The US, UN & Iraq II

Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management ofour lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners No man is wise enough to be another man's master. Each man's as good as the next--if not a damn sight better. The ideal society can be described, quite simply, as that in which no man has the power of means to coerce others. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns.

Some on this thread have mentioned that American foreign Policy hasn't been and isn't about gaining territory, that's been true for more than a century. ( I do have a friend who argues that the last great territorial conquests of this nation ought to be returned to their rightful owner Mexico and that we ought to start with Texas this year and California next, but I digress.) What our policy in the Middle East has been about is influence and we have consistently backed the wrong horses.
The present war is the direct result of short sighted, wrong-headed American foreign policy dating back to the Reagan presidency. It was only after Hussein had used gas on Kurd villages that the US government opened diplomatic relations with the current Iraqi regime. We were not opposed, in fact, we encouraged the prosecution of the Iran-Iraq War, first as a method of revenge against the Ayatollahs of Iran for holding our diplomats for 666 days (which of course was revenge for our installing the Shah over their country, but how far back shall I go here?)and second, in the hope that the two countries would fixate on the battles between them and be less inclined to get involved in the Israeli/Palestinian matters.
It has been argued that the US ambassador may have inadvertently green-lighted the original invasion of Kuwait by not stressing that even though we had encouraged the invasion of Iran and didn't apply sanctions when the Iraqis gassed their own people, we would have the strongest objections to any such action against Kuwait. (The Iraqis have, since the end of World War II, protested that Kuwait should have never been established as a separate country when the British following WWI basically drew lines in the sand, creating borders and new countries out of the former Ottoman Empire. Kuwait had been called by the Iraqis of the South the lost province. The US and Britain have always seen it as a special case.)
So we have a mess of our own making to clean up, including the weapons of mass destruction which we were instrumental in providing to the Iraqis in the first place. Donald Rumsfeld made it possible for Saddam Hussein to aquire anthrax, now he wants, for good reason, to put the genie back in the bottle or the feathers back in the pillow or whatever analogy you'd like to insert here.
The fact of the matter is, as short sighted and wrong-headed as the aforementioned actions or inactions, the current administration's long term view does not seem to exist in the same reality as the rest of us.
They seem to think that the people of Iraq are nothing more than Kansas or Iowa farmers in long robes, that as soon as Hussein falls this nascent democratic movement will take over and the Shi'a in the south will be embraced by the Kurds in the north and the Sunni's will be okay with both of them. Even though if we apply the one person/one vote method it would mean that neither the Kurds nor the Sunnis would have any power.
(Sort of like when the House, Senate, presidency and Supreme Court are controlled by a single party here, but worse because we haven't shot at each other since 1865, at least on a more organised level that the Crips and Bloods.)
I know that everyone is pretty busy these days trying to cross the Tigris, but very soon (VERY soon, I hope) the shooting will stop and we will have a injured angry populace on our hands. Part of my mis-givings about this war has been the lack of some clear plan that differs from the usual bring freedom to the Iraqi people.
A short list: the creation of Kurdistan in the north, tell the Turks to relax. An expansion of Kuwait to encompass most of the Shi'a populace with some territory re-joined to Iran. An expansion of Jordan eastward to Bagdad bringing the Sunni's into a country where they can have great influence.
Wouldn't that mean that Iraq would disappear? Yes, it was a fiction to begin with, let's relegate it to the foot note it ought to have been. Am I serious about this? Maybe, I haven't given it much thought to my plan but then, neither has the Bush administration.

Joe Nation

Joe -- That's a good summary. There are increasingly pessimistic predictions (my source is usually NPR, on all day) about what will happen post-war... Nice quote from Huntington, by the way.

Actually the current messes are the result of the policies of many administrations going back much more than a decade, and the causes are not entirely American.

Our European friends are just as responsible, perhaps more so. Many European nations opted for spending their resources on socialized programs. That was made possible by cutting their military budgets and a reliance on America to provide security. They opted for the idealistic notion that with the USSR out of the game, they wouldn't be troubled by threats for many years. Wrong. Their ecomomies are highly dependant upon Middle-Eastern oil, so they ignored the rising tide of anti-western sentiment in the region. Lacking military muscle, they adopted appeasement as a strategy. Several, France most notibly, have made tidy profits supplying the Iraqi military with weapons.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, a good thing in many ways, is a prime contributor to the present conditions. Soviet military equipment and munitions have been it's major export since the the breakup. Recent public revelations about the sale of GPS disrupting equipment, night vision goggles, and other materials (including instructors/advisors) is disturbing. We've long known about the supply of armor and other arms, but these revelations seem to indicate much greater involvment than we believed. I hope that fissionable materials and processing elements for chemical and biological agents have not be transfered to Saddam's regime. Russia also wants to avoid any risk of further antagonizing their Muslim population, especially in Chechyna.

