Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Early Revisionism...an Open Door
That has elicited some wonderfully amusing and sometimes nasty criticism, primarily from the left. I happen to believe -- completely smugly and to the utter annoyance of my critics -- that they will eventually come around. I draw the historical parallel to the Reagan administration's diplomatic approach to the Soviet Union and its abandonment of the language of detente, which was detested by and critiqued aggressively by the left and which today is almost universally acknowledged by left and right as responsible for the collapse of the USSR.
Our friends at Powerline direct us to read William Shawcross, a veteran member of the left who - like Christopher Hitchens -- sees the wisdom and morality of our mission in Iraq. His use of the fall of Indochina and the subsequent genocide and tyranny that emerged to grip Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as an example and cautionary tale of American military abandonment is an excellent one; his willingness to admit his own shame, the cost of his incorrect judgment at the time and the lesson he has absorbed from history is a valuable and courageous acknowledgement.
Eventually, the left must come to embrace what we are doing and achieving in the Middle East. Defeating tyranny and genocide is the raison d'etre of liberalism, is it not?
42 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Mar 06, 12:43:00 PM:
There is no liberalism in the Left.
By , at
Tue Mar 06, 01:17:00 PM:
Please show evidence that the "mainstream" of the left believes that it was Reagan's policies that led to the collapse of USSR. You may find some saying the military build-up helped to ACCELERATE the process, but "universally acknowledge...as responsible" sure sounds like a stretch from this corner of the center-left. And I'm speaking as someone who's worried about the potential for (even greater) genocide if we withdrawal.
-Mikhail's Minion
By , at
Tue Mar 06, 02:57:00 PM:
"Eventually, the left must come to embrace what we are doing and achieving in the Middle East."
Dream on!
Mystery Meat
By , at
Tue Mar 06, 03:00:00 PM:
The difference is Reagan was intelligent and had a genuine thought-out plan. Bush is a box of rocks who isn't sure what he's doing after lunch much less in 5-10 years.
By 
D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Mar 06, 03:10:00 PM:
Re: Reagan's plan
"When my dad was asked what his Cold War strategy was, he said that it was simple: 'We win, they lose.'" -- Michael Reagan, November 2005
By , at
Tue Mar 06, 05:48:00 PM:
You've got things the wrong way around. Defeating tyranny and genocide is no longer the raison d'etre of liberalism. I agree with Newt Gingrich:
"The elites, just as in the 1930's the English elite was desperate not to think of Adolf Hitler, the American elite is desperate not to confront how serious this is because it will shatter their entire worldview."
America's elites are overwhelming liberal and their political philosophy has suffered such Gramscian damage, I don't think it will ever recover.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Mar 06, 06:48:00 PM:
Wiki:
"Liberalism refers to a broad array of related doctrines, ideologies, philosophical views, and political traditions which hold that individual liberty is the primary political value.[1] Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment, but the term has taken on different meanings in different time periods.
Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]
Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government influence in the free market to protect what they perceive to be natural rights, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives in the market are rejected as interference by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights.
Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property.
I can't seem to find anything about starting an unnecessary war on false pretenses.
By jj mollo, at
Tue Mar 06, 07:44:00 PM:
As a pro-war liberal, I must agree with everything you said here TH. I also agree mostly with Screwie Hoolie except his implication that this war is unnecessary, and I honestly don't believe that the reasons given were particularly misleading.
I would go further as a liberal and say that we have responsibilities to help the helpless, and that means people suffering under tyranny as well as people suffering from the wealth imbalances of society.
By , at
Tue Mar 06, 07:45:00 PM:
Screwy -- Liberals specifically reject freedom, democracy, rule of law, separation of religion and state, etc. in foreign countries.
Peter Bart believes that only the US and Europe can be democratic, all other nations should be run by brutal dictators who "make the trains run on time."
Liberals believe "stability" and "order" are more important than anything else, and support even genocide in favor of "stable" regimes. Examples: Darfur where Liberals oppose any unilateral US military intervention which is the only way to stop the genocide. By unilateral US military forces killing the killers.
Liberals have nothing but support for Vladimir Putin's killing of domestic critics (see Bart) as they fundamentally don't believe Russians capable of democracy. Liberals are silent on the oppression of women in Islam as they prefer PC Multi culturalism over the universality of the rights of people to live un-oppressed.
Liberals are quite content to accede to Islamic restrictions on life, liberty, and property for non-Muslims in muslim lands. Liberals have no objection to Saudi banning Jews from entering the country, or forbidding any religious item such as bibles that is not Islamic, or forbidding non Muslims from Mecca or Medina. Or forbidding women in the KSA from driving. Or having legally less rights than men. Etc.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Tue Mar 06, 07:59:00 PM:
SH: "I can't seem to find anything about starting an unnecessary war on false pretenses."
Do you mean like the phony second attack on an American destroyer in the Gulf on Tonkin (4 Aug 1964), leading to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and America's open involvement in the Vietnam War during liberal LBJ's presidency?
