It’s already 1 May in Australia, so I get to make what will no doubt be the first of many posts on the significance of the day.
First, and still the most important in the long historical view is the holiday (a public holiday here in Queensland) celebrating the achievements of the labour movement.
Second, there’s the admission of ten new members to the EU. As far as the historical significance of this event goes, I’m waiting to see whether Turkey is admitted to accession negotiations later in the year.
Thirdly, and of most immediate interest, the anniversary of Bush declaration of victory looks as good a time as any to date what seems increasingly certain to be a defeat [at least for the policies pursued for the past year, and for the objective of a stable, pro-American Iraq]. Of course, this judgement may turn out to be as premature as was Bush’s statement a year ago, but the decline in the US position has been almost as rapid as the collapse of Saddam’s regime, and the events of the last few days have seen the process accelerating.
Among a range of events the most important have included:
* The exposure of torture[1] and rape in Abu Ghraib prison
* The abandonment of the siege of Fallujah, with none of the US objectives achieved
* The publication of opinion polls showing that most Iraqis regard the Americans as occupiers and want them to leave immediately
* The continued standoff with Sadrists controlling Najaf and large areas of Baghdad
* The publication, by the generally prescient Paul Krugman, of the first major opinion piece to take an openly defeatist position, that is, one that treats defeat as being more likely than not, and doesn’t present any alternative road to success
The Administration seems to be inching towards the position I’ve been advocating for some time – dumping the policies of Bremer and Chalabi (though not, unfortunately Bremer and Chalabi themselves), and handing over real military power to Iraqis. If the interim (still inchoate) government has substantial real power, manages to hold early elections and can get enough support to permit a rapid US withdrawal, the outcome might not be too bad. But there’s very little time left, and this scenario assumes exceptionally skilful management of the situation from now on.
fn1. Predictably enough, there have been quibbles about this word. But mock-executions such as the one shown here are among the worst forms of torture – from my reading of survivor accounts, they are mentioned with more horror than beatings. And of course what we are seeing is only what the guards chose to photograph for their own amusement.
{ 19 comments }
asg 05.01.04 at 1:29 am
In the spirit of the Kentucky Derby… it’s Quiggin by a nose over Farrell to win the coveted crown “most relentlessly partisan CT poster”!
roger 05.01.04 at 1:42 am
Partisanship ain’t so bad. As Barry Goldwater said, extremism, in defense of liberty, is no vice. Couldn’t agree with the old guy more.
The treatment of a Ba’athist general taking charge of Fallujah as a ‘defeat’ is, however, bad. There is a world beyond Bush hating and loving. In this world, people are pulverized by ‘surgical” American air strikes, or incinerated in the suicide bombs of the ‘resistance’. The emotional response of the Fallujans to the Iraqi general might be about the fact that — it is their battle and their country. Freedom is not about the Americans thrusting their constitution up the nose of the Iraqis — it is about sovereignty, autonomy, recognition, inspiration, improvisation. That’s the life of the thing. If the recognition of this is presented as a defeat for the U.S., it will simply animate further, and worse, policy — easy to stir up among the resentful American right.
Why do it? The urge to jeer should be balanced, at least, by the urge to encourage the process given in your sensible insight:
“If the interim (still inchoate) government has substantial real power, manages to hold early elections and can get enough support to permit a rapid US withdrawal, the outcome might not be too bad.”
Actually, it would be great. Iraq, without Saddam, operating on its own, groping towards democratic structures, sounds like a good thing to me.
John Quiggin 05.01.04 at 2:45 am
I’m not offended to be called “partisan”. But asg might want to read the comments thread on my last-but-one post (on David Brooks) where it was unanimously asserted that I was not partisan enough.
John Quiggin 05.01.04 at 2:58 am
roger, I’ve edited the original post slightly in response to your comments, with which I generally agree.
asfd 05.01.04 at 3:08 am
er, how can he be a partisan if, um, he’s Australian?
Ben Benny 05.01.04 at 4:59 am
Roger, I’m not so sure that a rapid pullout of US forces would be anywhere near as good for Iraq as you seem to think. Neither am I convinced that Iraq groping towards democracy on its own would be a particularly pleasant situation for Iraqis. Transitions from dictatorships to democracy tend to be very dangerous times. With foreign forces removed, it’s not entirely unlikely that existing Iraqi factions would set about fighting amongst themselves. If they did there’s no certainty that they’d ever settle down this decade.
I suppose it’s possible that all Iraq is united towards the purpose of democracy and self-rule, and that a US withdrawal would result in a peaceful establishment of enlightened government, but the possibility that Iraq is another vicious civil war or regular old bloody free-for-all waiting for a chance to erupt should also be considered. But it might not happen.
Davis X. Machina 05.01.04 at 6:00 am
Roger, I’m not so sure that a rapid pullout of US forces would be anywhere near as good for Iraq as you seem to think…
Ah, but the decision on whether there is a rapid pullout, or any pullout, or US forces will be driven by whether the decision is good for the US, not wheter it is good for Iraq.
