If you don’t mind me asking a personal question (which you well may!), is there any chance that you might be tempted to take a hand personally, what being in the tranformation ring and all? No doubt Wolfie is looking for candidates of your caliber – or at least he’d better be. Hafta take a pay cut, though. 
Welcome back Collounsbury. You have been missed, as this thread demonstrates. And thank you Tamerlane for adding your always inciteful perspective. I am getting over a bad head cold and 13 hour jet lag, so excuse the rambling.
I think another nightmare scenario is a regional war. Either starting with a Turkish/Kurdish conflict or with the Iranians. Or with the inevitable massacre of civilians prompting regime change leading to attacks on Israel. Or perhaps this coupled with radical Islamists opening second fronts in the Philippines, Pakistan, or Malaysia. I don’t think it is that likely, but it is certainly more nightmarish than an isolated regime change or currency collapse in isolation. I saw a poll that something like 1/3 of Russians expect regional war to come from the actions in Iraq (83% are against the war).
A few questions.
How do you think Gore, Clinton, or even George HW Bush would have handled this situation (better)? Do you think anything could have been done to downplay the long-standing anti-American outlook of most of the Arab world? Do you think any short-term actions – Israeli/Palestinian peace accords, NGO promotion of institutions of democracy (free press and election initiatives), support of indigenous industry (Pakistani textiles, Egyptian cotton, yeah I know Pakistan isn’t Arab) – would have realistically lightened the world mood towards the US and would have prevented the universal despise of this war?
Next, I’m going to present a “silver lining” and I want your comments on it. Let’s take one of the bad outcomes – in 5 years, there has been regime change in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, increased discontent throughout the region. What happens in Iraq is totally secondary, but the original goal of the US – increased security for Americans – has not been met. Ugly regimes in the region take pride in sponsoring terrorism and massacring Westerners. But Robert Wright has said “Take the bitter pill early.” The US has swallowed the bitter pill. The “Arab street” now is no longer ruled by oppressive lackeys to the Americans. House of Saud or Mubarak are gone, for instance. And the “Arab street” gradually will lose their motivation for their anti-American hatred, as there is little American influence in governments largely of their own choosing. Much like what is happening in Iran (or was happening until Bush’s Manichean viewpoints poisoned the well), the seeds of democracy and representative government have been sown, largely in native hands, largely in native institutions. Yeah, they are not pro-Americans, but they are there nonetheless. And the region only gets better from there on out.
I think building a representative government in Iraq is a long shot. I think carrying out effective rebuilding in Iraq without pushing the rest of the region over is an impossibility. Perhaps I am embracing Discordia, but maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing in the long run.
I have enormous discontent with the Bush course of action. I think he has given us enemies of our own creation throughout the world. I think nearly every step of his foreign and domestic policies have been bungled. Every time I hear from him on the news, I have a new reason to cringe. But the situation in the region is bad to the core. Perhaps the instability can work to our advantages, not in the next 1 year, not in the next 5 years. It is obviously not what the current regime is planning, but perhaps we need not look towards Israeli democracy or a rebuilt Iraq as the shining beacon. Perhaps we ought to look at the revolt in Iran.
I’m better here in the private sector. Besides, I loathe Wolfie.
Collounsbury
Just thought up another question before I attempt to sleep (again).
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080712/
The nightmare of nightmare scenarios is perhaps that a protracted war/occupation could cause the collapse of the dollar. How likely is a possibility like this? What would its impact be on the region (and the rest of the world)?
I don’t think so. People in this thread are saying that the brown-skinned people understand nothing but brutality. I think that’s a stupid view.
Interviews with Iraqi exiles are painting a quite different picture from the one being painted here. They say that they do not respect brutality, and that freedom is the dream of Iraqis. They say that before Saddam, their country had a Gross Domestic Product equivalent to Portugal and that after Saddam, one in eight children die before the age of five. They say that the Fedayeen Saddam is terrorizing the populace, forcing them to fight against the coalition. They say that the Fedayeen is composed primarilly of condemned prisoners who have been trained by Usay Hussein. Is it your position that they themselves do not understand the region they came from?