By , at
Tue Mar 06, 09:46:00 PM:
The main reason the left, liberals, say that this war in unnecessary is that saying so relives them of serving, since it is ipso facto, unnecessary.
I really think for the left it is physical cowardice, and then mental gymnastics to justify.
Seventy years ago, the left would of fought and died in the Lincoln Brigades in Spain. Ninety years ago the left would of fought and died in Russia. But today, the left are just a bunch of low body fat, carbon fiber bike frame owning, latte sipping wooses . Orwell knew it, everyone knows it.
By Chris, at
Tue Mar 06, 10:36:00 PM:
Apparently some people are surprised to find that others believe themselves to be right. Go figure. If you won't believe what I toss out as evidence of the rightness of my positions, you are, in your own mind, right to do so. If, however, I repay you in kind, I am a fool.
By Purple Avenger, at
Tue Mar 06, 11:37:00 PM:
The US military has never lost a conflict it was ALLOWED to win. I see now "evidence to the contrary" to refute that.
By , at
Wed Mar 07, 03:14:00 AM:
Anonymous: "Liberals specifically reject freedom, democracy, rule of law, separation of religion and state, etc. in foreign countries." This is complete nonsense, as is the rest of your post.
I think you'd agree that most human rights and humanitarian organisations are "liberal" (by your definition); such organisations clearly do support those things.
I think you are incorrectly generalising from specifics. it seems as if you read an opinion that you disagree with, note that the opinion-holder is a "liberal" and therefore decide that all liberals must hold that opinion. This is clearly not a tenable position to hold.
I apologise if I appear fixated on this issue, but I find ill-defined political positions to undermine all possibility of reasonable debate.
By , at
Wed Mar 07, 03:21:00 AM:
Oh, and this: "I really think for the left it is physical cowardice, and then mental gymnastics to justify."
Yeah, that's right. Because those on "the left" just ain't real men.
Incidentally, where were you when I was working in Afghanistan and Iraq?
By Morgenholz, at
Wed Mar 07, 06:40:00 AM:
I've always thought the Indochina/Cambodia-killing-fields analogy to an Iraq withdrawal was inapt. We have our own 1991 Iraq withdrawal with it's Marsh Arab and Shiite genocide with which to work, not to mention that Iraq is the center-four-squares of the middle eastern chess board.
And the Left are not "liberals"; I'M a liberal. My parents were self-described "Goldwater liberals". The Left are at best Socialists, and at worst leaning inexorably towards Stalinism.
By A Jacksonian, at
Wed Mar 07, 08:25:00 AM:
One of the problems I have seen is the actual illiteracy in cultural and military affairs by the Left, and to a certain extent by the Right, too. When putting forth that the war in Iraq was not well run or that its after-math not well managed, the question arises: in comparison to what? The Republic of the United States has been involved in numerous wars and conflicts and has witnessed others for centuries, now, and the yardstick of measurement is not limited to a 194_ and higher prefix, but dates all the way back to the 18th century. There are, indeed, lessons learned *then* that are still absolutely applicable today as they address how societies form Nations in the aftermath of warfare. Doing that historical analysis leads to differing conclusions, especially for previous places the West has failed in both its Capitalist and Communist outlooks. Even worse are the 'Realists' in Foreign Policy who are able to sacrifice human liberty on the altar of economic stability, thus ensuring that *neither* can be gained in the long-run. As that idea was a Cold War artifact and actually made things worse once the Cold War evaporated, those same folks do not want to look at the effects of their 'Realistic' policies and where they ended up supporting tyranny and repression.
For all of the restrictions placed on the size of the Armed Forces by Congress and the lack of Congressional outlook to ensure the Armed Forces of the Nation are cared and supplied for, as that is their *job*, have not been of any help to the Armed Forces or the Nation. Yet it is those very same individuals who grandstand about things that are totally under their purview on the requisition and outlay side of things and cast the blame for their own incompetence upon others.
With those restrictions, I find the actual, real strategy put together on the ground in Iraq to be one that discarded things that did not work and then used a different way to attack the age old problem of insurgencies, given all the things that are lacking because Congress is unwilling to examine its duties during wars. But you only gain *that* perspective by looking at what is done on the ground and the long-term outlooks of such activities. Then those lessons learned from past wars actually come into perspective given the state of Iraqi society given decades of tyrannical rule and factional divisiveness. This does not, however, absolve the Executive from the non-use of the power of Head of the Federal Government, to then look to utilize the full set of governmental tools to help the situation out. Nor does it absolve the Executive and the Congressional branches from their non-working together to help stand these Nations up so that they can act on their own *and* to help out those Allies that have helped the US to get to this point. That, apparently, takes a Foreign Policy for the Nation, which has been lacking for decades as no one can clearly state just what the Foreign Policy of the Nation *is*.
