Comments on: Mary Kaldor on Iraq

By: Lee Bryant

Lee Bryant — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:52:14 +0000

Fair enough. Neither of our underlying assumptions can really be proved or disproved, I guess. I agree with the need for carefully “constructed institutional machinery” to keep society in order, and I am confident that Iraqis can do this themselves, perhaps with support and non-interventionist assistance from their friends. I am still amazed at how civilised and hospitable Iraqis are towards most foreigners despite the many crimes committed by US forces against them. This is a feature of Islamic culture that non-Islamic cultures could learn from. Thanks for the debate.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 13:31:39 +0000

“Anyway, Keith says peacekeeping in Bosnia avoided a bloodbath because the savages there exist only to kill each other.” This gets to the heart of it, doesn’t it? You seem to have a very optimistic view of human nature. Your view seems to be that people naturally get along well with each other, and it’s only “external forces” (which would need to be oddly defined in this context) that create conflict. While you’re quite correct that I don’t share this belief, you’re quite incorrect to assume that the only possible alternative view is a colonialist, culturally bigoted disposition that regards “us” as the enlightened who need to impose civilization on the barbarians who will slaughter themselves otherwise. I think we’re all barbarians. And, as a matter of fact, I think that LA and many other places would be plunged into ethnic and religious strife were civil authority and policing removed. It takes a lot of institutional machinery and habit to maintain a pluralistic society free of tribalistic conflict.

By: Lee Bryant

Lee Bryant — Sun, 16 Nov 2003 12:13:09 +0000

oh … go on then … just maybe Kuchinich would have done better – at least he wouldn’t have sold off the power company to KBR or Halliburton ;-) Anyway, Keith says peacekeeping in Bosnia avoided a bloodbath because the savages there exist only to kill each other. First, Serb forces achieved most of their ethnic cleansing in 1992 before UNPROFOR got going. Second, Srebrenica – if that’s not a bloodbath, I don’t know what is. Finally, how do you account for the fact that there was little or no fighting at times when strategic interests (not blind hatred) were at stake? E.g. Serb withdrawal from Donji Vakuf and northern approaches to Vlasic in Autumn 1995. It was a political war that needed a political solution. The blue helmets saved some lives and delivered some food, but they were just a stop gap until the Americans decided to impose a solution on all parties. The solution is a bad one that goes against all the principles they claimed to be upholding. A better solution would have been to not intervene in the first place by imposing an arms embargo on the Bosnians. Keith: it seems wherever you see “ethnic groups” you see civil war. Do you think that LA would burst into flames without the LAPD? Yes, Iraq was a totalitarian state, and in that it was not alone. That does not mean that all totalitarian states exist only to suppress ancient ethnic hatreds. Iraqis are way more civilised than you realise. There might be inter-communal violence post-withdrawal – it would hardly be surprising after everything that has happened. However, it is up to Iraqis to sort their country out. We just owe them a hell of a lot of apologies and money. You are right that the British have achieved some good things around Basra. Maybe that could be built on in a post-occupation force, perhaps in conjunction with neutral forces from other countries or perhaps the OIC. But one thing is clear: US troops should be withdrawn or they will be defeated.

By: rea

rea — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 22:57:41 +0000

“please don’t bore me with the fantasy that this or that US president or party would do it better. Even Kuchinich can’t reform the USA. Right now, the United States is on a course that can’t be changed” Not to bore a fellow flu sufferer, Lee, but what do you mean that a different president wouldn’t do it better? A different president wouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place!

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:03:10 +0000

“I think we are on the old “ancient ethnic hatreds” ground again a la Bosnia.” Huh? You do realize, don’t you, that without the intervention and continued large numbers of peacekeeping forces in Bosnia, there would be a bloodbath? There is a huge body of literature on both the war and the aftermath to this day that makes this abundantly clear. Iraq was a totalitarian state. Like other totalitarian states before it, it suppressed simmering conficts between aggrieved groups and, importantly, often elevated one minority group’s interests above the others. You must be completely ignorant of the situation in Iraq to believe that there wouldn’t be a great amount of violence between Shia and Sunni, against and by the Kurds, and by and against the old Baathist party elite and functionaries. The peacekeeping activities in Bosnia have been largely successful, and they’re an example of what can be achieved with a large, determined multinational force determined to build a civil society. The US alone might have the resources to do something like this in Iraq, but not the political will. However, a large multinational commitment to such an endeavor is possible, but only with a Democratic administration.

