Whither Iraq?

Great Debates
1

It now appears pretty much a sure thing that we will win the war in Iraq. So the question now becomes whether we will win the peace.

I have openly supported President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and I feel that regardless of what may happen, removing Saddam Hussein from power was a good thing. But I am far from confident in Bush’s capabilities overall (especially in the field of foreign policy) and I have a great deal of pessimism about his ability to follow this military success with an equal political one. George Bush unfortunately lacks a compelling likeness to Harry Truman (although there is a resemblance between Colin Powell and George Marshall).

So a debate on what should be done.

I feel one of the most important things we need to do is move as quickly as possible from an essentially Anglo-American occupation to an international one. That would include bringing in countries like France and Russia that opposed the invasion. Now is the time for building consensus not for saying “I told you so”. I also think its important for stable Islamic countries to be involved in any Iraqi nation building. I do expect however that these countries will be asked to help with a committment of resources (such as money or military forces) and not simply provide supervision of other country’s efforts.

The next question is what kind of Iraq can or should be created? Iraq will not become a second United States or Germany or Taiwan. We need to figure out what kind of political, legal, social, and economic policies and procedures will work in Iraqi society. Will democracy work in Iraq? Will capitalism? Is secular government a good idea there or should Islamic law be the foundation of the new Iraq?

Obviously at some point Iraq will have to be turned back over to the Iraqi people. The question is how soon. Should we immediately seek to form an Iraqi government to work through (and if so, from whom?) or is a interim period of direct control necessary? I know their are Iraqi exile groups and individuals that are anxious to return and dig in. Which ones will help and which ones will hurt? Who should decide?

Kurdistan is a whole different problem. Should Kurdish independance be encouraged? Should we be seeking a reunification of the Kurds into the rest of Iraq?

Many other issues to go into; regional diplomacy, arms control, war trials, repreations. Let’s go.

2

I’ve got no problem with international involvement, but NOT France or Russia. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, and were busy screwing over the Iraqi people by cutting sweetheart deals with Saddam because no one else would touch him.

But more to the point, the Iraqis won’t have anything to do with France or Russia. They are HATED in Iraq right now. Iraqis know who Saddam’s friends were. They know who tried to stop their liberation.

I think we’ll see relative order and peacefulness on the streets in Iraq within a week. People are already going back to work. When the lights go on in Baghdad in a couple of days, it’s going to be a big symbolic moment. From that point on, the reconstruction can start in earnest.

I’m pretty much a libertarian, so I think the actual form of Iraq’s reconstruction is unpredictable. I don’t believe in grand plans to rebuild entire societies - reality has a habit of getting in the way.

For instance, there are already ‘town councils’ forming to coordinate relief and get critical services up and running. Iraq is a fairly modern place. There are plenty of scientists, engineers, lawyers, etc. Some of them will do a great job during reconstruction, and some will suck. Charasmatic leaders will rise up.

In broad strokes, I think Jay Garner was a fine choice for Iraq administrator. Apparently, he’s already highly respected among the Kurds, who have already set up a reasonably democratic society. He apparently has tremendous skills in liason and organization.

So Garner will get peace established, get the power back on, get the people going back to the jobs they are trained for, etc. I think that’s pretty much his mandate. In the meantime, local governance, city councils, and such will grow in size and start coordinating between themselves. A structure for government will appear, and its exact form is probably unknowable today.

That’s about as far as I’m willing to predict. I have faith that it will work out. Iraq is not Afghanistan. It has wealth, it has an educated populace. It may wind up being much like Iran, for good or bad. But the people will be much better off.

3

Sam, you left out “IMHO, and without any substantiation,” at the beginning, and “Everyone lived happily ever after.” at the end.

4

Doesn’t it go without saying that when people are asking you to PREDICT THE FUTURE, that there isn’t any substantiation?

Sheesh.

5

No offense, Sam, but the last thing Iraq needs right now is Libertarianism.

As you pointed out, some form of government will eventually arise in Iraq. (If nothing else, one would be put in place by Syria or Iran). But the odds of a decent stable government appearing spontaneously is virtually non-existent. Even with careful planning and a lot of resources, the odds are maybe 50-50.

6

Well, that’s fair, Sam. But there’s a few factual assertions in there as well.

“…NOT France or Russia. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy,”

“…the Iraqis won’t have anything to do with France or Russia. They are HATED in Iraq right now. Iraqis know who Saddam’s friends were. They know who tried to stop their liberation.”

“…Jay Garner was a fine choice for Iraq administrator. Apparently, he’s already highly respected among the Kurds, who have already set up a reasonably democratic society.”

Just didn’t want those slipping through as any kind of self-evident facts.

7

You didn’t read what I said. I didn’t say there will be or should be a libertarian government. I said that, as a libertarian I don’t believe it’s possible to PREDICT what exact form the government will take. That’s all. I have no doubt that whatever government there is, it will be a far cry from any kind of libertarian society.