Do note that the actual criticisms are based on what these branches of Government are given to *do* and are not doing. And as that points to multiple administrations and Congresses and the changing of hands in both of those some few times apiece, it is a bipartisan criticism upon both parties and the divisiveness of politics driving them. The trend-lines for Iraq have been looking good once the hardest, single job there, that of creating a real Army, not an *Arab* Army, began. That, too, takes historical analysis, and has one coming away asking such questions as: how long does it take to stand up a competent and reliable NCO Corps? But you only get *that* far when you are willing to actually look at history, what it takes to stand up military systems, what those military systems reflect and how the societies they come from will have greater impact upon them than the actual systems put in-place within the military structure. It is a leading trend-line and for a Nation that is mostly land-locked and with hostile neighbors, absolutely critical to do *right* and that means that both the society and the military must advance *together* so that they sustain each other in their system of governance.
As wars go this is a back alley brawl for the US, but a critical one because of geography, culture, religion and ethnic faultlines running through the Middle East. And if you cannot recognize similar times and circumstances in the past and the solutions to them *then*, how can you even begin to put forth what the solutions of today should look like? Because peace is built, not the default condition of mankind... and I am assuredly glad that Japan is now ready to stand on its own and look after itself only 60 years or so after its defeat. Perhaps someday Germany will be ready to do the same.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 07, 08:44:00 AM:
SJ - of course, you baited me. I have often posted on the factual evidence of our victory in the war in Iraq. It is startlingly obvious, and your vapi inabilty to just acknowledge it is actually funny. We fought a few week war. We turned out the ruling regime and its heirs. We dismantled its military. We fostered the creation of a constitution and elected government. I mean, what more are you looking for? It's simply dopey to say that's victory based on faith. Actually, it's victory based on regicide. That's the oldeest, most obvious form of victory.
Sheesh.
Now the new regime in Iraq has to choose how to rule -- by law or force? And it will have to balance the two to settle its naturally competing sectarian factions. If it fails to achieve a balance, does that mean we lost? Ah, not really my friend. It means the Iraqis lost. Maybe the region lost. That's the point of the Shawcross article -- which you probably didn't read, since you were too busy sbiffing about my smugness. But then I baited you too, didn't I?
By , at
Wed Mar 07, 09:14:00 AM:
Every liberal I know still insists on saying the Soviet Union "collapsed of its own weight", not because of Reagen, depsite their pre-collapse position that Communism had the weight of a valid alternative political philosophy.
They always want it both ways, since they have no precepts containing absolutes. You let them off the hook when you say liberals today "universally" agree Reagan won the Cold War. By definition of the word "universally" that is a falsehood. You should retract it and admit that the liberal super-realativists, by their definition of themselves, can't logically agree Reagan won squat all. They should continue to be called out for it.
By , at
Wed Mar 07, 09:40:00 AM:
Cardinalpark: I remain unconvinced by your claim to victory in the Iraq war. I think you can make that argument if you very clearly demarcate the war as beginning and ending with combat operations; if those are the parameters, that's a clear victory.
However if you want to claim that dismantling the military is a victory, you're flying in the face of the evidence that it was one of the single worst decisions made by Bremer in the immediate postwar period. While not wanting to play "what-if", it is clear that this act (combined with the ejection of Ba'ath party members from nearly all public offices) created the wellspring of resentment that has contributed significantly to poisoning the political process, as well as massively undermining the capacity of Iraq to secure for rebuilding.
The creation of a constitution and elected government is a more substantial claim, but it's still not enough. Elections are the outcome of a political process, not the origin of it, which is a mistake that has consistently been made across the world by well-meaning interventionists. However the rush to elections without the democratic underpinnings in place is generally counter-productive, creating high expectations and increasing the potential for corruption to take root.
I'm very glad that a constitution was finalised. This would be one thing that I think we can unequivocally agree is a great achievement for which US diplomacy can probably be thanked. However I'm not sure that this can be counted as factual evidence of victory; it's simply a milestone on a longer path, and that path is not an entirely convincing one.
The problem with your argument - and particularly the last paragraph in your reply to SJ - is that you're essentially saying that anything that went right, the US can take credit for; but anything that goes wrong, the Iraqis can be blamed for. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that, either in terms of historical analysis or in the minds of people around the world - including the Iraqis.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Mar 07, 11:26:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Mar 07, 11:28:00 AM:
To solve any problem, you must define it correctly. In the case of the Vietnam War, the problem wasn't the desire of a liberal president (Johnson) to initiate a war. And in the case of the current war in Iraq, the problem wasn't the desire of a conservative president (Bush) to invade a country needlessly. The problem in both cases was the inability of an incompetent "nonpartisan" U.S. federal bureaucracy to provide the nation's leaders with complete and accurate information to enable them make the best decisions.
Each year the federal government spends $30 billion on the CIA and many more billions on other intelligence activities. But America's leading international banks, insurance companies, defense manufacturers, and arms dealers often have better information about problems and potential dangers in other countries.
