Will history judge it a "damn fool war"? Yes or no.

Great Debates
81

The status of this war in the history books will come down to two factors. First, of course, is how Iraq turns out in the coming years. If democracy takes hold, and Iraqis become prosperous and free, then it will obviously be seen more favorably than if it degenerates into a swarm of warring warlords, ultimately taken over by Saddam II. It’s not possible to call this yet, but I’m optimistic thus far.

The second matter of relevance is how historians describe the original motivations that drove us to war. If it’s described as simply a war to rid Saddam of WMDs, then that will tend to cause future generations to look down upon our reasons for going in (assuming, of course, the hunt for WMDs remains fruitless). If, on the other hand, the full range of reasons for invasion are given - violation of UNSC resolutions, freeing the Iraqi people, eliminating a dictator with proven ties to terrorism (if not al Qaeda specifically), war as an attempt at reforming the Middle East in toto, etc. - then it will come off substantially better in the eyes of our progeny.

What do I think, personally? Not a damn fool war. What will history think? Hard to say right now, but I’ll lean towards “not”.

  • Jeff
82

SimonX:

Outright colonialism: When a country is administered by a foreign power and whatever local authority is there can be changed by said foreign power at will.

Interference: When a country is administered by its own natives, possibly with the backing of a foreign power, but with genuine autonomy, and with said foreign power unable to remove local authority without resistance.

Because WWII is the point at which the old League of Nations adminitrative mandates began being abandoned by the French and British, and also the beginning of the Cold War, which was a greater factor in shaping international relations in the decades that followed than anything that preceded that demarcation line was.

Be that as it may, the CIA was not involved in the coup that actually brought Hussein to power…this from your own cite.

How so? Israel received almost no support from the West until after 1967. Granted, the Jewish population of Israel consists mostly of European immigrants, but that was heavily discouraged by the West at the time.

Again, looking at your own cite, it seems that this was an action taken by the Shah, a native ruler, with aid from America, rather than an American initiative.

Granted…but is making the attempt necessarily a “damn fool” thing? The potential payoff is tremendous…a sea change in attitude for several hundred million people. It’s a gamble, yes, but (especially after 9/11) hardly a foolish one, IMHO (oops, that’s the other forum).

Any attempt to install a democratic government in an Arab nation.

Chaim Mattis Keller

83

We have squandered precious resources that could be better used elsewhere–like actually fighting terrrorists! We have taken the international outpouring of goodwill that came after September 11 and turned it into hatred. We have betrayed and abandoned the people of Afghanistan–again. We have undone fifty years of progress in bringing the rule of law to the international arena by undercutting and invalidating the same United Nations that we fought so hard to establish after the Second World War. We have encouraged other countries to engage in the same kind of “pre-emtive” war (don’t think India and Pakistan weren’t watching). We have undercut our own Constitution by ignoring the checks against Executive power that have been in place for two hundred years. And by engaging in a war for oil, we have put ourselves in the same moral position as our enemies were in World War II. This war has divided and debased our Republic. It was the act of a fool and a madman.

84

We have taken steps to create real reform in the region of the world from where Islamic fundamentalist terrorists come. As a result, we have created a veritable terrorist lightning rod in Iraq, to which terrorists from all over the Middle East are traveling so that we can more easily combat them. It’s like a roach motel over there.

The outpouring of “goodwill” was comprised in large part of schadenfreude, and was contingent upon our being a helpless victim. That goodwill disappeared the second we decided to be proactive. Few people worldwide like to see the US succeed, for a variety of reasons.

No country is going to use the “pre-emptive war” excuse that wouldn’t have invaded their target anyway. If they hadn’t used that justification, they just would’ve found another.

Praytell, how did we do this? Congress specifically granted Bush authority to go to war.

I won’t even touch the “war for oil” nonsense.

  • Jeff
85

Installation of the Hashemites

I hope that’s what you actually meant, instead of, “The Middle East was never subject to very little interference.” Please let me know if i interpretted what you wrote correctly.

An autonomous country as a definition of interference, how odd.

The natives administer their own country with genuine autonomy and the foreign power’s unable to remove the local authority w/o resistance = interference?

THEREFORE

The Middle East was subject to very little of countries administered by their own natives, (possibly with the backing of a foreign power), with genuine autonomy, and with said foreign power unable to remove local authority without resistance?

Is this really what you’re trying to say?

