Right war, botched occupation -Michael RubinAfter billions spent and the sacrifice of almost 3,000 U.S. troops, it is right to ask whether democracy in Iraq was not a fool's dream.
It was not.
What went wrong? Iraq's transformation was undercut by naive faith, not in democracy but rather in diplomacy. Instead of securing Iraq's borders, the Bush administration accepted Syrian and Iranian pledges of non-interference.
Iraqis embraced democracy, but the wrong kind. U.N. experts sold the White House an election system based on party slates rather than on districts. Any system in which politicians are more accountable to party leaders than constituents, though, encourages ethnic nationalism and sectarian populism. Add militias to the mix, and the result is explosive.
Iraqis greeted U.S. troops as liberators, but the Bush administration fumbled the occupation. Blaming democracy does not address the cause of strife; rather, it absolves policymakers for poor decisions and implementation. Too much is at stake, not only for Iraq but also for U.S. national security, if policymakers learn the wrong lessons.
[USA Today]
7 comments:
Well, I'll give them this, it wasn't printed in the Washington Times, but it is still just plain stupid. Iraqis did not embrace us when we invaded...SOME Iraqis did. This is the nonsense that our government did not, and still does not understand. It is what the conservative press and pundits fail to understand. Yet, Middle East scholars knew it all along. There is no 'Iraqi People', there are Iraqi factions. They were kept quiet through suppression under Hussein. Not a nice thing, but you see how it fares unbridled. Insular rednecks who think we can simply cut and paste our values and systems on other cultures, are why we have lost so many troops in Iraq, and yet get farther away from the peace we sought when we invaded. Those who want to feign ignorance about the current plight in Iraq would do well to remember our own Civil War. In America's past, we killed each other for what we felt was our own rights to carry on the lives we desired, whatever it inflicted on others. We might like to believe things are different in the 21st century. For the middle east, things are a bit behind the times.
Rubin's position is that the war was correctly conceived but poorly executed.
That position amounts to a critique of Bush from a rightward position. There is some merit to such a position. Dems should not need Republicans to remind them that not too long ago all the Dem leadership [including Pelosi] railed against WMD and the threat of Saddam.
While Larry is quite correct about a poor Iraqi national identity, it occurs in the context of Sunni vs. Shia conflict throughout the Muslim world. When commentators suggest that Muslims are not ready for democracy, it sounds suspiciously paternalistic or even racist. The solution can not be the status quo any longer...the status quo exports terror.
When MidEast experts are asked to imagine a peaceful Middle East, the presence of free Muslim societies always emerges as central.
The ups and downs Lebanon over the last few decades is a case in point. They went from a Christian majority democracy to an Islamist dominated ceaspool, whose "Cedar Revolution" [read democracy] is uncertain [worth searching YouTube.com for "Brigitte Gabriel" and watching one of her segments]
We all have a stake in the outcome. Hate is easily exported.
Dems do not need to be reminded about railing against WMD and Saddam. However, if you look at the congrssional "approval" George W. received, it was merely an authorization. No one was calling for war---except for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld apparently. The fact that Kerry had such a poor time explaining his position, is Kerry's problem, not a Democrat one. While it is laudable to believe everyone wants to be free, it is naieve to believe our values are necessarily what means freedom to others. To an entire nation (or vast majority) of ultra conservative religious fanatics, our way of life may seem like a black hole to hell, and it may be perceived that the people cannot be trusted to govern themselves in matters where religion are supposed to drive the country. Not where I would want to live, but not too far from what we have seen in areas of the middle east where the people are not calmoring for change. I am not saying you cannot bring democracy to the middle east, but am saying it is not clear. However, as I stated, many scholars were pointing out the very situation we have arrived at in Iraq, in advance, and at the beginning of the conflict. That we never modified our handling of it, shows the disdain this administration has for educated opinion. Apparently, that's what binge drinking in college will get you. Is is paternalistic and racist to assume anyone knows what is best for a thriving and strong nation, besides themselves. It is also dangerous, as evidenced by Iraq. Hate is easily exported, which is again why we need to understand what breeds the hatred, instead of 'deciding' what will end it.
You state that Iraq is "[n]ot where I would want to live." So let's not doom the average Iraqi to the ravages of the Islamists either.
Let's assume Iraqis [and their Lebanese neighbors, who have come closest to building a civil society] want to live a good life with their children prospering.
What is it you think breeds hatred? Many [though not all] progressives believe that WE are the cause of their antipathy. Ultra-lefties go a step further and posit that Israel is the cause. Both of these arguments fail.
Caroline Glick [Jerusalem Post editor] has posited that many progressives suffer from a MidEast version of the "battered woman's syndrome" where the victim [us] erroneously believes that we would not be beaten any longer if we just had that meal ready on time.
There is, I believe, little to nothing she or we could do to stop them from hating. Their hate is fueled from a more dastardly brew.
Actually, when envisioning a nation that was thriving, oil rich and seemed quite content having a religious hard line government and no democratic process, I was thinking more along the lines of Iran. I would not want to live in Iraq because we have created such a dangerous place for anyone to live. And where many cease to do so on an almost daily basis. I was referring to what you said mideast experts think is needed. I think there are millions of 'mideast experts' living in the mideast and I do not see them clamoring for that type of change. However, I do not believe Israel is the problem. Or that they really hate our freedoms and way of life. As I have stated many times before, I think though it is complex and multi-layered, alot of it is due to the abuses the American government perpetrated in the mideast over the years, including propping up the Shah of iran, propping up and supplying Saddam Hussein, as well as supplying and aiding Osama. Often, when we have decided to turn against these people because it became politically or financially prudent to do so, I believe the people behind these figures may hold it against us. The Shah and Saddam were not really popular and beloved. And ofcourse, what should the Iraqis think when we supported Saddam (against many of his own people) until we decided he was our enemy as well? It is a complicated problem, and one well made by us, and then used by extremists to attack israel as well.
You may overestimate our level of responsibility for keeping MidEast despots in place.
America's MidEast policy has long been dominated by stability seekers. But that doesn't abdicate Arabs from responsibility for what they've created since colonialism ended [some years ago].
Despots do not keep their power solely based on US support.
Additionally, state support and sponsorship of terror groups speaks volumes about the weird relationship between despots and Islamists.
The despots need the Islamists so they can say to the West: "see, we're a great alternative to having Islamists in power." Despots don't want the terror groups to get too powerful, lest they decapitate them [politically and literally].
The terrorists need the despots for funding, a safe place to live [notice how many terror gang leaders live in Pakistan and Syria], etc. Terror gangsters dream of being independent of despots, and eventually severing the hand that feeds them [literally and figuratively].
Thus, breaking or changing the dynamic between terror thugs and their state sponsors is a central theme of western war posture. And should be.
Nothing ignores what the Arabs have created for themselves (Syria is a good case in point). Nevertheless, this was about the United States' role in all this. You say: "Thus, breaking or changing the dynamic between terror thugs and their state sponsors is a central theme of western war posture. And should be." It is actually sort of a somewhat partial theme of American war posture in Bush's premptive state, and as for it being the way it should be, so far the evidence, and results, is less than compelling....
Post a Comment