Reagan was my favorite president. Yes, his administration played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. But business journalist Bruce Nussbaum predicted the collapse in his 1983 book "The World After Oil: The Shifting Axis of Power and Wealth." How did Nussbaum know? He reached his conclusion after he had talked to international businesspeople.
At the time of hiring, most federal employees wanted to do a good job. Unskilled managers and unnecessary paperwork beat them down over time. You must overhaul the federal bureaucracy. You must streamline operations and improve management training. If you don't, you can expect to complain about needless political mistakes until you lose interest or die.
By David M, at
Wed Mar 07, 11:32:00 AM:
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/07/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
By , at
Wed Mar 07, 04:14:00 PM:
"...if you want to claim that dismantling the military is a victory, you're flying in the face of the evidence that it was one of the single worst decisions made by Bremer in the immediate postwar period... it is clear that this act (combined with the ejection of Ba'ath party members from nearly all public offices) created the wellspring of resentment that has contributed significantly to poisoning the political process..."
Please. There is absolutely no evidence to support your statement, only conjectures. If you find those conjectures convincing doesn't make them 'evidence'. By definition, there can be no 'evidence' because there is no established precedent or trial case to what is taking place in Iraq now.
However, in terms of achieving victory, would you agree that if we succeed in establishing stable New Iraq without any help from Old Baath Party, our victory would be more complete? Conversely, if we manage to establish stable New Iraq only with the help from Old Baath Party, our victory would be less complete?
Really, isn't that exactly what definition of victory hinges on? After all, we are talking about Baath oppressive regime, responsible for terrible crimes against Iraqi people. How far would you be prepared to go accomodating the Old Baath? They would always ask for more of the same. At some point the old Muhabharat secret police would need to be re-established, then Republican Guards, the what? Bring Saddam back? Actually, that's exactly what some 'modern liberals' are saying...
Clearly, if we take them out and can't establish new order in Iraq, then yes, we lose. But if we maintain order by keeping Baath party in charge, can we say that we won?
By skipsailing, at
Wed Mar 07, 04:30:00 PM:
However if you want to claim that dismantling the military is a victory, you're flying in the face of the evidence that it was one of the single worst decisions made by Bremer in the immediate postwar period
this is a decision that will be argued for a long while. While I believe that Jerry Bremer did many things that haven't worked out well, I don't believe that his choice here was completely wrong.
On the one hand, we have the abject failure of the former Ba'athists we relied on to pacify Fallujah between our assaults. these guys lacked any redeeming qualifications and the idea failed miserably.
On the other hand, there very well may have been specific units of the Iraqi army that could have been integrated intact.
but we will never know and thus the argument will generate a fair amount of heat, but not a whole lotta light.
I have to agree with DEC re: intelligence work in the US. It seems to me that there is a vast amount of open source material available to us and that what we really need is some means of gathering assessing and interpreting the relationships among all this data.
that said, it seems to me that the real core of our problem is the size of the standing government. At this point the political appointment process does little to change the culture of the organizations that these appointees must run. It is my opinion that our perogative as voters is thwarted by this standing government such that any candidate we select who does not fit the mold of the life long civil servants will NOT be supported. The leaks occur as a means of subterfuge.
As a clear example, lets examine the current response to the firing of federal prosecutors. This firing is well within the purview of the president yet his decisions are politicized. We elect a president to lead, not to do the best he can in getting results out of an expensive and recalcitrant federal bureaucracy.
I honesty wonder about a coup d'etat.
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Mar 07, 06:22:00 PM:
No SJ, you misunderstood me. i guess we are finding the limits of blogging versus speaking.
The Cambodians and other Indochinese lost due to our abandonment of their defense -- they are today's Iraqis. We emerged from the whole Indochinese mess chastened, but fine.
Shawcross is saying he was -- as was the media, the lefty crowd, even domestic commies --a facilitator of the abandonment. And he is saying he was wrong; and we should not do that again.
I happen to agree with him. That is my point. We are there; we are winning; we are doing good; if we leave, it will be catastrophic to them; it will not ultimately be so to us.
That is exactly what I am saying.
By AST, at
Thu Mar 08, 12:41:00 AM:
Well said.
With Republicans in control in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, the loss of power drove the left nuts, even as it made Republicans complacent and stupid.
The voters don't like it when one side is nuts and the other is stupid, which bodes well for the future of gridlock in Washington.
Republicans thought that having a 5 vote majority in the Senate would really give them power, but it now is clear that they'll have to have at least 66 members just to get 60 sure votes, because the closer you get to winning, the more temptation there is for individual senators to decide that holding out is the perfect way to get more attention and collect little favors from the President. The Media is said to confer about 15 points in every election to the Democrats, which makes Bush's reelection much more impressive.
The war in Iraq was the right thing to do, as well as a good way to prosecute the GWOT. It freed the nation's Shias almost overnight. After fits and starts, I think that the Maliki government and we are finally on the same page and making real progress, but we have let a genie out of a bottle and shouldn't kid ourselves that we can get Iran and the Shia desire to be free of Sunni domination back into it.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 03:46:00 AM:
Cardinalpark: I find it interesting that in your original post, you say that you "have held rather tenaciously to the view that the war in Iraq was... 4) won" but in your latest comment, you say "we are winning."
