Lounsbury on Iraq & MENA: War, Politics, Economy & Related Questions

Great Debates
241

Ehhh…Sort of. Maybe. But not quite. How it’s actually recounted is that during the course of the main engagement Muhammed flung a handful of gravel or sand at the enemy forces, which caused a sandstorm to suddenly blow in their faces. It is also mentioned that immediately preceding this Muhammed exclaimed at the sudden arrival of the angel Gabriel riding on a sandstorm.

The obvious non-supernatural explanation is that during the course of the fighting that a sudden ( minor or major ) sandstorm rose up at the Muslim forces’ back and blew into the teeth of opposition. Stroke of luck, that. A similar such lucky storm blowing in the face of the enemy ( only this one of rain and sleat ) played a part in the Jacobite victory at Falkirk in the '45. But I haven’t run across anything indicating that Muhammed used a storm ahead a time to cover his movements.

At any rate, even if he had I wouldn’t give it that much emphasis vis-a-vis recent Iraqi actions, really. When you think about such a maneouver ( if you can pull it off ) is just common tactical sense ( at least in certain circumstances, like when you are operating under conditions of total enemy air superiority ). When there was that initial report ( later proved false ) that a large armored column had departed Baghdad for the Karbala Gap, my thought was - “Huh. That’s dumb. But at least they had the sense to try to do it under cover of a sandstorm.” I’m sure if such a maneouver somehow succeeded or partially succeeded, Iraqi propagandists would crow about it, comparing it to Badr in grandiose terms. But really they wouldn’t need Muhammed’s example to have come up with the idea - It’s pretty obvious. IMHO, anyway ;).

  • Tamerlane
242

istara
OK. One way I can see how getting rid of Saddam is linked to post-Saddam Iraq is the fear that US/UK would control Iraq’s destiny once Saddam is gone. This mistrust can inspire resistance from the Iraqi soldiers/paramilitary etc. BUT, the chief reason for the Iraqi resistance proffered in this thread, the people you interact with, and Chris Dickey from Newsweek is the sense of national pride amongst the Iraqis. That is a bit difficult for me to stomach. If this feeling is indeed widespread and powerful, then the US/UK coalition better address this in a tangible form ASAP. Risking their own lives and minimizing civilian casualties is one way to show their commitment as friends and not as liberators. In fact, viewing this as liberation is probably a bad idea in itself. Talking about using Iraqi oil to defray the costs of the war would only seek to exacerbate the resentment.

Regarding post-Saddam Iraq, US/UK et al have to handle this brilliantly. Leaving immediately would lead to charges of “you bombed us and left” and staying on would lead to charges of neo-colonialism. They have to openly accept the moral and financial burden of re-building the country and have to execute this responsibility through the face of the UN (not the US Govt. awarding contracts to Halliburton)

Given how this admin has done so far, I am afraid for the future.

243

I’m confused as usual

  1. We should have stayed out of the middle East altogether because they don’t want us there. No matter how many atrocities there leader commits.

  2. Should we have done this all across the board? Is that not isolationism?

  3. They can stand HS as long as needed because of their culture, or just wait until he died and this would have been the more correct way to handle things?

  4. Now that we are there, there is no way to get out without total disaster?

  5. Seems as the world is going to condemn the US and it will be open season on us.

  6. There is really no one person or group of persons who will be suitable to the average Iraq citizen, as if there is one. The ‘tribes’ mentality deems that a impossibility. They want and need a SH because that is all they understand and need.

  7. Since this has started and can not be undone, what choice does the US have that will not result in it’s own destruction? I am hearing most here say there is nothing to be done now as it can not be done from where we are.

  8. Since we are already over the cliff and falling, Is not all this discussion a moot point?

  9. Can the world really wait 10 -100 years for the Mid-East to grow to be capable of participating on a world level? Or do we just have to turn a blind eye to what they do becausde they are different?

  10. They might even have the best ideas in the long run, sort of ‘beta’ VS the rest of the worlds ‘VHS’, but how much ‘give’ does the rest of the world have to allow in exported death and destruction, not even counting the treatment of themselves, before it either says ‘nuff’ or isolates them?