No, that is not what is being said. I am sorry you have not been able to follow the rather more involved discussion.
What I have said is there are deep underlying habits and patterns of legitimacy. It is a gross distortion, a gross and willful distortion in my mind to indicate that the point here is people understand nothing but brutality.
But neither are things like Kansas either.
My position is, Lib, they are involved in Medh wal-mujamelat.
They’re selling you a product and anyone who does business here knows better than to go for the sucker lines the Souq people use.
If it makes you feel better to believe, go right ahead. Don’t be suprised however when reality turns out to be different.
Before, you said this:
And now you’re saying this:
Do you or do you not know what the reality is?
I do not expect a regional war. Regional instability, yes. War, no.
I do not know. I can say that it would have been easy for the diplomatic efforts to have been far, far better.
In fact almost trivially easy for a better job to have been done, IMO.
In my analysis, this largely stems from the influence of the neo-con ideologues, like Wolfowitz et Perle.
Absolutely. Still can be done.
Obviously dressing this up in a convincing way in multilateral clothes would have helped immensely.
Clearly more sophisticated and less openly contemptous public diplomacy would have helped, at the least in projecting the image of a rush to war, indeed a lack of a rush to war in fact would have been nice, giving time for better spade work to prepare the ground. There was no real pressing security threat, so more time could have been spent doing things right all around, and avoiding the catastrophic series of embarrassements such as the faked evidence, etc.
Sadaam is not a skillful diplomatic player, he would have made mistakes had we not been so busy making own goals against ourselves.
Obviously clobbering the Sharonistas and forcing a realistic peace plan acceptable in broad terms to P and I pops would have been excellent in terms of getting the terrian calmed down. Our backhanded approach to the issue is so glaringly transparent its painful. Some genuine and not forced attention would have really gone a long ways.
Let me say that a well managed transitional government in Iraq, one with some legitimacy could be a real short term boon, although the medium and long term threats remain what they are.
In many respects this is what I was getting at in my comments on Egypt.
Egypt is a time bomb. The political system is a sclerotic, corrupt rebirth of the old Mamlouk system with a veneer of democracy (Egypt once had some real democratic movements, they died out in effect, strangled by authoritarianism).
We are doing ourselves no favors in keeping these vampire states alive for fear of Islamicism. I say let the vampire die, take the bitter pill and work to see a better outcome.
I don’t know. I do not think a democracy per se is possible right out of the gates.
I believe the real goal should be a clean, reasonable goverment, reasonably respectful for civil rights, and with enough democratic aspects so as to start the process of germinating real democracy.
This will be a process, and a very hard one. Very hard. Clearly one of the main items should be to let the government reflect Iraqi views. No pressure in re Israel, other than not to be overtly hostile to the point of funding terror or whatnot. No moves that insult local sensibilities. Let that grow at its own pace.
That is the opinion of many specialists like myself.
Iran has seen more genuine popular democratic growth than any of our client states. Any.
I don’t get your question Lib.
Two different statements on different points.
Actually now I see what Lib’s saying.
My first comment was on a specific combat situation and on being in combat. Never having been in combat, not being shot at, I am not going to engage in cheap posturing about an event I have not seen, and in the context of wild claims on both sides. I covered that point adequately previously.
The second was on a larger issue of Iraqi reaction and specifically on the claims, agitprop really, of the Iraqi exiles. On this point, I can comment, I speak with enough Iraqis from enough different backgrounds (and whose last time in Iraq was recent) to triangulate with the news coverage [e.g as linked on some prior page here]. I also know enought about the way these kinds of characters, the opposition, like to sell a certain kind of simplistic image to Westerners eager to believe in it…
If Lib wants to discount that, fine no skin off my nose. Believe what you want Lib. I offer my perspective and the best read I have on things. You can accept as you like.
