and other places and rebuild there - and trust me, those people would be more than grateful.
et al
~Cindy
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 14, 2004 03:14 PM (D39Vm)
15
Matt said: "Your post questions the "worthiness" of the Iraqis for democracy. I find such sentiment revolting. Freedom and liberty are for everybody, not just the Chosen."
I seem to recall something about many are called but few are chosen. Not that it means anything in this context, but a nice thought anyway. I guess the question is can man reject that which is good? To me the answer is obvious: Yes. Freedom only comes at a price, if the Iraqis are not willing to pay the price, why should WE pay it? It may be that they are willing to pay the price, but unless we get out of there way how can we ever know. The world is full of tragedies far worse than another authoritarian regime in the Arab world.
Salamander-good point, except I would point out that China is freer than they were, but not even close to true liberty. They aren't even a quasi-democracy. Also, the question I think all of us have is will Iraq move in that direction on their own, or do we need to push them into it? I don't know.
Posted by: RS at September 14, 2004 04:11 PM (JQjhA)
16
David-First, nice response. The rest of you should check out his post. His response seems to be that maybe we have no choice but to try. However, I think the key flaw in your arguement is that 'trying' is equated to doing what we are doing now. Going in, it seems to me, was the right thing. I'm just not sure staying is. Also, the German example you use seems flawed. Germany, literally, was annhialated. The cities were in ruin. Everyone, literally everyone, was affected by carnage that we can't even imagine in the US. There spirit had been broken. Can we say that we truly broke the spirit of the Iraqis? I just don't think they quite understand the power we are capable of delivering. And, why can't we live with this violence? We lived with the Soviets for 50 years and prospered. Perhaps the best course of action is not engagement, but disengagement. And then, periodically annhialating a country or two just to keep people in constant fear. I don't know, maybe not. Just a thought.
Cameron-Yeah, that's what I'm feeling. I guess a lot of this comes out of frustration. Also, super-secret message to Cameron; "Why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are so set upon the things of the world....."
Cindy-Yeah, I don't know. I don't want to think of the millitary as just a big welfare program for guys I like. But on the other hand, I do--and I'm going to get into big trouble for this--I do think that the life of an American soldier is worth more than that of an Iraqis. I don't mean that in the metaphysical sense, only in the sense that as a nationalist I feel my first duty is to us.
Posted by: RS at September 14, 2004 04:24 PM (JQjhA)
17
PS David-Do'h....Sparse Matrix, not Sparse Pundit I know!
Posted by: RS at September 14, 2004 04:26 PM (JQjhA)
18
Our first duty should be to us, hon, I totally agree and I totally understand where your thoughts are coming from and why.
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 14, 2004 04:51 PM (D39Vm)
19
Rusty: "I guess the question is can man reject that which is good? To me the answer is obvious: Yes. Freedom only comes at a price, if the Iraqis are not willing to pay the price, why should WE pay it?"
Yes, man (and more than a few women too) can reject good. That is the nature of freedom, but I don't think that is what is happening in Iraq. What you have there is a few holdovers from the previous regime and a number of foreign fighters wreaking havoc on the freedom-loving people of Iraq. Just because a couple of hooligans are causing trouble doesn't mean that the people of Iraq aren't "worthy" of democracy and/or freedom. If you ask me, Iraqis are paying the price with us...we're not hearing the running tally of Iraqi guys getting killed over there. America is a shining beacon for the world; if not us, who? If not now, when? Bringing democracy to the Middle East has to happen or things will never get better. I can't live with that.
Posted by: Matt Hurley at September 14, 2004 05:19 PM (r5SAS)
20
Rusty,
A couple of observations regarding comparisons between Iraq and either our own revolution or Germany:
"Freedom only comes at a price, if the Iraqis are not willing to pay the price, why should WE pay it?"
Who says they're not willing to pay it? Tell that to the widows of Iraqi soldiers, cops, and statesmen. There are plenty of Iraqis who are willing to pay and are paying the price. Judging them all by the actions of the insurgents would be like judging the colonies based on the Tories.
"Also, the German example you use seems flawed. Germany, literally, was annhialated. The cities were in ruin. Everyone, literally everyone, was affected by carnage that we can't even imagine in the US. There spirit had been broken. Can we say that we truly broke the spirit of the Iraqis?"
As does any used of Germany as an example that fails to take into account the entirety of WW2. Sure, we had to annihilate Germany. How many years did it take us? The US entered at the end of 1941, the war wasn't over until the summer of 45, and Germany was still suffering the after-effects for years. How many allied casualties did it take to bring Germany to its knees?
Posted by: Brian B at September 14, 2004 05:44 PM (OnnW3)
21
Brian, good point. But I still wonder, can a people that doesn't know it's conquered be rehabilitated? Not sure.
Matt and Brian: Sure, a lot of Iraqis are dying, brave men each with a worthy vision of the future. But, is it enough? In all societies you can find some portion that supports freedom and is willing to pay the ultimate price for it, but is the proportion large enough? I just don't know. In places like the West Bank there are plenty of Arabs who want reform, but since they have no response to the fascists PLO or the militants in Hamas, they are irrelevant. A silent majority is meaningless in an armed conflict. It's why Gandhi was such a jerk-off and is in hell. Ahimsa is utterly stupid when faced with an enemy with no conscience. Anyway, sure a lot of Iraqis want a pluralistic society, but are there enough of them willing to fight? Don't know.
Posted by: RS at September 14, 2004 06:06 PM (JQjhA)
22
I understand the long-term strategic vision of a democratic Iraq in the middle of a sea of hate and oppression. I think it's a wonderful notion to think of a kind of reverse domino effect. I want to believe it. I am just not sure that Muslim societies are capable of the kind of tolerance necessary for a democracy to work.