All the above questions are derived from what I have read in the thread and do not necessarily pertain to my own opinions.

244

Without going point by point, I think you’re taking a little too broad ( or sometime black and white ) interpretation of some of these posts. Nothing is writ in stone, rather these are just some of the interpretations of how the situation has developed, where it currently stands, and where it may be going ( none of which are moot points, far as I’m concerned ).

Just a couple of points in particular that IMHO you may have misinterpreted or cast in an overbroad fashion.

Proper diplomatic grounding for intervention is not the same as non-intervention and non-intervention in this case is not the same as isolationism.

Saying that all of Iraq may not be fully ready for western-style representative democracy in terms of current social structure, does not mean they either want nor need SH or someone like him. Even saying that some may now be rallying around him doesn’t mean that. It just may mean some folks may be temporarily backing him as what they perceive to be as the lesser of two potent evils ( the dictator they know vs. the conquering dictators they fear may be coming in ).

Also I think even Collounsbury has acknowledged that the situation is salvageable. Shoot, it may work out just fine. On the other hand there are ominous signs it may not.

  • Tamerlane
245

I have some questions Collounsbury. Keep in mind that I am an american hawk so what I say is biased. Please try not to respond abusively but to give honest, informed answer as I have wondered about these things for a while and hope someone like you who lives in a mid east community can offer me some insight.

Do Arabs openly debate or consider what I perceive to be double standards? Egypt has unilaterally (without international or UN approval) attacked Israel 6 times in 60 years while the first war on Iraq carried out by the US was UN sanctioned, and the second is up to debate on whether it has UN approval. Is the validity of claims of condemning opposition to unilateral aggression ever questioned when Egypt is more unilaterally aggressive towards Israel than the US is towards Iraq? Isn’t supporting the unilateral attacks on Israel seen as a double standard when they condemn the unilateral attack by the US on Iraq?

In 1991 Saddam’s regime bombed suburban enclaves in Tel Aviv. Just today the Regime bombed a shopping mall in Kuwait. Does the intentional bombing of civilian targets (especially the latter since Kuwait is an Islamic country) by Iraq receive as much condemnation as US accidental bombing of civilian enclaves? does the intentional use of civilians as human shields by pockets of the Iraq resistance receive the same condemnation as accidental targeting of them by the coalition.

I ask because over here there is open talk about the double standards (If the US shows POWs that is ok, if Iraq shows POWs that is a crime. How we supported Saddam once now oppose him, How we support tyrants in some Arab countries, but now use the removal of a tyrant as a reason to topple Saddam, etc.), and I wonder if there is debate where you are on double standards like the ones I listed. Are they dismissed or not brought up because they are fighting what they feel is an evil occupying force that they can’t win against with regular tactics? Do people even consider them?

Is mid east hatred of the US due to the bias against outsiders (imperialistic, secular, non tribal, non muslim Americans) whose army they can’t fight against, which would make them feel impotent and unable to resist against? That may sound offensive, but what I mean is some of my friends hate the police, even if the police are much nicer than some other people whom they know who are far less abusive than police officers, and the main reason they hate the police more is because they feel impotent to stand up for themselves or to do anything if a police officer sets his sight on them. Is the same feeling pervasive in the middle east, i.e., a feeling of having no ability to defend yourself against the US and being helpless, and this leads to intense bias & dislike? I’d assume it would be a major factor because I keep hearing again & again if Saddam can prove he can stand up to the US he will be a hero.

Reading your posts I realize you’ve pretty much said the same things I’m saying about mid east hatred, but can you expound on the topic and what, if anything, the US can do to lessen it. What about the US’s attempts to find a Palestinian-Israeli peace, does that have any good effects?

As far as the US being liberators, nobody I know here in the US thinks that is the real reason for invading Iraq. I’m sure the Iraqi people will be better off without Saddam, but even I & my friends know that if that were the true reason then things would be much different in our foreign policy. So why, as it seems you are saying, do people in the arab world take such claims of being liberators personally instead of just dismissing them out of hand?

I see no reason to put US or UK soldiers at risk of dying because I think double standards against the US will find a way to taint anything beneficial. How would such an act have any long term beneficial effect that would persist in the face of feelings of hatred for the imperialist, overpowering, Israel supporting outsiders? Wouldn’t the feelings of empathy for the US who put their troops at risk just be dismissed in a few months? The US & UK initiated no fly zone has enabled the Kurds and Shiites to live in more safety than they could obtain without it, the kurds no longer have to live in fear of a gas attack and have been able to obtain a degree of political autonomy but from what I can see this is not even a consideration for being pro-US, so why would American & UK blood being spilt be any different?

246

The United States (or any other Western nation) can have influence in the Middle East, but it has to be done with tact and delicacy. This is a region that’s only recently (relatively speaking) gotten out from under the yoke of Western imperialism, and they are suspicious of the West as a result. IMO, winning the trust of Middle Eastern nations is critical.

Unfortunately, American foreign policy has not made any effort at that, with our unconditional support for Israel and our tendency to support Middle Eastern nations only when they provide us with cheap oil casts us in a poor light. This is why no one believes George W. Bush when he says the Iraq war is about UN resolution violations and/or stopping repressive governments – because we give Israel a free pass on UN resolution breaches (34 to Iraq’s 16), and continue to support repressive oil-friendly nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

I think they figure he’s their problem, and the only reason the US is involved is because we want their oil. Again, this goes back to the suspicion of Western motives.

Well, George W. Bush could admit that starting a war without UN support was a major screw-up and order an immediate withdrawl, but I doubt that’d happen.

They already have, because of this Administration’s continued disdain for international opinions and treaties. Trying to get the United Nations to rubber-stamp Bush’s oil grab is just the latest international insult from a Presidency full of 'em.

If you define “a world level” as meaning “having a culture like ours,” I think you’re missing the point.

247

eponymous:

I’m being referenced in a thread that contains the likes of Tamerlane and Collounsbury?

:cool:

Clearly, I rule.
shelbo:

Very interesting interview, especially the last two or three minutes, in which Christopher Dickey states that Iraqi news reports have proven “more accurate” than those being produced in the Western media. Fairly surrealistic, when you stop to think about it.

Thanks for the link!

248

By the way, since this seems to be something of a “question-and-answer” thread, I’ve got a question. I noticed earlier that C referred to the support given by the CIA to the Baath party when it rose to power in 1963. I was wondering if anyone out there has more info on that, or knows where I can locate info on the post-1960 history of US-Iraqi relations, both official and unofficial.

Thanks in advance.

249

Kuwaiti officials do not believe it was Iraq bombing that mall, but rather that is was a misguided american cruise missile. It came in low, and from the sea, thus not triggering an alarm.

The New York times reported the testimony of a Kuwaiti policeman: “It was an American cruise missile. We know from the markings and writing on it,” an unidentified Kuwaiti police colonel told the Times. “It doesn’t go up, it comes in low from the sea, and that’s why there was no alert.”

And even if it was an Iraqi missile, you are assuming the hit of a civilian target to be deliberate in this case, without any evidence that it is.

250

For the coup, here’s a reproduction of a NY Times piece on it:

http://www.midwestacademy.com/Comment/change.htm

  • Tamerlane
251

Mr. Svinlesha: I’ve attempted, but so far have been unable to find to decent, detailed website analysis on U.S. - Iraqi relations from 1963-present. Most concentrate on the '80’s when there was a thaw and are usually somewhat narrowly focused within that frame. If you do a search you can dig up bits and pieces like that. There a number of books available of course, but I only have one that tangentially covers some of that material and it is currently loaned out.

As far as pre-1980’s go, there was no formal relations between 1967-1984 and due to Iraqi hostility towards Israel ( including support of terrorists ), Iraq’s closer relationship to the U.S.S.R. ( in common with all the secular, pan-Arabist states of the day ), and until 1979 the presense of a powerful U.S. client in Iran ( a geopolitical and ideological foe ), relations were pretty cool. The Iran-Iraq War changed the equation and the U.S. was providing support to Iraq ( intelligence, in this case ) as early as 1982. Here’s one article from the Washington Post that discusses this a bit, in relation to WMD’s and such:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html

I’m going to leave most of your post for Collounsbury to address himself. But I will interject an opinion on the quote above - I’d say that is an element of that. Maybe not that exact wording and maybe not that narrowly focused. But in general the Arab world does seem to feel a certain amount of collective humiliation vis-a-vis their current world-standing compared to the greatness that was, and military impotence is certainly one of the factors contributing to this notion. Just as the PLO catapulted to prominence among Palestinians over the bleeding and declining body of secular pan-Arabism after the Six-Day War in 1967 ( due to the fact that they were regarded as actually taking some sort of effective action against Israel, however counter-productive in the long-run ), so Saddam seems to get a lot of credit for trying to stand up against the overwhelming might of the U.S., which is regarded in some circles as a bully. Pride, wounded pride that is, does appear to play a role, though not necessarily the always the major one ( that will obviously vary ).

  • Tamerlane
252

I would echo Tamerlane’s view, from the experience I have of Iraqi and Arabic people’s opinion here. Saddam is seen as a bully, but Bush is seen as a bigger bully. Saddam is seen as someone who has a right to be here and to be a president, Bush is seen as an intruder who should stay well away. Overall, Iraq is seen as a weaker, comparatively defenceless country (despite the resistance it’s putting up) and America is seen as taking advange of its size and strength to wage a very unequal war.

253

**

I’m not trying to criticize or anything but isn’t that belief just a trifle disingenuous? I think it is reasonable to expect that George Bush won’t use rape and torture as tools of political repression and that he won’t deny food and medicine to the people of Iraq just to maintain his war machine. Or is it OK since Saddam only bullies and brutalizes his own people?

254

**
There is a semantical problem here. The mid east doesn’t hate the U.S… It’s attitudes are much more complex than that. Outside of the radical Islamicist fringe, the U.S. is viewed favorably by the majority of people in the Islamic world in general and the mid-east in particular.

Iran is a good example. Iran more-or-less invented Islamic anti-Americanism. But most Iranians never really internalized the “Great Satan” rhetoric. American society is just too attractive to the average person and, indeed, in a sense, too benevolent for the average Iranian to harbour an actual hatred of America. In addition, with on the order of 1,000,000 Iranians in the U.S., many Iranians have an extended family member or know someone with an extended family member living in the U.S…

Many people in the region may well “hate” the American government, but that is a very clear distinction in their minds, often clearer than the distinction made in the West. The average Jordanian, say, might bitterly complain about America’s one-sided support for Israel one moment and then talk glowingly about his cousin in Detroit and how he’d love to move there one day.

The overiding emotion of the Arab street isn’t hatred, it’s frustration and disappointment. The Arab world isn’t mad at the U.S. because it support Israel, it’s mad at the U.S. because it feels cheated that America is not being being “fair” in its dealings with the Palestinians. This attitude necessarily assumes that America could redeem itself by living up to its promise. It’s the dichotomy between what the Arab world perceives to be American social values and its actions in the region that give the average Arab a deep feeling of betrayal. They are saying, in effect, “But how can you act like this? You’re not supposed to act like this!” The average Arab loves what America is and hates what America does – or doesn’t do.

Collounsbury, after giving it some thought, your idea of using Palestinians to administer some high-profile area of Iraqi reconstruction is drop-dead excellent because it works on so many levels. It will assauge Iraqi feeling and at the same time, its a twofer with respect to the rest of the Arab world. It sends a message that the U.S. is not trying to colonize Iraq and, at the same time, provides a huge symbolic boost vis a vis America’s relations with the Palestinians. With a bit of luck, Sharon will publically complain about it!

255

I think that’s reasonable as well.

However the Iraqi people might not feel the same. Not all of them, of course, but some of them. Keep in mind the effect of state-controlled media AND how easily it can manipulate something like the decade+ of embargo. Remember the Iraqi people suffered horribly during that.

Is Saddam ultimately responsible for much of that suffering? Sure. ( I’d argue U.S. and allies are a little bit as well, by the way, since it is should have quickly become obvious they were inadvertently inflicting great civilian damage without materially hindering the regime enough to make it worthwhile - but that’s water under the bridge at this point ). But there is no reason to assume that all of the Iraqi people see it in exactly those terms. To some, they may indeed see the U.S. as being responsible for denying food and medicine.

Remember - It need not be reality. It is perception of reality that counts. I get the impression that some Iraqis ( and I do want to be careful to qualify comments like this ) feel they may very well end up playing the role of the “Palestinians” to the U.S. “Israelis” - And you can imagine how that will play out in that part of the world.

  • Tamerlane
256

What do you think of the warnings by Rumsfeld to Iran and Syria? If they ignore the US and continue operating in Iraq would the US attack them? What then? If not what does that do to American credibility?

The first suicide attack is also ominous. It’s been claimed that an Iraqi officer did it but I wonder if it isn’t really some fundamentalist type from the outside. Even after the Iraqi army falls what are the odds of fundamentalist groups from outside maintaining an indefinite guerilla war against the US forces in Iraq ?

It’s all begining to get a little scary.

The contrast with the US war in Afghanistan is striking. In Afghanistan the US succeeded very nicely in isolating the Taliban diplomatically and coming to a working arrangement with the surrounding countries, including to some extent, even Iran. This time round the rhetoric of pre-emptive attack, “axis of evil” and tranformation of the Middle East is so sweeping that many of the regimes in the region have a reason to be scared. They may not oppose the US openly but I suspect a few of them are quietly working to make sure the US gets bogged down and is in no position to come after them. Syria and Iran are probably on top of that list.

257

I quite agree with you - it’s just that many Arabs/Iraqis don’t see it that way. What we think doesn’t matter, and whether they are wrong or not doesn’t matter, in so far as they think a certain way, and the consequences of that will hugely affect us.

And yes, I think there is a certain element of “his own people” about this. They resent outside “villains” more than they resent their own villain(!)

258

Before I embark upon my first post in this thread, may I point out that this thread is indeed a wonderful one, and Collounsbury and Tamerlane in particular have been almost “stratospheric” in their abilities to provide wonderful insight and inarguable historic timelines. And kudos to istara as always, too.

I know this is a long post, but for those of you who would persevere, please read it’s entirety - it’s a post which tends to canvass this thread in it’s entirety - not just at a micro level on one or two of the posts therein.

Firstly… I’ve studied this thread - like a hawk. I’ve read every single post, and almost all of the associated links. And time after time I keep hearing a resonant theme - and I paraphrase here - “What you need to understand is that the Arabian World doesn’t THINK like we do - they perceive things differently”.

Hmmm… OK, when I read that sort of thing, the amateur anthropologist within me pipes up… and I’m forced to ask a follow up question…

Are we safe in assuming ALSO that the people of the Arabian World have some sort of slightly different genetic DNA which inspires them to think about these issues differently to us in the Western World? Of course, the answer to that foolish question is “NO!”. Further, I would suggest that all of us here would agree that humans are humans - regardless of race, creed, or culture. And most importantly, given the same sort of circumstances and stimulii, we would all tend to react in much the same way… because that’s the way human nature works - it is, after all, rather predictable within reason.

So I read the stuff in this thread and the anthropologist within me starts searching for knowledge regarding the cultural stimulii which would make “the Arabian World think differently to us in the Western World”, and I firmly believe all of the answers have been outlined here in this thread…

Accordingly, I would respectfully like to throw something up into the air for debate now, if I may…

Given that…

(1) Many of us here in the West (and the US Administration in particular it would seem) have consistently failed to appreciate the Arabian World’s perceptions of our actions…

(2) Excluding Turkey and Isreal, of the entire region, only Iran seems to be a country with a goverment which is TRULY representative of it’s people…

(3) Illiteracy still runs rampant throughout much of the Arabian World (which is just criminal in this day and age)

(4) True “freedom of the press” is a rare bird indeed in the region…

(5) A commitement to eradicating cronyism and black market activities in the region is almost as rare as a commitment to a true free press…

(6) Human nature being what it is, if you are one of the lucky people in power who benefit from Points (1) thru (5), you would NOT willingly wish to see that cozy situation diminish in the near future…

Given that all of these points are accepted…

My question is this… at what point in time does a desire on the part of us collectively in the West to firstly understand, and secondly, to CONDONE how the Arabian psyche works, well… at what point does such a desire not ALSO become a tool by those who are currently in power to propagate and continue the current de facto arrangements for at least the next generation, if not the next?

You see, my question above is borne out of the frustration I’m feeling here… I appreciate the old chestnut that locks are only meant to keep honest people out, and (2) that I’m quite happy to strangle my own mother but don’t YOU dare say anything bad about her - and yet, time after time I’m forced to call a spade a spade and call the Arabian World for what it is - a region rife with double standards and cronyism and nepotism and worst of all - a woeful systemic disregard for civil rights and a dreadful lack of commitment to quality education.

Most infuriatingly, every time I hear yet another excuse as to why something which works in the Western World won’t work in the Arabian World - every time - 100% I can see the same double standards at work - albeit they’re somewhat removed by six degrees of separation - but they ARE at work. Namely, and I paraphrase here…

“If you try to implement this or if you try to implement that, the existing de facto power arrangments will feel threatened and instability will occur…”

Hence, my cynicism… and I would add, my profoundly justified and warranted cynicism. I perceive almost every effort made by the Arabian World to resist the influence of the West as being the calculated, manipulative efforts of the haves to hold on to whatever prestige, or power, or wealth that they currently have - and the poor illiterate peasants throughout the region can go get buggered - because at the end of the day, they don’t vote, because they don’t have the right to vote. And I very much include the Imams and Muslim Clerics in this category too. They enjoy their positions of influence - they are politicians as much as they are religious leaders - and THEY would be feeling as threatened as anyone to a change in the demographic power base.

Only Iran seems to be the exception. Apparently 65% of the entire population is under 25 years of age, and they are profoundly well educated - and it’s from there that the peaceful seeds of evolution are flowering.

It’s my considered opinion as a result, that of all the things which the Western World COULD do in a post war Iraq, the one area which arguably is the most long term EFFECTIVE is currently never being canvassed - namely, the systemic and concerted implementation of a program to raise Iraq’s woeful literacy rate.

259

(Please excuse my ramblings, I’m trying to think this through and will welcome constructive criticism.)

In that case the only option the US has is to work hard not to create the same sort of situation that exists in Israel.

We have no hope of winning the propaganda war when we are seen as outsiders. What we must do is make the propaganda irrelevant. If the perceptions are to blame then our only recourse can be to positively impact their physical reality in such a way that it cannot be ignored.

Poverty and disillusionment with the government breed extremism but so do lawlessness and war. Extremism breeds terrorism and terrorism is what every American has learned to fear since September 11th. So far it seems George Bush has merely chosen to substitute the poverty and disillusionment for not only war and ensuing lawlessness but a deepening distrust of American motives. He has added to the root causes of terror instead of taking them away and for this he has been roundly criticized.

It is of course obvious then that our only realistic hope of redeeming ourselves will come not through the war itself nor through backing down and feeding a perception of impotence. It will come during the aftermath of this war, when our chance comes to physically demonstrate the differences between living in poverty and oppression and living with political freedom and high standards of living. This perception that seems to have such currency in the middle east speaks of the distrust the people have for their own governments. It speaks of people who blame the West for propping up the corrupt and leaving the common Muslim living in fear and poverty.

It’s easier to blame the West; I would hazard a guess that it is much safer than blaming the local government as well. It helps of course that the West has historically come as Crusaders, Imperialists or fat-cat capitalists. It helps that the Middle East is filled with absolutist regimes cobbled together by the West as bulwarks against radical socialism. And one must not forget the West’s gift to the Palestinians, Israel, a gift paid for with American money and military technology. With Israel the Western democracies have come as colonizers, invaders and infidels.

