Mary Kaldor on Iraq

by Chris Bertram on November 14, 2003

Mary Kaldor (an opponent of the war) has “an interesting piece on Iraq on OpenDemocracy”:http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-95-1579.jsp . One of her observations concerns the extent to which both the neo-cons and the Democrats are fixated on how it all plays “back home” :

bq. When I was in the CPA offices in the palace, the Green Zone was hit by mortar fire and we were evacuated to the basement. There, some of the American officials were overheard discussing how ‘the Democrats’ would play it back home, with their eyes on the election not the current situation in Iraq.

and

bq. Third, there is a presidential election coming up in America. Some people want America to fail in Iraq so that George W. Bush will lose the election. This kind of thinking prioritises domestic US concerns above the fate of Iraqis. It is as sick as the preoccupations of the Republicans in the CPA about ‘how will this play in the election?’ No one should support the military opposition to America. And there should be no immediate withdrawal of US troops until a framework for democracy is established.

The other, more signicant, part of the article concerns the opposite strategies that the Americans and the British are employing in their zones of control. For the Americans:

bq. The neo-con aim is to impose an American model of ‘free-market democracy’ (to quote a CPA official). The Americans have a strategic plan for rapid implementation of this model, and want it achieved, with luck, before the 2004 Presidential election. They have specified the milestones to be achieved in this process – the ‘seven steps to good governance’. Their recipe, like many transition recipes, involves wiping the slate clean through the destruction of existing institutions – hence the dismantling of the army, the Bremer decree on de-Ba’athification which removed many qualified people from key positions, and plans for the rapid privatisation of state institutions.

The British approach on the other hand

bq. … involves the handover of power either to the political parties dominated by exiles, or to tribal and religious leaders who became more important during the Saddam period. …..In many cases, the British have made deals with these groups. This may have narrowed the security vacuum and reduced the space for the remnants of the regime. But the risk is that they will transform these governorates into repressive fiefdoms, with a disregard for the rule of law and a high risk of tribal and religious violence as each tries to carve out territories.

{ 33 comments }

1

dsquared 11.14.03 at 12:54 pm

Some people want America to fail in Iraq so that George W. Bush will lose the election. This kind of thinking prioritises domestic US concerns above the fate of Iraqis

Not necessarily, surely? I’ve never been a big fan of revolutionary defeatism, but shurely there must be a self-consistent point of view that believes that the only way things will ever get better for the Iraqis is if Bush goes, so it’s better for things to get worse between now and the election to get better later under the enlightened Democrat administration?

2

Conrad Barwa 11.14.03 at 1:01 pm

The British approach on the other hand […..]

This is about par for normal British policy since colonial times. It has always been more effective in usually achieving its strategic aims on the cheap; in the ME pre-1971 when the UK was still a major player this was the basic modus operandi in places Oman during the Dhofar campaign etc. and from Whitehall’s view it was quite effective, in the short term at least.

3

Keith M Ellis 11.14.03 at 2:02 pm

Kaldor’s column is more about the correct approach to reconstruction than it is about opposition or support of the occupation. But since the latter is the lede of Chris’s post, and is quite provocative, I want to address it. And, in this respect, Kaldor is wrong. It is appropriate, as Daniel says, to “support” current American failures in Iraq in the context of the greater good, which includes that of the Iraqi people.

First, some context.

While Kaldor rightly criticizes the American neocon naiveté, she does not acknowledge the essential rightness of their position (in regards to reconstruction), nor the reality that it is divergent from administration policy. This divergence is exactly why things have gone so terribly wrong.

The neocons place great emphasis on the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure and society, and the establishment of a democratic civil society. Had they their way, far more resources and planning would have been allocated to this project. Yes, again—they are terribly naïve and, not incidentally, ideologically blinded. But they are not squeamish about “nation building”.

The traditional conservatives are. And they are the majority in this administration, and include the President. The neocons supplied a rationalization and an ideological fervor for this invasion—the traditional conservatives exploited that for their own reasons, as did the more purely political operatives. For example, Rumsfeld, a key player, is not a neocon—his obsession has been to remake the military…to be remembered by history as a visionary Secretary of Defense who reshaped America’s military. His vision of military action is in accordance with the neocon vision in regards to its adventurism, but deviates from it in regards to nation building and the like. The neocon prosecution of the war would have used as much military force as necessary, and as much as necessary for the occupation. Rumsfeld, in contrast, needed to prove his “faster, leaner, cheaper” philosophy.