By: Lee Bryant

Lee Bryant — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:48:20 +0000

retrospective apologies for typos and slightly emotional tone – I have flu :-(

By: Lee Bryant

Lee Bryant — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 18:48:20 +0000

Good anecdote. I think Bush’s suporters and opponents are in danger of some kind of weird role reversal, with Republicans eager to cut and run and well-meaning opponents of the war arguing that the US has to clear up its own mess, stay the course, etc. I made the point yesterday that a US/UK withdrawal is the only logical first step because every day of the American presence is (a) worsening the security situation (mostly because of anti-occupation attacks but also because Bush has turned Iraq into the next battleground against “foreign” Islamic radicals) and (b) gradually undermining and dividing Iraqi society. In response, Keith Ellis said: “An American withdrawal certainly would not decrease unrest. It is astonishingly naive and uninformed of you to think that it would. There are deep Shia and Sunni and Kurd conflicts (among others) that would boil over; as would there be a bloody political struggle between the Baathists and those who would replace them.” But what do we really know about “deep Shia and Sunni and Kurd conflicts”? I think we are on the old “ancient ethnic hatreds” ground again a la Bosnia. Yes, Saddam’s anti-Shia and anti-Kurd policies created divisions, but that is not to say that Iraqi cannot sort these out. It is remarkable that all ethnic/religious groups seem to support the continued existence of Iraq rather than calling for secession or division. That indicates that there is a willingness to continue with a pluralist entity, which bodes well for the ability of Iraqis to solve their own problems post-withdrawal. As for “a bloody struggle between Baathists and those that woudl replace them” – do we really understand what the term “Baathists” means in this context? Baathists minus Saddam’s apparatus of state repression are little more than a nationalist political party, who presumably will continue to have a political role (ideally in opposition, of course) just as former communists do now in Eastern Europe. Maybe, just maybe, Iraqis are not hell-bent on killing themselves and each other…. Kaith also levels an accusation against me: “Iraqi society cannot both be ancient, enduring and powerful and also easily destroyed by teenage grunts backed by neo-colonialists. The patronization is implied in the assertion of this incoherent idea. It’s sort of a “noble savage” view, idealizing “Iraqi” culture while seeing it as deeply vulnerable to foreign intervention.” Iraqi CULTURE is ancient, enduring and, in my experience, superior to American anti-culture. However, Iraqi SOCIETY has been pulled apart first by late-stage Saddam (1991-2002) and then by the occupation. Iraqi society is certainly vulnerable to the effects of both ill-educated military grunts and over-funded corrupt corporates – indeed one might also add empty-minded well-meaning NGO peddlers of “democracy” to the list as well, if like me today you are feeling cynical. The US didn’t really occupy Afghanistan in a classical sense, which is why aside from a massive increase in drug production and warlordism we haven’t seen the full effect of its “partnership” with the US. In Iraq, I fear we will see US influence in ful effect: from selling off the state’s assets to crooks, through prostitution and the commodification of women to a breakdown of family relations, etc. Finally, say what you will about these views (they come across as more conservative than I intended), but please don’t bore me with the fantasy that this or that US president or party would do it better. Even Kuchinich can’t reform the USA. Right now, the United States is on a course that can’t be changed. Just look at the economic indicators. To paraphrase Robert Palmer: you’re gonna have to face it, you’re addicted to cheap oil and forcefully “opening up” new markets for your goods whilst protecting your own unsustainable economy.

By: Frank Wilhoit

Frank Wilhoit — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:42:53 +0000

James Thurber has an anecdote about his aunt, a typical Ohio farmer’s wife, trying to fix a broken cream separator. Inmidst taking the thing apart and making the whole situation unmistakeably worse than it was before, she suddenly looked up and shouted, “Why doesn’t somebody take this goddam thing away from me?!” So we must stand in the mudpuddle, must we, having jumped in it with both our perfect feet, “…until a framework for democracy is established…”… “..until Iraq is a free and peaceful nation…” You mean, for the next thousand years, at least.