Yeah, so it’s fair to say we have an image problem.

What do we do? Disengage? Pretend that we don’t have a vital stake in future of the Middle East? We do of course, everyone does; the world runs on petroleum. But with increasing globalization this would be true even without petroleum; there will always be something to trade, always something to lose. On September 10th we had something to lose - it was the feeling of invulnerability that two oceans can provide. Now the dawning recognition that our short-term Cold War interests have begun to backfire on us, now the recognition that those backfires don’t have to happen overseas. Whether deserved or not our curse is to be held accountable for letting bad things happen to good people. We are the foreign conspiracy that operates beyond challenge all over the world. We are the scapegoat, we are the target, we are that which stands between any other nation and world supremacy. Do we sit on our hands when we feel threatened? Well obviously no, we were pretty quick about rooting out the Taliban (something someone should have done long ago). But the 9/11 trail led to Afghanistan and the Taliban government did not have a great deal of international recognition. Iraq presents a different problem; Iraq could have easily set the precedent that would have made UN disarmament programs useless. The sanctions regime presented an untenable situation, a standoff between the West and Saddam that only victimized those who had no direct say in the actions of their government. Like a pressure cooker popular discontent kept building and building, a fertile ground for terrorism. I’m not trying to justify the war here, but I am willing to recognize the rationale that holds it preferable to the status quo.

The state, through a monopoly on violence, creates stability. Its authority is founded on how well it serves that function. Saddam has given Iraq stability but it is the stability of a pressure cooker and that same story plays out all over the Middle East. I am a firm believer that democracy is a natural pressure valve on popular discontent, it helps to ensure that the uses of official violence are legitimate. It allows the people to react non-violently and effectively to the misuse of official power. What I am being told here is that this solution to the simmering extremism that pervades the region is unrealistic. Successful democracies are not made overnight; we can’t just toss them the instructions manual and have them set it up themselves. Or perhaps we can, as in Iran, but in the case of Iran it was necessary first to reject the manipulations of the West before the people could be disillusioned by oppressive radical Islamic theocracies and see the benefits of more open societies. Waiting for Islamic extremism to run its course is not an option likely to make many Americans feel comfortable. Instead we have chosen to use our power to provide stability; let’s hope we can. Hopefully that will give us a chance to make those benefits clear.

The lifting of the sanctions regime will be an immediate benefit, investment in the traditional industries of a growing economy will bring jobs and higher living standards to the Iraqi people. It’s hard to be disaffected with the government when you are relatively well off; when you suddenly you have something to lose. Saddam has been stealing the bread from the mouths of his own people in order to further a military agenda, a military agenda that the US had no reason to trust. So if democracy is unrealistic then the very real benefits of a post-Saddam Iraq most certainly are not. That is how we can build trust, by showing that we haven’t come to steal the resources of the Iraqi but instead intend to make them rich by paying for them. Perhaps democracies are premature, but if whatever is left in Iraq is merely a repeat of the same brute violence and repression then we will have failed. We must work to show the very clear benefits of a government that is beholden to the rights of the people above all, obviously not a concept familiar to those living under absolute dictatorships.

It won’t happen before the war ends, it may not happen for a few years afterward, but I trust that it will happen. The benefits of a free society are far too apparent. The Iranians are starting to figure that out. I guess what I am trying to say here is that the Middle East might have “their own villain” but it is up to us to show them how their villain is holding them down in order to serve his own aggrandizement. Realistically, it seems to be all we can do.

260

Disingenous?

Is it any more disingenous than our stated program of bringing ‘liberty’ and democracy to Iraq in the context of a Middle East policy long collusive with pet dictators?

Mind you in terms of the last, I understand that, this region is not welcoming to virginal policies, but at the same time our conversion to democracy is both sudden and shallow in terms of the region.

In general, the first is part of the very typical, “he’s ours” attitude that you find all around the globe. Rally round the leader, an ancient instinct.