The result was that a broad consensus arose in this administration for an invasion, and the neocon rationale for it was proffered as its public face. However, the majority view in the administration was against large forces and extensive occupation. The neocons unwittingly supported this with their naïve expectations of how warmly the Americans would be welcomed. In the end, we had an invasion almost everyone in the administration supported, but with little agreement about what should come next. Thus, this disaster.

The preceding context is necessary in order to understand what is now actually possible for Iraq’s future. And the most important thing to understand is that this administration absolutely does not have the wherewithal to support an occupation and reconstruction necessary for a healthy Iraq. This is not an option. It’s not going to happen.

One of two things will happen with this administration:

  1. A continuation of the status quo, resulting in a worsening situation and an early withdrawal. This would be a disaster for Iraq.
  2. An early, effectively complete withdrawal. This would be an even bigger disaster for Iraq.

Kaldor’s plan is not a possibility with this administration. Neither of the possibilities above allows it. At this point, I think the first possibility is more likely under this administration.

One of three things will happen with a Democratic administration:

  1. Same as #1 above.
  2. Same as #2 above.
  3. A restructuring of the American effort involving a large multilateral peacekeeping and reconstruction effort with contributions from primarily NATO, but also the UN and other bodies.

The third possibility is the one most likely to involve Kaldor’s view of a correct reconstruction. This possibility is absolutely not possible with this administration. It is possible with a Democratic administration.

Of the three possibilities with a Democratic administration, I believe that at this point, it’s not truly possible to say if one is more likely than the other. A President Dean, for example, would be more likely to embrace a complete withdrawal, as would some other Democrats. The first possibility (a unilateralist status quo) is probably less likely with any Democrat, as much of the world would be willing, even eager, to be involved in reconstruction were Bush not President. Even so, Democrats are not keen on foreign policy, and I can see a continuation of the status quo simply as a result of neglect.

So, if we’re only looking at what’s in Iraq’s best interests, it seems to me that a Democratic administration is obviously preferable to another four years of Bush. Given that the economy seems to marginally improving, Bush’s greatest political weakness a year from now will likely be a deteriorating situation in Iraq. It is in Iraq’s best interests, then, that the situation in Iraq deteriorate enough, or, at least not improve, such that Bush is defeated by a Democrat next year. Kaldor is wrong. Bad news from Iraq is good news for Iraq. For now.

However, really bad news makes a complete withdrawal more likely, and that is the worst outcome of all.

Additionally, one ought to consider the larger geopolitical consequences of a second Bush term in office. Suppose that conditions improve sufficiently enough in Iraq that perception of the occupation is greatly more positive. There is not a chance in hell that Kaldor’s Iraq will come to be under a Bush administration, but suppose that things do somewhat improve. That will give Bush credibility, and will give the neocons credibility. Within four more years, we may have a similar situation in Iran, or Syria, or who-knows-where, except with resources spread even more thinly, the likelihood of a positive outcome becomes even more remote. This would be, indeed, probably the worst of all possible worlds. Bad news in Iraq is still good news in this larger context.

4

jim in austin 11.14.03 at 2:08 pm

And there are those of us who take some small comfort from any failure of Bush & Company policies because it gives us hope that we haven’t actually fallen through the Looking Glass…

5

dsquared 11.14.03 at 2:34 pm

It is appropriate, as Daniel says

Just to be clear; I don’t endorse that argument, because I’m always an opponent of jam-tomorrow reasoning. Just saying it exists.

6

Lee Bryant 11.14.03 at 3:03 pm

Mary Kaldor’s piece is very good as far as it goes, and she is right that we should be supporting authentic Iraqi civil society structures, but there is a glaring contradiction in her view of the occupation.

She does not support calls for a US withdrawal until the roots of democracy take hold:

“Those of us who opposed the war must now be calling for democracy in Iraq – not immediate withdrawal, nor even the accelerated timetable for withdrawal that appears to be the decision of the Bush administration following its urgent consultations in Washington with Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).”

However, this seems to miss two crucial points:

1. There is little evidence to suggest that the resistance / terrorist attacks would continue at their present level if foreign forces withdrew – i.e. withdrawal may be the key to improving the security situation.

