The US, UN & Iraq II

On the streets of Baghdad yesterday, it was Kabul, November 2001, all over again. Then, enthusiasts for the war on terror were in triumphalist mood, as the Taliban regime was overthrown. The critics had been confounded, they insisted, kites were flying, music was playing again and women were throwing off their burkas. In parliament, Jack Straw mocked Labour MPs who predicted US and British forces would still be fighting in the country in six months' time.
Seventeen months later, such confidence looks grimly ironic. For most Afghans, "liberation" has meant the return of rival warlords, harsh repression, rampant lawlessness, widespread torture and Taliban-style policing of women. Meanwhile, guerrilla attacks are mounting on US troops - special forces soldiers have been killed in recent weeks, while 11 civilians died yesterday in an American air raid - and the likelihood of credible elections next year appears to be close to zero.

If the philosophical side of Berman's liberal battle-cry is oddly illiberal, what about the state of America's world revolution on the ground? So far US policy has fallen short of Lincoln's ideals. Even as the stated aims in the Iraqi war are to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, other dictatorships (Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and an assortment of other Stans) are coddled as prized allies; the Russians are barely criticized for demolishing Chechnya; human rights in China are hardly even mentioned anymore; and when Turks or Brazilians exercise their democratic rights to vote for leaders or policies that the American administration doesn't like, they get chastised for doing so. Clearly democratic revolution is rather a selective business.

This is sometimes unavoidable. Even, or indeed especially, the United States, as a superpower, needs to make shabby deals, bribe unsavory leaders, and compromise to protect its interests. It would, of course, be desirable if the US did more to promote freedom and democracy, wherever and whenever it can, but it is precisely the penchant of the current administration to blur realpolitik with revolutionary zeal, to bribe and twist arms with trumpeting blasts of self-righteousness, that provokes so much resistance in the world. The idea, moreover, that democracy can be established by military invasion is not bolstered with much historical evidence.

Apologists for the current US government keep on reminding us of Germany and Japan, but these examples are widely off the mark. To start, both countries attacked the US with their own military forces first. The Allies did not fight to build Japanese and German democracies, but to defend themselves. Secondly, the US did not create German or Japanese democracies from scratch. Both countries were modern nation-states, which once had flawed but functioning democratic institutions, with parliaments, political parties, independent judges, vigorous newspapers, and so on. Things went horribly wrong in the 1930s, to be sure, but what was needed in 1945, and indeed carried out with great American humanity and skill, was a restoration job, not a revolution.

Again, one does not have to be a hard-boiled "realist" to see that bringing democracy to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea with military force would be a very different proposition. The US may be exceptional in many respects, but the belief of its more zealous officials, and intellectual cheerleaders, in a national destiny to dispatch American armies to remake the world in its own image is by no means unique. Others have been down that route, and not everything they did was ignoble: think of Napoleon's emancipation of the Jews. But eventually such missions always come to grief, leaving ruins where they meant to build utopias.

Breaking News: Big doins' in Baghdad

Two Uniformed Iraqi Officials have arrived at Palestine Hotel, one of whom has been identified as a "General of Police", and incidentally, on the "Deck of Cards". Details are sketchy, but it appears perhaps some sort of "Official Surrender" may be in progress. Updates and expansions sure to follow.

Watching the news made me angry again. The journalist showed us pictures of the looting.
Hospitals looted
German embassy =>looted
Private houses of the leadership=>looted
Ministry of information=>looted
Ministry of trade=>looted

All the ministries were looted except one. Heavily guarded with tanks and armoured vehicles. the ministry of OIL

So people are dying because the US soldiers stood by while the looters took all they could lay there hands on. Saying it was impossible to protect all the buildings.

Why did they protect the ministry of OIL instead of the biggest hospital in Bagdad? Medical staff and civilian volunteers are defending some of Baghdad's hospitals with guns so bad has the looting become, a BBC correspondent reports. Why dont the move the troops away from an empty building and to the hospitals in order to protect at least these from the looters?