December 06, 2003

Democracy, Whiskey, Sexy

Posted by Henry

Extracts from a piece in today’s NYT

As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire. In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in. …

“If you have one of these cards, you can come and go,” coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. “If you don’t have one of these cards, you can’t.” The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger. “I see no difference between us and the Palestinians,” he said. “We didn’t expect anything like this after Saddam fell.” …

Underlying the new strategy, the Americans say, is the conviction that only a tougher approach will quell the insurgency and that the new strategy must punish not only the guerrillas but also make clear to ordinary Iraqis the cost of not cooperating. “You have to understand the Arab mind,” Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. “The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face.” …

“With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them,” Colonel Sassaman said.

Posted on December 6, 2003 11:07 PM UTC
Comments

“You have to understand the Arab mind,” Capt. Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, said as he stood outside the gates of Abu Hishma. “The only thing they understand is force — force, pride and saving face.” …

There must be an error in the interview transcription. From the context of the story, he clearly means “the American mind.”

Posted by Kieran Healy · December 6, 2003 11:16 PM

With a heavy dose of fear and violence…, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them.

Posted by Jeremy Osner · December 7, 2003 12:00 AM

I want to say something about that but I cannot figure out what…

Posted by Jeremy Osner · December 7, 2003 12:01 AM

I’d like to be the first to make the “just imagine if he’d said “black” or, especially, “Jewish” instead of “Arab” - and if he were, say, French…” point.

Posted by james · December 7, 2003 12:08 AM

Timeless rules of human nature: fear, honor, and interest. For Saddamites and their fellow travelers, they fear what their fellows will do to those who cooperate with the new regime, their honor is impugned by an American occupation they feel has humiliated them, and so long as they believe we can be defeated, their interest calculations wish for a return of the old in some form (not necessarily Saddam himself, but his faction).

We’re undermining that calculation. We want them to fear us more than their fellows. We want their interest calculations to be informed by information regarding their inevitable defeat so that they turn around. Unfortunately, honor is the hardest one to reset.

Posted by Ray · December 7, 2003 12:19 AM

Seems a parallel to what the Israel forces have been doing, like it or not, in order to clamp down on terrorism (if you are pro-Israel) or to intimidate and oppress the arabs (if you are pro-Palestinian)…will force work in either case? Not sure? Is there an approach that will? Not from what I have thus far seen. Of course all countries detest an occupying force. But then Israel occupies land taken in war to defend itself; Iraq seems to need a madman dictator to slaughter their citizens in order to make them obey.

Posted by freddie · December 7, 2003 01:20 AM

With a heavy dose of fear and violence… I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them

When did the US military turn into a savage parody of itself?

I keep resisting Vietnam metaphors, and they keep trying to prove me wrong.

Posted by Andrew Edwards · December 7, 2003 04:09 AM

Here’s a policy that has the rare virtue of being wrong from both a moral and a practical standpoint. (From a practical point of view, converting Iraq from a country where people felt neutral to us to a country where everyone hates us isn’t really a net gain.)

Posted by Walt Pohl · December 7, 2003 04:25 AM

“We are only killing you because we want to help.”

Posted by nameless · December 7, 2003 05:08 AM

…”War is peace.”

Posted by Evan · December 7, 2003 06:16 AM

It works in the short term. Over the long term, the cost that you pay would not be considered sustainable (both literally and figuratatively).

I was going through Amitav Ghosh’s archive earlier today (am happily linking to them everywhere). In an article he wrote earlier this year, he made an interesting comparison of Iraq with the British use of force in India in 1857 and talked about why the same method would not work now

Posted by Kaushik · December 7, 2003 06:34 AM

There must be an error in the interview transcription. From the context of the story, he clearly means ?the American mind.?

With which Kiernan shows his lovely ability to lump 300 million people into a single slop bucket. Lovely high-minded behavior. Brilliant social satire. Deep-thinking analysis at its very best. Openness, generosity, insight, cleverness. So much insight in three little lines that I am truly beside myself in awe.