2. Every day the occupation continues, Iraqi (civil) society continues to break down. Nothing weakens traditional social structures faster than teenage grunts backed by neo-colonialist ideas wielding all the power. Iraqis are very proud people with a level of culture, civilisation and heritage that most Americans simply cannot understand, and the long-term negative impact of the US presence (inc. military, corporate and those involved in “reconstruction”) is inestimable.

Therefore, if we are waiting for a minimum level of security and democracy to take hold before a US withdrawal, we could be waiting forever.

Of course, the situation is more complex than my points above suggest, and the fact that the US began by destroying all existing institutions means that a chaotic situation may ensue, creating the conditions for a return to dictatorship. However, withdrawal combined with support for existing civil society structures may be the least worst option at this point.

7

Mikhel 11.14.03 at 3:07 pm

A comment similar to the sentiment expressed by the post above is to be found in Dan Gross’ article today in Slate:

Bushenfreude began in the summer of 2001, when the first Bush tax cut rebates were sent. Back then it was easy to deal with those onetime windfalls if you resented the source. You could send the check back, or sign it over to People for the American Way. Refusing to spend it—and hence refusing to stimulate the economy—was a gratifying protest against Bush’s risky skewed-to-the-wealthy tax scheme.

Not to change the subject at all, but I think many journalists don’t comprehend how satisfying two-hundred or three-hundred dollar tax cuts were to the non-wealthy.

8

Keith M Ellis 11.14.03 at 3:33 pm

Lee, I think your two points are about as untrue as they could possible be, excepting some incidental factual points about which we agree.

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.

Your second point is both patronizing and incoherent. 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.

There are people like you, on both the left and the right, who think that a withdrawal would be just peachy. I hope to God this view remains marginalized—for Iraq’s sake, and for the sake of our collective moral integrity.

9

Ratherworried 11.14.03 at 4:17 pm

I hope the existing situation improves in Iraq, as I am sure does most of the world. The justifications offered for some unspoken rooting for turmoil to continue until the 2004 elections are both unspeakably naive and preposterous to any but a purely partisan hack.

If you find yourself hoping for failure, hang your head in shame. Your partisan feelings are stronger than your concern for either this countries soldiers or Iraqi civilian’s. Feel free to disagree with the policies that landed us in this mess, but if you think that disagreement permits the kind of rubbish rationale you offer for continued military and Iraqi deaths at the hands of Al Queda and former Baathists you are a seriously troubled individual who needs emotional help.

10

Dan Hardie 11.14.03 at 4:46 pm

I found Kaldor’s book on ‘New and Old Wars’ utterly simple-minded, and ditto her various pieces of journalism on war. She wrote an article for Prospect back in ’99 advocating ‘moral imperialism’, which she probably doesn’t like to be reminded of now that Blair has taken her at her word. And there was a splendid recent piece in the New Statesman decrying ‘war’ and advocating ‘military action’. (Eh?)
And this latest article is pretty dim too, eg:< There are in Iraq today many new democratic initiatives, especially among students and women’s groups, journalists, artists and filmmakers....What is important at this moment is to find a framework for strengthening and empowering these and other groups and linking them to the new economy.>

*That* is what is important? And the rest of society will just happily sit by while an armed occupier ’empowers’ the wimmin’s film-makers’ collective and ignores everyone else? Beyond parody. No surprise, since the same simplistic thesis (use military force in favour of ‘cosmopolitan elements’) is repeated ad nauseam in her book.

I would say that students, journos, film-makers and women’s groups would not be a robust coalition to push through massive constitutional and social change in Britain (where, Ulster apart, people don’t settle political differences with firearms). In Iraq, you might just have to deal with people whose views on gender and society don’t exactly mirror Mary Kaldor’s.

11

Dan Hardie 11.14.03 at 4:51 pm

Sorry- missing quote from the Kaldor article-

‘There are in Iraq today many new democratic initiatives, especially among students and women’s groups, journalists, artists, and filmmakers… What is important at this moment is to find a framework for strengthening and empowering these and other groups and linking them to the new economy.’

Btw, any reason CT doesn’t have blogroll links for any of the Iraqi blogs?

12

Keith M Ellis 11.14.03 at 4:59 pm

“If you find yourself hoping for failure, hang your head in shame. Your partisan feelings are stronger than your concern for either this countries soldiers or Iraqi civilian’s.”

Nope. Although it’s true I’m not that bothered over the loss of a few hundred American soldier’s lives.