Which is it? Did you win, or are you winning? And how does that affect your underlying arguments?
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 06:05:00 AM:
Anonymous says: "There is absolutely no evidence to support your statement, only conjectures... By definition, there can be no 'evidence' because there is no established precedent or trial case to what is taking place in Iraq now."
Your definition of evidence is very interesting, and by "interesting", I mean "wrong". The narrow, legalistic approach you appear to prefer is neither appropriate or useful for the purposes of political analysis, where many of the key witnesses cannot speak out (for example, serving army officers) and key documents are not available (for example, classified government papers regarding the decision).
However I'd still like to call a few witnesses:
General Anthony Zinni (rtd), former Special Envoy to the Middle East: “I give all the credit in the world to Ambassador Bremer as a great American who's serving his country... But he has made mistake after mistake after mistake... Disbanding the army... De-Baathifying, down to a level where we removed people that were competent and didn’t have blood on their hands that you needed in the aftermath of reconstruction – alienating certain elements of that society.”
Colonel Pat Lang (rtd), former Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East: Talking about the use of former Iraqi Army generals to negotiate with insurgents in Fallujah: "What that essentially reveals is how big a mistake it was to get rid of the old Army."
Ayad Allawi, former interim Prime Minister of Iraq: "This was a mistake, to dissolve the army and the police... We absolutely not only lost time. The vacuum allowed our enemies to regroup and to infiltrate the country."
Colonel Paul Hughes (rtd), former director of the Strategic Policy Office for the CPA: "It was absolutely the wrong decision... By abolishing the army, we destroyed in the Iraqi mind the last symbol of sovereignty they could recognize and as a result created a significant part of the resistance."
I have absolutely no doubt, anonymous, that you will disparage all of these observers as being either politically motivated or unqualified to comment in some way. However I find it hard to believe that you're far better informed than they are, with more experience in the field and with a wider range of contacts in the US and Iraqi administrations.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 06:22:00 AM:
Anonymous: "However, in terms of achieving victory, would you agree that if we succeed in establishing stable New Iraq without any help from Old Baath Party, our victory would be more complete? Conversely, if we manage to establish stable New Iraq only with the help from Old Baath Party, our victory would be less complete? Really, isn't that exactly what definition of victory hinges on?"
No, it isn't. As my points below should illustrate.
"After all, we are talking about Baath oppressive regime, responsible for terrible crimes against Iraqi people. How far would you be prepared to go accomodating the Old Baath?"
You clearly know very little about the Ba'ath party. Many members weren't responsible for any such crimes, merely joining the party to further their careers in government. Removing those people - thousands of middle level civil servants - basically eviscerated the capability of the country to govern itself, and created a whole new set of problems for the CPA and the Iraqis.
You completely misunderstand the situation, Anonymous, and consequently are some way behind the curve. It wasn't the principle of de-Ba'athification that was the problem; it was the execution. In his speech on 23 April 2004, Bremer specifically said:
"Banning the party and removing from public life those who used it to commit crimes was necessary and remains necessary if we are to achieve your vision of a democratic Iraq. But many Iraqis have complained to me that debaathification policy has been applied unevenly and unjustly. I have looked into these complaints and they are legitimate. The debaathification policy was and is sound. It does not need to be changed... But it has been poorly implemented. The requirement to join the party was strongly enforced among teachers and university professors. A group of teachers told me yesterday that poor execution of the debaathification process has had a severe impact on teachers and university professors."
In the same speech, he acknowledged that he supported the Ministry of Defense plans "to have a meeting with vetted senior officers from the former regime next week to discuss how best to build the new Iraqi military establishment." A large number of former Ba'athists were consequently taken back in at every level of government, after appropriate background checks. This was entirely necessary, but it shouldn't have been necessary in the first place. My point is that de-Ba'athification was badly planned and badly implemented, and as a result it wasted a lot of time, created a lot of confusion and resentment, and destabilised the reconstruction process over a long period of time.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 06:37:00 AM:
Oh, and Purple Avenger: "The US military has never lost a conflict it was ALLOWED to win."
How do you define "allowed to win"?
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 11:17:00 AM:
"I have absolutely no doubt, anonymous, that you will disparage all of these observers as being either politically motivated or unqualified to comment in some way. However I find it hard to believe that you're far better informed than they are, with more experience in the field and with a wider range of contacts in the US and Iraqi administrations."
First, I have no desire to disparage anybody. I think it's very important to listen to the people you cited. However, I'm not obligated to take their opinions as gospel truth. I think your cites are 'testimonies' and not an 'evidence'. I'm not a lawyer, but I think there is a clear difference between 'testimony' and 'evidence'.
I can offer expert opinions, too.