They are, after all, US forces.
And altruistic concern for the material well-being or physical safety of far-away people has not been a hallmark of the present US government.
Some fine day we’ll hit the magic BON (Bug-Out Number) with our casulaties, and that will be that.
Davis X. Machina 05.01.04 at 6:02 am
Roger, I’m not so sure that a rapid pullout of US forces would be anywhere near as good for Iraq as you seem to think…
Ah, but the decision on whether there is a rapid pullout, or any pullout, or US forces will be driven by whether the decision is good for the US, not wheter it is good for Iraq.
They are, after all, US forces.
And altruistic concern for the material well-being or physical safety of far-away people has not been a hallmark of the present US government.
Some fine day we’ll hit the magic BON (Bug-Out Number) with our casulaties, and that will be that.
Davis X. Machina 05.01.04 at 6:04 am
oops….
scoooby 05.01.04 at 6:42 am
I didn’t realize that United States soldiers were gang raping women:
The Abu Ghraib Prison Photos
scoooby 05.01.04 at 8:06 am
The rape photos are fake…sorry.
roger 05.01.04 at 7:12 pm
Davis, I think you are right. But I wonder whether you think that being right, here, shows the U.S. to be doing something immoral. Actually, I think it shows that the U.S. is operating as a nation.
The whole problem, to my mind, with the occupation is that the pro-war camp has painted a picture of the U.S. as a moral force. As a moral force, the U.S. would have collapsed long ago. The U.S. represents its state interests. Now, those interests are themselves up for grabs among us, but the idea that we somehow magically represent Iraq’s interests is, I think, by definition wrong. Sure, our interests should be tempered by a cosmopolitan awareness of the rules of justice. We should all cross our hearts and pledge allegiance to the Critique of Practical Reason. The same principal holds for the nation of Iraq. That the U.S. could have a self interest in helping create an Iraq that necessarily follows its own self interest is, to paraphrase St. Paul, a stumbling block to the neo-cons and a scandal to the Wilsonian liberals. Nevertheless, I think it is true. To move from Kant to Hegel — our statecraft, here, has to be based on concretely accepting the autonomy of the other. Otherwise we will be caught in endless Master-Slave games — the true quagmire.
If, in fact, the U.S. were more overt about its interests in Iraq, we could have a discussion in this country of just what those interests are. Personally, I don’t think those interests are well represented by the visions of the Defense Department’s Pumphouse gang — the Wolfowitzes, Rumsfelds, and such. Unfortunately, such discussions are almost immediately diverted by the moralistic rhetoric that Americans traditionally love to indulge in, and that amused and infuriated Dickens a century and a half ago.
Martin Wisse 05.01.04 at 8:24 pm
I think and have argued on my blog
that having US troops in Iraq, whether or not under UN leadership, is worse than having them withdrawn, because the US military is not up to the task of fighting a guerilla war.
In a worst case scenario when the US leaves Iraq, we get a full blown civil war; but in the worst case scenario when they don’t, we have the same thing, with the US military caught in the middle.
Davis X. Machina 05.01.04 at 9:32 pm
Oh, absolutely, roger. It will be a far better, and probably more peaceful, day, when the US, and the folks who run it, just ‘fess up and admit it: “We’re just this nation-state, you know”.
American action abroad seems mostly of wanting or needing to do X, realizing that X is at first glance going to be regrettable, saying “But this is America! We’re different!” and then going and doing something regrettable anyways.
Hans J. Morgethau must be positively spinning in his grave.
james 05.01.04 at 11:41 pm
John,
You mention that a majority of Iraqis want the US to leave “immediately” – but omit to mention the not unsignificant fact that this is taken to mean “a few months”. Also the same poll shows a majority believe a (truly) immediate withdrawal would diminish stability.
Also “[t]he abandonment of the siege of Fallujah, with none of the US objectives achieved” strikes me as a bit oddly put, given that I imagine you wouldn’t have been entirely happy had what was necesary for “US objecitves” to be achieved been done.
Personally I’m a bit more uncomfortable with the “siege” itself than with its apparent end. At any rate I think its at least an open question as to which has been more conducive to a positive outcome in Iraq.
marksteen 05.01.04 at 11:56 pm
JQ,
Your penultimate link is the same as the last, surely a mistake..plus, I’d like to see the correct links so I can see the poll data.
Sebastian Holsclaw 05.02.04 at 12:39 am
If this led to the withdrawl of US troops, shouldn’t you be thrilled?
John Quiggin 05.02.04 at 7:51 am
james, I realise my post wasn’t clear, but I agree that the lifting of the siege was a better outcome than its continuation, or an all-out assault.
sebastian, I can’t say i’m thrilled by the prospect of an early (within months) withdrawal of US troops, but it’s beginning to look like there will be no better option.
John Quiggin 05.02.04 at 8:31 am
marksteen – link fixed now
Comments on this entry are closed.