That’s not shameful. It’s having a sense of moral proportion—one that doesn’t value a single American life ahead of all other lives and considerations. That’s shameful.

13

cw 11.14.03 at 5:17 pm

Is a democratic government even possible in the current Iraq? The CIA and State department didn’t think so, from what I’ve read. I think this question is the other shoe waiting to drop. I think we’ll pull out and there will be some kind of civil war. How that will effect Bush’s political future I don’t know.

14

aretino 11.14.03 at 6:00 pm

Mary Kaldor (an opponent of the war) has an interesting piece on Iraq on OpenDemocracy . One of her observations concerns the extent to which both the neo-cons and the Democrats are fixated on how it all plays “back home”

This is false. Kaldor does indeed observe some neo-cons betraying their obsession with Iraq as an electoral football. But she “observes” nothing about Democrats.

She does assert, in a complete vacuum of evidence, that some people want the war to go badly because then Bush would lose the election. Well, probably there are some of those people somewhere. The question is, is this view held by anyone who matters, anyone who has the rank and influence of the neo-cons running the political operation in Iraq? By balancing and juxtaposing her claim about Bush’s opponents with the actually observed cynicism of the neo-cons in charge, Kaldor insinuates as much. But she has no evidence. And she has no evidence because none exists. I cannot begin to express the contempt I feel for this cheap rhetorical trick and its author. It is low. It is disgraceful. And it is sick.

At least Kaldor is bright enough not to slander Democrats by name, rather than by suggestion. I guess she figured that she could count on some hack to complete the cheap smear. Chris didn’t disappoint.

This is exactly why I long ago stopped expected better from Chris.

15

dsquared 11.14.03 at 6:15 pm

On Chris’ behalf and in his absence, get stuffed. He posted an interesting excerpted atricle, with precisely nine lines of comment (one of which is “and”) to call this “cheap hack” behaviour or a “smear” is downright ridiculous, as is your insinuation that Chris is a smear-merchant. Whatever you’re trying to achieve, all that you’re actually achieving is making a complete arse of yourself.

16

Keith M Ellis 11.14.03 at 6:46 pm

“She does assert, in a complete vacuum of evidence, that some people want the war to go badly because then Bush would lose the election. Well, probably there are some of those people somewhere.”

Yeah, like me. But I’m probably unique.

I’m also apparently unique in that I don’t indulge in this sort of vulgar moral posturing and counter-posturing.

This administration is not going to support the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq as it should. It isn’t. The good news that we all really want out of Iraq will not happen under this President. Under this President we’ll get either a slow catastrophe or a fast catastrophe. And while bad news makes a fast catastrophe more likely, it also makes a change in US leadership more likely which at least has a chance in resulting in the good news we will not have otherwise.

This is reality. Deal with it.

17

aretino 11.14.03 at 7:08 pm

This “nine lines” defense is just as lame as the famous “sixteen words” one. And the “you criticize him for excerpting an interesting article” evasion is as bad as the “it was really a war to build schools” one. Chris chose to highlight the most dubious and deceptive paragraph of the article and go it one better. I called him on it. I stand by that. You can bugger off.

18

Chris Bertram 11.14.03 at 7:13 pm

Aretino,

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”. Anyway, no one forces you to read anything I write, or, indeed to comment on it.

19

Dave 11.14.03 at 7:55 pm

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”.

20

Matt Weiner 11.14.03 at 8:07 pm

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.

21

Keith M Ellis 11.14.03 at 8:22 pm

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.

22

drapetomaniac 11.14.03 at 9:15 pm

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. ;-)

23

Chris Bertram 11.14.03 at 9:59 pm

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

24

Leo Strauss 11.14.03 at 11:52 pm

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?

25

Kieran Healy 11.15.03 at 12:04 am

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.

26

Frank Wilhoit 11.15.03 at 1:42 am

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.

27

Lee Bryant 11.15.03 at 6:48 pm

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.

28

Lee Bryant 11.15.03 at 7:48 pm

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

29

Keith M Ellis 11.15.03 at 8:03 pm

“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.

30

rea 11.15.03 at 10:57 pm

“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!

31

Lee Bryant 11.16.03 at 12:13 pm

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.

32

Keith M Ellis 11.16.03 at 1:31 pm

“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.

33

Lee Bryant 11.16.03 at 3:52 pm

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.

Comments on this entry are closed.