"The actual military campaign would be relatively short-lived... the battle for Iraq should be over in less then a month. As soon as the reality of Saddam's impending defeat is established, the glue of fear and oppression that holds Saddam's Iraq will begin to weaken... The target, however, is not the man but the regime. They all must go... The new government must establish its own police force and its own military"--Scott Ritter, "Endgame", 1999
I think nobody can question Ritter's experience and anti-Bush credentials.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 11:35:00 AM:
Anonymous: I agree that none of my quotes are gospel truth, but I am increasingly unsure what you mean by "evidence" in this case. In law, testimony is very definitely a form of evidence, and in cases such as this - where we are essentially arguing the wisdom of a particular course of action - testimony is about the only form of evidence that we have.
My point is that a sufficient number of sufficiently well-qualified people tend to agree that the dissolution of the Iraqi army and the de-Baathification process wereat the very least poorly implemented, with a clear negative impact on the reconstruction of Iraq - including the man who actually implemented the de-Baathification policy.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 11:41:00 AM:
And incidentally, Ritter also wrote in August 2003 that:
"Isolation of the Baath Party must end. The net result of allowing the former Baathists a role in the formation of a new Iraq would be to undermine those who would resist the occupation by giving them a vested interest in cooperating...
"the U.S. administrators of Iraq should reverse their decision regarding the dissolution of the Iraqi Army...
"Such policies do not represent a stepping away from democracy in Iraq, but rather a recognition that the path toward democracy might be different than the one now chosen."
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Mar 08, 01:01:00 PM:
Merkur - sorry, to repeat, we won. Saddam hanged. Heirs bulleted. Army gone. New govt. Elections. We won. Soveriegnty transferred from Baathists, to CPA, back to new Iraqi govt. Won. Won. Won.
Saddam cannot return. He lost. Lost. Lost. Lost. Baathists disbanded. Iraqi Army disbanded. Gone. Gone. Gone.
Have I made clear the winners and losers in the Iraq War?
Now of course we are not dispassionate about the future governance of Iraq. We would like it to succeed in its democratic experiment. We would like it to reflect the will of its people. We would like to see the Iraqi people and economy prosper. We would like them to live in safety and security. We have more than a rooting interest in this outcome, as it affects our regional interests, and our global interests in respect of Shiite extremism and its embodiment in Iran; and Sunni extremism and its embodiment in Al Qaeda. In the pursuit of those interests, I also happen to believe we "are winning", but the tides do ebb and flow.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 01:24:00 PM:
"Anonymous: I agree that none of my quotes are gospel truth, but I am increasingly unsure what you mean by "evidence" in this case. In law, testimony is very definitely a form of evidence, and in cases such as this - where we are essentially arguing the wisdom of a particular course of action - testimony is about the only form of evidence that we have."
I believe a single example will suffice. We had numerless expert 'testimonies' about WMD hidden in Iraq, however the 'evidence' to support those 'testimonies' was not yet found. That's the difference.
Regarding Ritter: yes, he changed his mind. Another example that you can't take anyone's 'testimony' as 'evidence'.
I still think that our victory will be more complete if we achieve it without help from Baath; call it my own 'testimony'. However, I'm a realist. Let's do what works better to guarantee the lowest loss of human lives. Just keep one thing in mind:
Iraq is a terrible place. Whatever you try wiil most likely backfire. There are no guarantees to any approach. You never know what would preservation of Old Baath cadre would lead to. Certainly not anything reasonable. Remember, we tried the 'reasonable' approach of bombing and sanctions for 12 years. The same that brought down Lybia, Serbia etc. It didn't work in Iraq.
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 01:41:00 PM:
Cardinalpark: Yes, you've made the winners and losers clear, while also clarifying that you believe that there have been two wars. The first was the overthrow, which we can agree was a complete success; the second was the reconstruction, which you believe "we are winning".
This is where I have a problem. As I probably made clear in my previous post, I don't believe we're winning. We could argue the toss all day on that one; I'm sure you genuinely believe that we're winning, but I wonder what your criteria are for having won this second fight?
By , at
Thu Mar 08, 02:29:00 PM:
Anonymous: "Just keep one thing in mind: Iraq is a terrible place. Whatever you try wiil most likely backfire. There are no guarantees to any approach."
I understand your frustration, but I find this a wholly inadequate response to a wholly unacceptable situation.
By , at
Sat Mar 10, 12:34:00 PM:
The difference is Reagan was intelligent and had a genuine thought-out plan. Bush is a box of rocks who isn't sure what he's doing after lunch much less in 5-10 years.
The person who wrote this has either forgotten or is too young to remember that, at the time, Reagan was subjected to exactly the same sorts of comments about his intelligence as Bush is today.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Mar 12, 01:48:00 AM:
"This is where I have a problem. As I probably made clear in my previous post, I don't believe we're winning. We could argue the toss all day on that one; I'm sure you genuinely believe that we're winning, but I wonder what your criteria are for having won this second fight?"