Posted by Doug · December 7, 2003 12:03 PM

The road from Geneva to Berlin. There are so many options left to try out. For instance, we could bulldoze village orchards.
Folks, our America will have its place in history. We’ll all be there implicitly, that’s how it works.
BTW I’m sorry but I cannot take seriously the arguments of anyone who uses the term “Saddamites.” I imagine you lose other readers too.

Posted by John Isbell · December 7, 2003 01:49 PM

Shorter Doug: Kieran is objectively Pro-Saddam.

Posted by Dan the Man · December 7, 2003 02:22 PM

Shorter Kieran: All Americans are evil.

Posted by Doug · December 7, 2003 03:19 PM

Shorter Doug: Doug is a brain dead moronic idiot who doesn’t
know what he’s talking about.

Posted by Dan the Man · December 7, 2003 04:18 PM

Well, my response when I read that particular statement was, “And this makes them different from the Bush administration how?”

Is that narrower application acceptable to you, Doug? If not, please provide examples of the administration’s major initiatives not motivated chiefly by pride, saving face, or the desire to display force, physical or political.

Posted by nina · December 7, 2003 05:38 PM

Guys, guys. Cool it a little, this ain’t LGF or Atrios’ comment-board.

Posted by Henry Farrell · December 7, 2003 05:54 PM

I thought that Kieran was making the point that Capt. Brown’s statement was racist, and that it seemed better applicable to Capt. Brown and to other official representatives of the U.S. than to Arabs, based on the activities described. I certainly didn’t take it as a blanket condemnation of all Americans. After all, some of his best friends are… oh, never mind.

Posted by Matt Weiner · December 7, 2003 10:47 PM

Saddam and Gomorrah, how convenient.
The difference between Iraq and South Central Los Angeles is… I forgot. Wait, there it is. Strategic interests. Whose strategy exactly isn’t ever made explicit.
Maybe we could put the whole of Mesopotamia in prison. Just build a wall all the way around it, and rename it. Add on as needed. Privatize it too.
Or maybe we should build one tiny little section of wall that loops back on itself, at some ceremonial spot of ecumenical significance, with about a yard and a half of lawn in the middle, and say everything outside of that is now a prison.
The whole world as locked-down penitentiary. Arrest everyone just in case. Security is paramount. Not to be confused with United Artists, or Sony.
Somewhat more seriously, the semantic confusion that facilitated that powder-puff outburst, the “nominative aggregate” versus the “individual member with distinct attributes” thing, that’s at the heart of a lot of the logical collapse of current moral systems hmm? Both ways. Cowards hide in the group as they act against its best interest, concealing their independent culpability behind the group history, and zealots ignore the individuals within and attack the group in retaliation for the actions of a minority.
So Wolfowitz and Rove are Americans, US style, and act in the name of America, and some backpacking neo-hippie gets spit on in the souk, for having an Oklahoman accent.
There are of course far worse examples, saturated in violence and fear, occurring daily.
Nicht bin ein cowboy, dude.

Posted by msg · December 7, 2003 11:11 PM

Nina, indeed it does make a difference. Matt W., I can see that interpretation as well. Though I don’t think a good way of condemning a bigoted point of view is to make another sweeping, unsupportable generalization. Certainly not in a medium where the tone of voice is unknowable.

Posted by Doug · December 8, 2003 08:28 AM

I’m Doug and I’m going to get awfully cross about a flippant remark on a blog comments thread. Because- get some perspective here, guys- that’s the real issue, not trivia like soldiers from my country bulldozing civilian houses. Gee, I’m not even gonna mention minor stuff like that.

Posted by Dan Hardie · December 8, 2003 10:34 AM

We’re bringing democracy to Iraq, and we’ll shoot any Iraqi who disagrees . . . compulsory freedom.