Well, if they aren't say hello to World War IV.
Steve-I think that is my point, sort of. I am no fan of colonialism and there is a reason the European powers got out of the business--it costs more money and blood than it is worth.
Actually, according to Niall Ferguson it's not. The issue is simply whether we have the will, because there is a conflict with Republican values. Empires are actually cheap, and they're also often good (or at least better than the alternative).
I wonder, though... we have troops in the area, "in theater" as it were, and we may at least be on the verge of creating a Home Guard force that could hold it's own with the insurgents for awhile. Maybe it's time to contemplate a democracy next door, where the population is clearly more ready, and where we'd be able to start with some lessons already learned. Iran is really a much bigger prize than Iraq, and we could look at the latter as a jumping off spot. Clear up Iran, and Iraq may well work out anyway.
Posted by: Demosophist at September 14, 2004 06:49 PM (turqZ)
23
"Anyway, sure a lot of Iraqis want a pluralistic society, but are there enough of them willing to fight? Don't know."
That's what it comes down to, yeah. I'm just a bit more optimistic than you, I guess. Time will tell, but I think it's still too soon.
Posted by: Brian B at September 14, 2004 07:40 PM (OnnW3)
24
Rusty,
More secret code, this one from my sister in last night's FHE:
"The reason they talk about faith moving mountains is because asses won't budge an inch."
Posted by: ccwbass at September 14, 2004 08:00 PM (LUH9M)
25
Here's another view from someone in Iraq:
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
Every once in awhile I check it out; I think you gave me this link originally.
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 15, 2004 08:33 PM (D39Vm)
26
And there's another problem.. more than one. You have Ariel Sharon who has finally just come out and said he's not going to follow the peace plan, the ROAD MAP TO PEACE and he's going to continue to terrorize his own people as well as blowing up the palestinian people every chance he gets, despite what the European Union and the World Court says. He's also said that he'll attack Iran if they continue with nuclear building, so I'd be real careful of him; he's a loose cannon. Pakistan is bombing places hoping to kill regrouping Taliban and Al Qaida and God knows what else. Plus the General has Nukes and with his bad relationship with India, they could nuke each other. Then there's North Korea... need I say more?? Now Russia finally speaking out after the Beslan carnage.
You know that commercial with the new kind of Glad wrap and they put it up around someone while someone else is doing something annoying but they don't get touched by it? I wish there was a way to take that same stuff and put it around the United States and let the rest of the world blow itself up and leave us out of it. If we could wrap ourselves up like that wrap, nothing anyone does would bother us or our environment or atmosphere, but alas, no can do. Check out that Iraqi site - that might help the thoughts somewhat. Seems like quite a few of us are asking ourselves the same question. At least his perspective might help in answering some of the questions. But still, the Iraqi's have to get angry enough to do something about it, and start standing up for themselves and do something about their country's state of affairs. They have to want it - we're not just fighting strangers coming into the country to raise holy hell, we're also fighting Iraqi's who do not want us there; that's the hard battle. We're supposed to be there as guests but to them, we are occupiers, so in a sense how much of their blood will they allow spilled before doing anything about it? They didn't do anything about Saddam, never stood up to him, never protested against him, so I find it really hard to believe that they would stand up and fight for their country. For those who mentioned a democracy like the United States, that was not what Bush had in mind; that was more like a Democracy for them that suited their lives,their religion, not a copy of ours. But still you don't see the women out there; just the men, so that mentality isn't going to change much.
There was only one good thing I can remember reading. Do you remember when they had all those Christian church bombings? Well the young girl who writes the blog "A Star in Mosul" apologized to all the Christians in her country and around the world for that event and then went on to say that a member of her family was getting married and the Christians came out to protect the (I swear my brain fizzles when I need it most - I know it's not a temple, but I'm going to say "church" in place of it, okay?) "church" during the wedding so nobody would get hurt. She was so excited about that and said "See we're united; we can get along!" She's 16 and has a hopeful attitude but that is a rarity.
~C
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 15, 2004 11:36 PM (D39Vm)
27
News articles on Yahoo news relates to this, too.
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 16, 2004 01:35 AM (D39Vm)
28
New Intelligence reports shows Iraq will have a civil war by 2005.
Posted by: firstbrokenangel at September 16, 2004 03:02 AM (D39Vm)
29
LIsten you bastard guy...what kind of insensitve little bitch are u. What do u mean, "we kicked their ass" you fags came into my country and slaughtered my people...and whats this that its "our" mess??? YOU CREATED THE MESS...NO ONE WNATED THE FUCKIN US IN IRAQ!!!!! The civillain casuality rate was much too high for the "greater good" Let me ask u something, how would u like it if a bunch of arab "sand niggers" came into ur country and invaded you?? would you fight back to defend ur country or would u fight back to save bush? Think about it u idiot. WHAT WMDS?!!?! weapons inspectors went home 2 months ago and found NOTHING, the closest evidence was PLANS to increase range on their missles, not "weapons of mass destruction". To sum it all up, basically u came into Iraq, blew up several needless buildings, killed 19 thousand innodent civilians, and robbed us of our oil....far worse than Saddam. And u wonder why Iraqis hate america so much....its one thing to piss of the US, but its another thing to piss of a group of arabs....just because u dont see it on CNN, doesn't mean it didn't happen...sooner or later...we'll getcha.
Posted by: Wisam at March 09, 2005 05:15 PM (SMTjb)
30
Rusty,
You seem not to know anything about Turkey. I strongly recommend you to study more about Turkey and Ataturk.
Posted by: enisus at July 29, 2005 01:16 AM (aFc4e)
49kb generated in CPU 0.0222, elapsed 0.1123 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1042 seconds, 274 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.1042 seconds, 274 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