The power is back on and reliable. Infrastructure is continually improving, especially in the north, where there is a construction boom. International civilian airline traffic to Europe has begun. The turnout in the elections was higher than the usual turnout in the United States. People call the Iraqi police to report crimes, rather than arranging for vigilante justice. People are getting speeding tickets. The courts are functioning. The members of government are traveling abroad conducting business in foreign nations, including major powers. Rival political factions have cooperated to pass legislation in a democratic process, and abided by the results. Embassies are open and operating in Baghdad. Schools are open and functioning all across the country without interference. The markets are busy. The national sports teams are competing and winning victories.
None of this was true two years ago.
Our goal, our ultimate objective for Iraq is to oversee its final transformation into a stable, democratic state ruled by law, rather than a despot. (populist or otherwise) All of these phenomena are indicative of movement in that direction. The social fabric of Iraq is being repaired.
And you'll note how I've purposefully left out things like, "X militiamen were arrested this week" and "there have only been Y suicide attacks in the last 60 days" because in the long run, those are irrelevant. Those are hiccups along the way to a transformed society.
Now explain to me how we're "losing."
By , at
Tue Mar 13, 09:30:00 AM:
"Now explain to me how we're "losing.""
If you insist. I'll draw from a limited number of sources, I'll try to keep them official or sympathetic, and I'll use comparisons with other countries as well. You didn't cite any sources for your points, by the way, so I have no way of knowing where you get your facts.
The power is back on and reliable.
"The Government of Iraq’s goal for daily average peak generating output by the end of December 2006 is 6,000 MW,
but it is unlikely that this goal will be met... Almost half of Iraqis report supplementing government supplied electricity with private generators to fill the supply gap... Government-produced electricity averaged 11 hours per day over the previous quarter and 12.2 hours per day for the month of October, the last full month for which data are available... Baghdad, however, averaged only 6 hours of power per day in the previous quarter, rising to 6.7 hours in October." - DoD "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq" November 06
Sure enough, on 28 February 2007, US News reported (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070228/28iraq.baghdad.htm?s_cid=rss:site1) that "In January, the 5 million or so Iraqis living in the capital had to make do with an average of about 4.5 hours of power a day, some neighborhoods getting more and others less. By official statistics, that was about the same as a year earlier but only half the level in January 2005."
So while the power may be back on, it is clearly not reliable; it hardly counts as progress if levels are half what they were two years ago.
Infrastructure is continually improving, especially in the north, where there is a construction boom.
I agree that infrastructure is generally improving. However the north was always in a better position than the centre and south (especially after 1995-6), and postwar progress is the outcome of that rather than coalition efforts. The situation in the north is better than the rest of Iraq now specifically because the security is better, and the security is better because the Kurds manage it themselves rather than relying on US forces (whose presence in the north is token).
International civilian airline traffic to Europe has begun.
International civilian airline traffic to Liberia continued almost throughout the entire civil war, but that didn't mean Liberia was anything other than a basket case. In addition, I don't see why you think this is a indicator of progress towards a "stable, democratic state ruled by law, rather than a despot", since North Korea also has international civilian air traffic, and is anything but.
"The turnout in the elections was higher than the usual turnout in the United States."
Elections (and particularly "high voter turnout") are not in themselves a useful way of measuring progress. The turnout in the Afghan presidential election 2004 was (I think) around 80%, but I think you'd agree that Afghanistan isn't exactly doing well; the parliamentary elections 2005 in particular have simply consolidated the power of many warlords, which is hardly conducive to a "stable, democratic state." What matters is the content, conduct and context of the elections, and on this the record in Iraq is decidedly mixed.
In January 2007, George Bush addressed the nation, saying: "The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made."
"People call the Iraqi police to report crimes, rather than arranging for vigilante justice."
MNC-I Nationwide Poll, October 2006:
Q: For each type of soldier, can you tell me whether you agree or disagree:
Iraqi Army are corrupt: 26.5%
Iraqi Police are Corrupt: 27.3%
Iraqi Army are influenced by sectarian interests: 24.8%
Iraqi Police are influenced by sectarian interests: 25.0%
Those don't sound like particularly good figures to me. Iraqis do want to see a strong central government that can address the problem of militias and paramilitaries, although I worry about what they mean by a "strong central government". I am hopeful that the current government will be able to provide a good lead, particularly if the surge works.
"People are getting speeding tickets."
I'm not sure if this point is supposed to be a joke.
"The courts are functioning."
"The failure to secure timely trials is largely due to an acute shortage of investigative judges, prosecutors, judicial investigators, and trial judges, and systemic inefficiencies, including the lack of cooperation and communication
between the police and the judiciary... Judges are frequently threatened and attacked, and, thus, occasionally fail to report to work, resign from their positions, fear reaching verdicts against powerful defendants, and, in the provinces... decline to investigate and try insurgent- and terrorism-related cases." - DoD "Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq" November 06
"The members of government are traveling abroad conducting business in foreign nations, including major powers."