Most of all, it is Saddam himself who is responsible for the current mess. He didn't have to invade Iran, but he did and used terror weapons. That instant replay of WWI trench warfare killed milliions of Iranian and Iraqi children (sent out unarmed to clear the minefields) and soldiers. Saddam didn't have to invade Kuwait, but he did and the UN for once showed some spine and set the stage for the military action necessary to remove him. Saddam didn't have to lob Scud missiles into Israel, a non-combatant state, but he did and the Israeli's for once didn't respond with massive retaliation against the most outspoken enemy of their country. Saddam might have lived up to the conditions of the ceasefire, and his promises to disarm, but he didn't. Saddam might have avoided sanctions, but chose instead to rebuild his stock of terror weapons and palaces while the People suffered under one of the most brutal and oppressive tyrannys in modern times. Saddam has doubtless encouraged, sponsored and financed international terrorist organizations against Israel, and it is not unreasonable to assume terror aimed at western states. Saddam could have avoided all this "mess" by compliance even at the last moment, but he chose instead to rely upon anti-war sentiment for his victory. He bamboozled the UN, and many private citizens around the world.

The Iraqi People are not Kansas farmers, and I doubt that anyone in the NCA would hold such a notion. The Iraqi People, do however have in common with the rest of humanity a desire for justice, freedom, and security for themselves and their families. Under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party the Iraqi People have been denied those basic needs. They will be liberated.

BTW, I'm probably misreading the following quote -- I hope so.



Surely you are not hoping that we will have "a injured angry populace on our hands". I think you really mean to say that we may have "a injured angry populace on our hands". I don't think that will happen, but it is possible if the radical Islamic types and supporters have their way. Our forces are going out of their way to protect civilian life and property while rooting out those elements responsible for destabilizing the region, torture and repression. I suppose there were German civilians who might have taken up arms against their liberators as Allied forces marched deep into the Reich.

Dys,

Anarchy is a romantic favorite, but would be a great disaster if ever attempted. Anarch and Chaos are twins. I know of no better system for the govening of nations than the U.S. Constitution. God bless America, and her fighting men and women. They will prevail, and there is a good chance that the whole region will benefit from the removal of Saddam and his henchmen.

Ahhh ... The Ottoman Empire. What a legacy; Its collapse drives the diplomacy of yet a third century.

A note on "Collateral Damage";

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/24/iraq/main545783.shtml




Doubtless this is overly optimistic. Notable is that even the Iraqi claim in no way indicates "thousands of civilian casualties". I expect its probable the reality will prove to be well into the Red Cross' segment of the curve.

I had the pleasure of hearing Fisk speak at a conference last year. He is a very angry, but extremely articulate man, with an intimate knowledge of the Middle East and above all of what the various major powers in general and the US in particular have on their conscience there.

He is too well-informed to be easily contradicted, but he is definitely not the traditional formal-objective journalist, more the journalist-activist kind. An independent thinker, though, who when one questioner tried to use what he had said to lambast the West himself, turned right around and told him off in no uncertain words about the blame of Arab governments and civil society.

He writes a lot for The Independent, worth it to read up on.

I don't share your optimism about how the US troops will be received, but my compliments for your very articulate and concise overview of the respective responsibilities for this crisis, of all the major powers and above all Saddam himself.

My Gawd, this thread is moving at lightspeed. Don't any of you have day jobs???

Roger said:



I agree with you, Roger. Nimh is a worthy disputant.

The happy plan for redrawing Iraq is good stuff, indeed. But one lives in cloud-cuckoo land if he thinks that Turkey would allow an independent Kurdistan to their south, to which all of Turkey's Kurds would flee as the to the motherland.

nimh, I agree with you about Robert Fisk. He is extremely well informed and even-handed. Even when angry or outraged, he is articulate.

JoeNation and Asherman, thank you both for your different perspectives on history. There is much truth in what each of you writes, and it is interesting how much blame there is to go around.

Asherman, you're right. It's not quite the right word is it?
How about damaged, ravaged, hungry, depressed, tortured, upset, angry populace on our hands? I didn't mean to say that our present warfare would injure the entire populace, but that the entire populace is ALREADY injured by thirty years of this corrupt regime which sprang almost entirely out of the West's policies towards the Middle East. We ignored the Stalinist leanings of the early Hussein because he never slowed down the flow of oil, and he seemed content to be able to pummel his own people.
One of the major complaints about the US is that we have continued to prop up corrupt ruthless leaders. There was a chance just after the overthrow of the Shah for an Islamic revolution in Iraq. We didn't want that so we funded Hussein's next years. Don't you think the Iraqi people know who backed this bastard?
In Saudia Arabia, the bunch of cousins that the Brits installed as Kings and Princes are doing their damndest to cover their asses with their own people by giving out gifts and generous contributions, but the Saudi people know that it's been the Americans and the British who have kept the Wahabs in their palaces and the people in the 14th century, as long as the oil kept flowing. They may be a little damaged too. The ones on the planes flying into the twin towers certainly were.
Now that starts to sound like this is all our fault, but I don't think that's completely true. Asherman pointed out several bad choices Saddam has made on his own over the years and in recent months, and the hijackers didn't have to crash the towers either, more bad choices. My point is this: Bush stood up in the debates and sniffed that he didn't think this country ought to be in business of nation building. Well, because of his rush to war with Iraq we are now in the process of re-building that nation and now we have to do it without the support and assistance of many of the strongest, most able to help, countries in the world. That's was another bad choice. It's going to require a lot of re-education to start to make the right choices and I'm talking about the President going to school on this to make sure that the people of Iraq find their way out of their damaged lives, they may even remember who it was who corrected the bad choices that put them there in the first place.

Joe

Joe Nation, In regard to your post of Mon Mar 24, 2003 2:44 pm

Your brief history of Iraq and the illumination of its geographical/religious divisions is quite relevant to everyone's concerns about a Post Saddam Iraq. Problem is that this administration has declared that the integrity of Iraq's boundaries will be respected and upheld after this conflict is over. However, this does not preclude an Iraqi republic constituted with your geographic/religious concerns taken into consideration. The Kurds, over the last 12 years, have set up a de facto Kurdistan and would be loath to give this hard won autonomy up. A republic system of government might alleviate this situation by allowing groups such as you mentioned to govern themselves while still being able to enjoy combined resources such as Iraqi oil and a small national defensive force.

In my opinion a post Saddam Iraqi republic will face two powerful internal centrifugal forces that will act to tear the Union apart. The first is the majority Shiite population seeking retribution from the Minority Sunni population for past repressive acts.

The second is the Turkish/Kurd problem in the North. The Turks feel that any Kurdish autonomy is a slippery slope leading to a recognized Kurdish state, which then will lead to the Kurds invoking their right to occupy those ancestral lands lost when Europeans divided up the Ottoman Empire (I assume the Iranians would object also). I do not think it is realistic to expect the Turks to "relax" their feelings on this point. I also suspect the U.S.'s failure to get Turkey's complete support is related to this conflict. Part of the agreement was that in turn for receiving 26 billion USD Turkey would not send any troops into northern Iraq. I see now, after the agreement failed, that Turkey has reportedly sent 1500 troops into Kurdish territory in N. Iraq.

Perhaps your solution is correct or perhaps mine also has some merit, I don't know. The ultimate decision should be up to the Iraqi People themselves. This is, of course, one of the objectives the coalition is fighting to obtain for the Iraqi people.

There are no guarantees with a democratic government. Inherent in any democracy are potential seeds for its own destruction. Witness that back in the early 1950's the U.S. had to outlaw the communist party for fear it would become so strong in the government that it would ultimately destroy the democratic process itself. It was no picnic shortly after our own revolutionary war when were just a young fledgling nation trying to establish our basic form of government. A few select readings in the Federalist Papers hints at the heated debate on that subject.
My biggest fear is that the process of democracy may let in sufficient radical fundamentalism powers to actually destroy any democratic government (we have seen some of this in the latest Pakistani elections). Trying to prevent this from happening involves restrictions that stifle democracy which in turn allows the establishment of regimes that favor more restrictions giving way to leaders such as the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein. It is a delicate balance and at some point in America's nation building she will have to let the emerging nation walk that path alone.

JM

The Independent Journalists are at significant risk and feasibly could place our forces at risk at worst, while consideration for their wellfare impacts operational efficiency in any case. We'll likely see more casualties among them as the groundwar heats up. Those brave (or foolhardy) enough to remain provide a service. The loss of those who may fail to survive will be tragic, but must be considered possible.

Previous action on the ground has been relatively light, and progress toward Baghdad has been about as rapid as logistics permit. More intense fighting, between larger and heavier units, has been occuring over the past day, and skirmishing is on the increase in Northern Iraq, involving direct US Special Operations Forces coordination with and of Kurdish units of both major factions. A US Major General has established a headquarters, air-to-ground activity is increasing (Fairford is "Routinely" rotating inbound and outbound B-52s more or less 24/7, and additional US ground assets are being deployed to both The North and to The West. The Western Airfields will soon come into play. Baghdad's outer defenses have been breached and pressure on Saddam's forces will only increase. Casualties will increase dramatically, but will remain militarily insignificant. The Republican Guard units so far engaged, primarily Hammurabi, have shown a willingness to fight. They will be overwhelmed, though it likely will be bloodier yet. Battlefield Preparation is being conucted over 3/4 of Iraq's territory. The rear area chaos troubling the Southern push is to be expected, given the tactic of sealing off rather than fighting through the cities. A power vacuum now exists in the Southern cities, as the Ba'athist civil administration melts away. Affairs there may be expected to remain dangerously unsettled for the immediate future. Humanitarian aid to the area will be problematic through the same period, a situation with troubling potential for US embarrassment ... bringing the dilema of "Liberating" troops occupying and admistering civilian areas.
The attack on Iraq will succeed in far less time than it will take to establish peace.

Asherman i consider Anarchy to like the north star, not a destination, just something to steer by.

JM
I think you are exactly right. Especially on the Kurd issue, I put that in to get people talking. It's going to be difficult. There are enough ancient feuds and enmities to keep a set of negotiators working overtime for several years and we really don't have that kind of time.
There is already a food crisis looming in Basra.

You wrote:

Not only in Pakistan but also in Egypt in recent times. Do you know what combats this? IDEAS. Fundamentalism succeeds by telling people there are simple solutions to complex problems. Witness our recent elections here in the USA, what we had was a campaign wherein people were told everything was easy to do: save Social Security, protect the surplus(es), lead the world. People like that kind of idea even though they know it's a lie. What nationbuilders, like us, need to do is tell people it's going to be tough to make a new world, so get over it and if anyone tells you it's going to be an easy ride, they lie. People like to be told the truth, they really do. Tell them that what needs to happen is that a government will be created whose job it is to protect the powerless from the powerful, (hence no tax cuts for the top 1%) and to make it possible for all things to be possible.
I gotta go.
Peace. Still possible.

Joe

Astute stuff, Joe.

Thanks, Kara. It means a lot coming from you.

Joe

Timberlandko,

Sorry for hurting your feelings dude. I guess even ex-military types have a feminine side, eh?

You must understand the cultural differences of Australians. We often address others in what may seem to be offensive manner however it purely a means of engagement. Twas PJ O'Rourke that said that Australia is the one country in the world where "You F**king C**t" can be a term of endearment between old friends.

Interesting reading the views expressed on what will happen in Iraq. I think that ultimately there will have to be a massive offensive, lots of civilian casualities and of course coalition victory.

Timber I haven't seen much reference from you to Australia's SAS. Do you know what their involvemnet in this conflict is? They are actually the real soldiers, forward troops putting their balls on the line. Not cowardly launching 'smart bombs' from hundreds of kilometres away.

Interested to see you are a 'day-trader'. Hmm thought they had gone the way of acid wash denim and heroin chic - obviously not.

I'm sure there will be a lot of investment capital lining up to help develop Iraqi oil production. Alas here in Australia our Oil reserves are offshore and I'm sure will dropped like a hot potato by America once the easily accessible Iraqi oil is up for grabs.

BTW Timber any hot share tips? What about Halliburton??

I think that too is concise, and pertinent. The simplicity of fundamentalism is the chief comfort of the desperate and the dispossessed.

Today, I was working for some hours with people who join me in a volunteer capacity. The attitude toward the war, among these acquaintances of mine, is one of wonderment. I've seen this among other friends as well. Some want to think about one thing, and one thing only, and this could be, e.g. Bush is our leader. He has all of the briefings and inside info; he knows the threats. We must trust him. Ergo, this war is okay and we must support it.

Others are hesitant, don't want to be involved. I sympathise with those people, to some degree, but I do not understand them. They may be part of the large percentage of people in America who do not vote.

The main group among these friends whom I talk to is composed of people like me who do not watch CNN or Fox, who wonder about the information they are able to unearth on NPR or the net, or in the national newpapers, and who genuinely wonder what are we doing, what we have got ourselves into, how this entire matter evolved from its simply beginnings. It is a leap from: well, we did not vote for Bush, or we did vote for him, not thinking that major matters would come up that even a philosopher-king might struggle with. Suddenly, we the people are faced with issues that our leaders have not prepared us for, that they are not prepared for. How many prez-candidates debate war issues except to throw down flaming one-liners that let us know they stand for all that is right.

What I saw today among my friends was bewilderment. We have access to enormous resources of information, from every direction, and yet we find ourselves in a place that is not easily parsed, morally, by many people of my generation. Sometimes I think it is not acceptable these days to hang for a while in the mid-zone. You are respected if you stand up strongly for one "side" or the other, a view that saves you from difficult questions that require a hung head, pondering, whispered interior doubts.