Look, I don’t ask for much—just a foreign policy that isn’t an oxymoron. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by rea · December 8, 2003 01:38 PM

Personally, I much prefer democratic change by UN committee.

I know the Iraqis were quite grateful to the scores of academics who were were equally outraged by the tyrannical regime that ruled for the past 30 years. I know I enjoyed reading the pages and pages dedicated to ending the Hussain regime. Almost as much as I now enjoy reading the paragraphs of outrage they write about the plight of those living under theocratic tyranny in Iran. Or those who live under a brutal dictatorship in North Korea. Oh wait, perhaps they are just created in the imagination of the evil moron Bush?

Its quite tragic that the barbaric American forces had to go and derail the previously virtuous and peaceful path to freedom in Iraq.

I wonder what sort of commentary I would be reading if the US had not sat back and ignored Rwanda. I’m sure the same group of cynical self-admiring critics would be deriding the imperialist west and their love of force until they were blue in the face.

Posted by Darin · December 8, 2003 02:36 PM

Ok, Darin, glad to hear you’re so well versed in “academics.” Would that be journals like Foreign_Affairs, or perhaps something more like cultural critiques to be found in Modern_Language_Quarterly? Just which “Academics” are you referring to? Political Science professors, or maybe just people with higher IQs than the average house pet?
We’re dying to hear more of your priceless insight, please share.

DocG

Posted by DocG · December 8, 2003 03:03 PM

You can define “academics” any way you choose. Is it really critical to my point? How about “a member of an institution of higher learning.”

The fact is that volume of criticism and anger coming out of the intellectual classes that is aimed toward the Bush administration’s policies pales in comparison to the outrage that was aimed toward Hussain, or toward the horrible dictatorship in North Korea, or the tragedy in Rwanda for that matter. I say that in the aggregate sense. Obviously there are those who have been consistent throughout. In my experience, however, they have been in the minority.

Yes, a broad generalization. But it was also made in the context of a brief post on a message board. I’m sorry if my failure to spend a paragraph to define my terms somehow mislead you.

Posted by Darin · December 8, 2003 04:11 PM

Darin, here is a very simple multiple choice for you:
1. I endorse the Geneva Conventions the US signed.
2. I do not endorse the Geneva Conventions the US signed.
Go ahead and pick either one. Take as long as you want. I pick 1.

Posted by John Isbell · December 8, 2003 04:43 PM

Of course I endorse the Geneva Conventions. And of course there are valid grounds for criticizing some tactics of the military in Iraq. I think all involved hope such measures are only temporary in nature. All I ask is that it is put in perspective.

What is the alternative? It is a tragically complex situation in which many of the policy choices are ones that chose between two less-than-ideal options.

There are many dying for the hope of an Iraqi democracy one day. All I ask is that we remember that before we come to make such moral judgments against them. I think reducing what is happening in Iraq to comments like “We’re bringing democracy to Iraq, and we’ll shoot any Iraqi who disagrees . . . compulsory freedom” is both dangerous and simple-minded. Ultimately, I believe it undermines any case for humanitarian intervention in the future.

Posted by Darin · December 8, 2003 05:13 PM

See here for my response.

Posted by Dan Simon · December 9, 2003 04:40 AM

irane I am

Posted by SHAHROKH · January 15, 2004 09:03 PM
Followups

→ The walls of impending democracy.
Excerpt: From the NY Times (via Crooked Timber) we find this memorable quote from an Iraqi villager: “Colonel Sassaman is a very good man,” he said. “If he got rid of the barbed wire and the checkpoint, everyone would love him.”...Read more at Brayden King
→ Some things Amp has read lately.
Excerpt: You know, I really was planning to post something substantial today. And yet, somehow, it's nearly time for me to go to work and I haven't posted much of anything. Sigh... Matt Yglesias on Maggie Galagher's case against gay marriage: It's interesting t...Read more at Alas, a blog

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.