I'm not sure why you think that this is an indicator of progress.
"Rival political factions have cooperated to pass legislation in a democratic process, and abided by the results."
This is very good news, and I think potentially a sign that things can be worked out. However since most of the political factions are consistently reported to be associated with various militias and paramilitary groups, I'm suspicious that they're co-operating to give the appearance of co-operation, while pursuing at least some of their goals through violence. In addition, corruption remains rife and this provides an incentive for factions to remain in the process while the funds are still flowing.
"Embassies are open and operating in Baghdad."
Yes they are, but many of them opened shortly after the fall of Baghdad, and most of them are not able to open fully due to the insecurity and offer a limited range of services - for example, visa applications are usually through the country's embassy in Jordan. Check, for example, the British or German embassy websites.
"The markets are busy."
The markets were busy immediately after the fall of Baghdad, so I don't think that this is a useful indicator of progress.
However if we're looking at the wider economic situation... The good news is that parts of it are doing well despite all the problems, as this December 2006 Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek/) suggests. The bad news is that it is common to see economic growth in the years after the end of a conflict - call it the honeymoon effect. The Newsweek article was well aware of this, pointing out that Iraq is "on the financial equivalent of steroids", i.e. foreign assistance of various sorts, and that "[u]nemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent. Many former state industries have all but ceased to function. As for all that money flowing in, much of it has gone to things that do little to advance the country's future." Furthermore, "Money stolen from government coffers or siphoned from U.S. aid projects does not just disappear. ... Such "underground activity" is the most dynamic part of Iraq's economy, says [Farid Abolfathi, a Global Insight analyst]. "It might not be viewed as respectable. But in reality, that's what puts money in the hands of the little people."
So the record is mixed at best. I'd suggest that some of the things seen as "positive" in the article are in fact not - the massive increase in house prices, for example, tend to price out those who don't already own property, and is usually driven not by optimism but by the foreign presence.
"The national sports teams are competing and winning victories."
Again, I'm not sure whether you're being serious with this one. I agree that it's great, and it's particularly great that they no longer have the soles of their feet beaten by Uday when they lose, but it's hardly an indicator of progress.
"None of this was true two years ago."
No; in some cases, two years ago the situation was better.
"And you'll note how I've purposefully left out things like, "X militiamen were arrested this week" and "there have only been Y suicide attacks in the last 60 days" because in the long run, those are irrelevant. Those are hiccups along the way to a transformed society."
I beg to disagree. Insecurity is a primary concern for most Iraqis, and security is absolutely critical to reconstruction. Returning the question of power supply, the 2006 Year in Review in Iraq said that "In Baghdad, electricity levels hit an all-time low... That had less to do with repairs and refurbishment than security." The headline on the Operation Iraqi Freedom website on 1 March 2007 said it pretty simply: "Reconstruction, security go hand-in-hand". George Bush says "The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad."
The good news is that the surge appears to be achieving its short-term objectives pretty well, and that means more reconstruction opportunities in Baghdad, and we can capitalise on these. I think that it can work, at least in that short-term frame, and provide the basis for better governance in Baghdad (although the rest of the country might not come out of it so well).
In the end, the problem I have with your arguments is that you focus on a lot of trees, rather than the forest. While there is welcome progress in some sectors in Iraq, it's hard to agree that Iraqi politics is more stable, the region overall is clearly not more stable, the reputation of the US is at an incredibly low point globally, public opinion continues to swing against the war, Iraq is sitting down with Syria and Iran (remember the axis of evil?), and so on.
In light of what I've described above, can you honestly say that "we" are winning? The indicators you list seem to be a mix of the trivial and the questionable. Presumably you believe that these outcomes are the result of successful US strategy in Iraq up until December 2006 - a strategy that George Bush in January acknowledged wasn't working and needed to be changed.
Let's go back to that Address to the Nation. George Bush says that the "consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people."
When I look at the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and wider, that's exactly what I see. Radical Islamic groups are recruiting more widely than ever before, and reaching out further than before; Iran has renewed its pursuit of nuclear weapons, as well as destabilising moderate governments, specifically in Lebanon; Afghanistan is again a safe haven, and Iraq is clearly an incubator for many factions. These are all trends which have been accelerated rather than mitigated by the war in Iraq.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Apr 09, 07:33:00 PM:
"When I look at the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan and wider, that's exactly what I see."
From where? Your computer chair? Your sofa? It's very impressive that you can look up statistics that show that 1/4 of people think that Iraqi authorities are corrupt. They are. So are ours.
It doesn't even occur to you that if representatives of the Iraqi government are abroad conducting business, it demonstrates that they are both sovereign (and recognized as such) and functioning. Writing off some of my examples (like this one) as irrelevant simply betrays that you have already formed your opinion and won't give the necessary time or effort to examining my own reasoning.
But ok. I'm sure you know better than I, just as I'm sure you know better than the Iraqis.
"Iraqis: life is getting better; March 17, 2007"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece