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Sat, 15 Nov 2003 00:04:54 +0000

Anyway, no one forces you to read anything I write, or, indeed to comment on it. Actually, Chris, Aretino’s kids are in my basement at the moment, where they’ve been living a semi-feral existence for some years. If I don’t see evidence that he’s been reading your stuff, I cut their gruel allowance. It’s a labor-intensive way of securing readers, but that’s just a consequence of the ruthless competition for eyeballs in the blogosphere.

By: Leo Strauss

Leo Strauss — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:52:48 +0000

Many on the left opposed the invasion and occupation (absent true preemption of a mortal threat) precisely because of the serious burden and dubious prospect of Iraqi nation building. Short of being driven out we must succeed, the sooner the better. Failure may leave the Iraqi people exposed to the ravages of a half-dozen Saddams and the US relatively enfeebled and throughly shamed. The (apparently) unlikely possibility of improvement in Iraq under the current mis-administration, should the clouds miraculously part, still leaves the Dems oceans of room to indict Bush on terrible planning and waste, among other shortcomings brought into focus by this fiasco. The only factor tempering my hope for a rapid improvement in Iraq is the nagging fear it will enable another adventure, another roll of the die by this administration, likely in Syria. How many more gifts is this President prepared to present Osama bin Ladin in the name of fighting Terror?

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:59:09 +0000

I have to say I’m mystified both at what you say and at the rancour with which you say it.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 21:15:20 +0000

Perhaps I should have said “some Democrats” or even “some people”. But my intention was just to say “This is interesting … take a look.” I don’t really get why you “long ago stopped expect[ing] better”. Perhaps because the fact that you didn't say "some Democrats" was somewhat predictable, and after a certain amount of predictability, reasonable people stop expecting better. Anyway, no one forces you to read anything I write, or, indeed to comment on it. Unless they are optimists about the human capacity for self-betterment. Or perhaps they have a certain stiff-upper-lip sense that one must know what other people have to say regardless of how contemptible. But as for me, it's really because I read the articles without noticing who wrote it until it's too late. ;-)

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:22:33 +0000

I wasn’t aware of that from Dean. I stand corrected. But I think he’d be under significant pressure from a lot of groups to do so. I agree that there’s much more risk of an abrupt withdrawal by Bush than is commonly thought. But the Bush administration’s current policies are awfully bad and they’re already signaling an accelerated withdrawal. The situation with them in charge is bleak. However, they’d pay a significant political price for a complete withdrawal, and I think they’d only pay that price if the alternative was much, much worse. That would only be the case if the situation in Iraq became far worse than it is. This is why I think bad news is good, but really bad news is bad.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:07:15 +0000

keith, a while ago: A President Dean, for example, would be more likely to embrace a complete withdrawal, as would some other Democrats. It’s worth noting that Dean has said that we cannot cut and run from Iraq. This isn’t dispositive—politicians have been known to go back on their promises—but Dean’s stated position is nowhere near Kucinich’s on this. I would say that complete withdrawal is more likely under Bush than under Dean—perhaps for war on Syria, perhaps for electoral manipulation—but I don’t think that’s what you meant by “more likely,” anyway.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 14 Nov 2003 19:55:14 +0000

Mr. Kissinger has a couple of comments which match current US administration actions too well for comfort: From Does America Need a Foreign Policy: The road to empire leads to domestic decay because, in time, the claims of omnipotence erode domestic restraints. No empire has avoided the road to Caesarism unless, like the British Empire, it devolved its power before this process could develop. In long-lasting empires, every problem turns into a domestic issue [which should be handled very differently from international ones] because the outside world no longer provides a counterweight. And as challenges grow more diffuse and increasingly remote from the historic domestic base, internal struggles become ever more bitter and in time violent. A deliberate quest for hegemony is the surest way to destroy the values that made the United States great. From Diplomacy: [Early Bolsheviks] never dealt with the question of how to conduct foreign policy among sovereign states. They were certain that world revolution would follow their victory in Russia in a few months’ time; extreme pessimists thought it might take as long as a few years. Leon Trotsky, the first Soviet Foreign Minister, viewed his task as little more than that of a clerk who, in order to discredit the capitalists, would make public the various secret treaties by which they had proposed to divide the spoils of war amongst themselves. He defined his role as being to “issue a few revolutionary proclamations to the peoples of the world and then shut up shop”.