I very much appreciate your perspective despite that I am not showering you with Hosannahs. I understand that your perspective is valuable. You understand, I’m sure, that your perspective is not necessarily the One and Only Truth that by its mere existence renders alternate perspectives moot. This is Great Debates, and not the Collounsbury Great Library. I can’t even get you to condemn using children as shields, so I don’t expect to get you to understand where I’m coming from. I’m not going to roll over and be satisfied that I have arrived at the Fountain of All Knowledge by opening this thread. This morning, Centcom reported (and showed video footage) that thousands of Iraqi exiles are now working in coordination with coalition forces, bringing reassurance to liberated Iraqis who, very much as you have said, seem to connect better when they are assigned to locations that they came from. I understand the parochial nature of the heirarchy there, but I am just trying to allay the impression that the Iraqi people are stupid, inept, and brutal by nature. Not everyone is going to read every word of your wonderful posts. They are going to skim and catch words like “gangster” and snippets about Iraqis who said that they want a leader who will punish them into submission. In other words, I’m trying to help you here but you are pre-locked into a perception that I’m your enemy. Calling me an old man and so forth isn’t helpful. I can understand that you might be a bit giddy by all the fawning liberals who have heaped praise upon you, but I would remind you that he who sits on his laurels wears them in the wrong place.
That was my doing actually (the Guardian article I linked to gave many viewpoints from different parties exemplifying the difficulty in characterising “the Iraqi people”).
I believe Col is using “old man” in a British-Raj colloquialism kind of way, which is anything but derogatory. Also, he appears to be pointing out why democracy might be difficult/impossible to establish rather than championing those who obstruct it.
First Lib, Old Man / old man isn’t an insult. It’s jocular. If you find it insulting, sorry but that was not the intention with either you or Sam.
Second, I see your point - but if people skim and don’t dig in, well I can’t help that. It’s the reader’s responsibility to pay attention, not mine to candy wrap.
The situation is complex. Very complex. If the reader can’t understand complexity, the reader is not going to understand the events.
Third, is it really helpful to refer to “fawning liberals”? Never mind accurate.
I think you are mistaken. While it may be possible to find the meanings you are in the words that have been posted, I don’t think that these are the meanings intended.
Yes to the colloquallism, and yes but I do not think it is ‘impossible’ - it is impossible to establish a just add water and they’ll all be like us democracy, it is possible to get the democratizing process rolling.
That has worked elsewhere, it can work if done properly in Iraq, but simple minded thinking on what is possible in Iraq is going to get people in trouble.
For example, back to popular reaction to the invastion let me provide some quotes:
Basra ‘uprising’ evaporates
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1048313200925&p=1012571727172
Anti-Hussein Officials Rebuke Unilateral U.S. Battle Strategy
Dissidents Say Failure to Incorporate Iraqis Constitutes ‘War of Conquest’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34762-2003Mar26.html
Convoy hijacked in aid ‘disaster’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2891069.stm
Which describes something I saw on TV5; what is not mentioned is the crowd started chanted anti-Bush and anti-Blair slogans.
The explanation of the American soldier, they have to because of the cameras,…
Well, … perhaps. A convenient explanation to be sure, and probably 75% true. The remaining 25% is a problem.
I read the article and I have some thoughts, but no time to write them. Perhaps our resident economists can adress this, as this more a global macro economic issue. The core issue, I believe is really not Iraq related but a severe issue in re US accounts imbalances and a really severe pressure on the dollar from that.
Collounsbury, you keep mentioning that we need to look to Iran as a way to nativize (I just made that word up) the democratic institutions. While I agree completely and find it to be rather obvious, I’m not sure how it can be done.
From my limited understanding of the Iranian Revolution, it came as a rejection of the West - with anti-colonial leaders taking charge. I’m not sure how that would work in a post-war Iraq since the situation there would obviously and ultimately be under US control how any institutions set up could be viewed as legitimately Iraqi/Arab. And even if it were under UN control, let’s face it, the people mostly calling the shots at the highest levels would be former colonial powers like France, UK and the US (sort of).
I guess my problem is that I don’t see how the West can foster legitimate Iraqi democratic institutions, with or without participation from Jordan and the like, so long as it is seen as ultimately running the show.
Don’t you people sleep, ever?
Anyway, I’ll try to do a more comprehensive analysis of Russian opinion on the Iraq conflict, but my favorite news site (www.regions.ru) isn’t showing much at the moment that isn’t already available in mainstream English-language media. There is a story on Russians who want to donate blood for shipment to Iraq, but that it’s not technically feasible due to transportation problems, severe blood shortages withinn Russia, and a comment that many Iraqis wouldn’t accept the blood of non-Muslims anyway (is this even true?). There are stories criticizing the Coalition for its extremely unjustified optimism on how this war would shape up, militarily. There are some stories on economics: Ukraine wants to be Iraq’s economic partner in rebuilding, that sort of thing. There is a report that the Republican Guard is not allowing civilians to flee Baghdad. I’ll look for some more regional opinions later (Central Asian/Caucasian FSU country sources), but I’m less familiar with those sources, so it will take some time. Also, since I get to see my father and brother maybe a few days a year, I’d rather not spend it all online, no matter how fascinating the discussion.
By the way, I find the analogy between Saddam Hussein and Stalin to be very interesting (in terms of public opinion toward outside invaders, patriotism, etc.) Even non-Stalin-loving Russians talk about the achievements that were made during his rule in terms of literacy, industrialization, etc. with great pride. Many see the Stalinist period as one when the Soviet Union (with Russia at its head, of course) leapfrogged from a backward pessant society to being a world power, and doubt that it could have been accomplished without at least some of the severe measures of those times. Many see Stalin as the only way the USSR could have survived WWII. Even members of ethnic groups that suffered greatly during his administration (the North Caucasian nationalities who were deported to Siberia/Kazakstan, some Ukrainians) have a kind thing or two to say about him. (I’ve never known a Jew who had a nice thing to say about Stalin, though.)
So does anyone care to comment on the extent to which an analogous phenomenon might be taking place in Iraq?
Also, is there anything whatsoever that individual Americans can do on a micro-level to allay any suspicions that Iraqis might have that a) we’re out to get their oil and take over their country, and b) we think they’re a bunch of backwards hicks who don’t understand what we’re up to?
And one minor request for a friend: he’s been invited to speak in Egypt in May (he works for an international organization which will hold a conference there). He speaks only English (and bad Croatian) and has never been to the Middle East, and is rather conspicuously American. Should he take a pass on this one?
Anyway, I have to go for now, but I’ll check back later.
The only real link between the war and the $US is through the US budget position, which for a variety of reasons, has moved dramatically towards deficit in the last couple of years. The dollar has fallen recently, after a period when it was widely regarded as being overvalued. If the deficit continues to grow apace and the economy remains sluggish, the dollar will fall further.
That doesn’t make it a crisis. It makes for some (painful) adjustment for some. Unlike most of the countries mentioned in the article, the US has a floating currency. Capital flight under such a regime is much less likely. The dollar falling 10-20% would not be a currency crisis, it would just be a price changing. Stopping the dollar from falling would be foolish IMHO. Why would you want to?
In any case, the value of the dollar is not in itself important. At most, it’s a symptom of other problems. Either way, it doesn’t have much to do with the invasion. Confidence issues may dominate what happens today (and may precipitate and exacerbate a slide if the underlying conditions are ripe) but in the medium term the value of the dollar is determined by rates of return on investment and trade flows.
You’re right.
Well… yes.
That’s why I fear an Egypt on the Euphrates. A shitty corrupt client regime with some trappings of democracy but none of the real content.
But being the eternal optimist, I still hold out some hope.
Eva, my dear, its late afternoon for me.