BTW, I’m not a big-L libertarian. I have libertarian leanings, but I’m far from a purist. Most of a social liberal and fiscal conservative, but there are no handy labels for that, so I usually just say “libertarian”.

8

See the thread on Russian perfidy regarding the sale of anti-tank missiles in violation of sanctions, and more importantly the accusations in the Telegraph yesterday regarding documents showing that Russia was giving intelligence to Iraq, including bugged conversations of Tony Blair’s.

Did you see their two embassies? They weren’t just looted, they were destroyed, and defaced. Lotta anger in there. The only other evidence I can offer was an interview on the street aired on TV where a reporter asked a group of Iraqis about France and Russia and got a very hostile reaction.

Then there’s the logical argument. If you were an Iraqi dancing in the streets today, how would you feel about the Russians or the French? They knew that those governments were in bed with Saddam. They saw them on TV, read news stories praising them, saw pictures of Saddam hanging with Chirac, etc.

Here’s some corroboration:

From MSNBC:

Fair enough.

9

Sam is Russia and France bashing again. Perhaps a small factuality check is in order.

First of course Sam keeps peddling the idea of France the nation cutting “sweetheart deals” with Iraq, although it would seem that what he’s actually referring to is the TotalFinaElf (a private company) deal with the Iraqi government, something of a dead letter. I have pointed out again and again the utter illogic of this accusation. Perhaps Sam on the other hand has something more substantive to bring to the table on this account, which I have missed. Otherwise, the concept of France being ‘untrustworthy’ is best understood along the same lines as his wishful assertions –indeed counter factual – that France is losing power in the EU zone, as translated as France has not pursued a foreign policy slavishly in line with neo-conservative holy writ, and thus must by cast out of the holy society of right thinkers.

Russia, well, Russia is a murky place and who the hell knows what the truth is there. However, cold blooded realpolitik (not the a la carte variety) says it is better to get a potential spoiler to buy into a game than exclude him and give him every incentive to upend the apple cart.

Perfidy, a quaint word. One set of lurid accusations in the Telegraph (check out or not, perhaps one would want to verify that.), and Russian sales of unknown provenance to Iraq. I have read equally lurid assertions regarding the US bugging the Sec Council members, etc., which of course get down to the old game of dirty tricks. Whether Russia passed intel to Iraq is perhaps an open question. If they did, that is nasty, but it seems that if we are to return to good old unbridled 19th century power politics, that is how the game will be played.

As to feelings on Russia and France, well Sam once again shows the wonders of confirmation bias:

As was the national museum and library, and indeed every building of any significance that was not religious and/or guarded, so Sam am I to presume there is much anger against antiquities and books as well?

Oh wondrous, and I can offer double that including quotes on negative reactions to Americans. Indeed even better, I can offer them from multiple sources in several different languages. Shall I also put up my Iraqi cleaning woman and her family? They love Chirac right now.

The reality is that there is no one Iraqi body of opinion and as some spade work to document my own first hand impressions documented in my thread on the overview of the issues, even among the Shia population there remains little in depth support for the invasion, for all that the oppressed Shia are happy to be free of Sadaam.

Further to this:

Sam thus creates a nice little fantasy framework to validate his feeling of what Iraqis should feel if they were he. Logical arguments connected to some tissue of reality are in the end rather more preferable. I personally, through the various Arabic media sources that I listen to and read have heard nothing of the sort, the commentary has been on America, with a highly mixed bag of reactions, some gratitude above all from the poorer people, mixed with demands and resentments, and assertions that the US forces should leave quickly.

As to the General, given the deeply warm feelings between Arabs and Kurds right now, and the degree to which the General’s statements on Palestine have been published, I will advance the observation that these are not positives.

As for ‘democratic society’ in Kurdish regions, with the exception of some quickly slapped together elections, of little real practical result, the region has been ruled for the past ten years by warlords, and remains divided between the main groupings. Democratic society indeed, in the fine fantasies of the writers of agitprop. It has, however, been better than Sadaam, although the ‘conversion’ to democratic trappings suspiciously timed.

10

As I said above, I have no delusions that Iraq will turn into Canada or Sweden. But can Iraq turn into Turkey or South Korea? A nation with at least an democratic ideal? If not, should we be looking for a new strong man to take over? If all this war does is replace Saddam with a better class of dictator, it would still be progress, but I was hoping for something more.

As for France and Russia, we need to face facts. They’re big countries and they’re going to have some influence in Iraq regardless of what American policy is. So we might as well invite them in the front door. Remember, us working with them also means they’re working with us.

As for dancing in the streets, we can discount most of that. I’m sure most of these people were dancing for Saddam a month ago and for the same reason - you do whatever you think the men with the guns want to see. In five years, the Iraqis might be genuinely grateful to Americans, but I’d doubt anything we’re seeing now.