Cite?

Bin Laden specifically lists the fall of the Ottoman Empire as the beginnning of the recent series of Western meddling in the MENA region.

True, but silly me, I was using a definition of interference that would’ve applied to plots to assassinate a country’s leader. Somehow I thought for sure that assassination of heads of state would fall into the category of “interference”. But, I now see that you are using a markedly different idea of interference than I was.

That is,
codswallop
"Then in 1917, the British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour committed Britain to work towards “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, in a letter to leading Zionist Lord Rothschild. It became known as the Balfour Declaration. "
andhogwash
"In July 1937, Britain, in a Royal Commission headed by former Secretary of State for India, Lord Peel, recommended partitioning the land into a Jewish state (about a third of British Mandate Palestine, including Galilee and the coastal plain) and an Arab one. "

At what what time? After it was too far gone?
“In 1922, a British census showed the Jewish population had risen to about 11% of Palestine’s 750,000 inhabitants. More than 300,000 immigrants arrived in the next 15 years.”

Again, I was so silly as to think that aiding the overthrow of a sovereign government would fall under the category of “interference.” I wouldn’t’ve ever guessed that anyone would classify it otherwise. I’ve lived and learned from your surprising definition of interference.

An attempt, no. The attempt that we actually made, yes.

86

Damn fool war. Let’s look at the pros and cons.

PROS:

Saddam Hussein’s insanely repressive dictatorship has been removed from power. The Kurds and Shi’ites of Iraq can breathe a little easier. So can all the neighbors Hussein attacked or threatened during his rule.

We (the Americans) have secured control over Iraq’s oil, which will continue to be pumped and exported, mainly to us. (Of course, Hussein was already pumping and exporting it, when he could, because what else was he going to do with it?)

That’s about it.

CONS:

We (the Americans) won, and now we are responsible for a huge, turbulent country in the most dangerous part of the world. The war cost us billions and the occupation will cost billions more. And we’re stuck with it. If we just pull out, without making some sure and certain provision for what comes next, Iraq will degenerate into a Lebanon the size of California, and in that case everybody will have more urgent things to do than work the oilfields, and what happens to gasoline prices then?

We are losing a few soldiers every week to partisan resistance. We must expect that resistance to continue until the last American soldier boards the last ship home. Nobody likes to have foreign troops occupying their country, not even when that is visibly better than what came before.

We have not won any victory in the “War on Terror.” Quite the contrary. There is still no hard evidence that Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, nor that he supported al-Qaeda. The presence of non-Muslim troops in a Muslim country is inflaming the pride and anger of Muslims all over the world. Some of them will even sneak into Iraq so they can join the resistance and shoot at Americans – some foreign Muslims did sneak in during the war to join with Hussein’s forces, even though it’s unlikely they cared for his government at all. And we can expect al-Qaeda’s recruiting success to shoot through the roof.

The continuing presence of U.S. troops in Iraq – and the Administration is planning to keep them there for up to eight years – is also a continuing provocation to all of Iraq’s neighbors (except for the Kuwaitis, who appreciate that they owe their independence to U.S. intervention in 1991). Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia know they might be next on the list. The Iraqi Kurds are likely to get some degree of autonomy in the new Iraq – which is a fine thing for them, but it will only encourage Kurdish nationalists in Iran, Syria and Turkey, which further complicates our relations with those countries; and Turkey, at least, is one we would like to have on our side. If the Kurds in Turkey start another rebellion – which side are we on? We’ll have a hard time remaining neutral, not with all those Iraqi Kurds living under U.S. rule.

Bush’s cowboy unilateralism in prosecuting the war has squandered all the international sympathy and goodwill America gained from 9/11, and provoked widespread anti-American feelings in countries that were solidly on our side before the war. Even the Brits might turn away from us, if the Blair government goes down because of this war, as it might.

The only way we can come out of this well is to establish a stable, independent, democratic government in Iraq. But what are the odds? Iraq has absolutely no history of democratic government. Iraq has absolutely no tradition of public service as something other than a way to gain advantages for the public servant’s family. There are a lot of powerful factions in Iraq, from Shi’ite fundamentalists to Communists, aiming at something entirely different from democracy, and they are not going to go away. Any government the U.S. puts in place will lack perceived legitimacy, because the U.S. put it in place; and that stigma will attach even to a government that is freely and fairly elected under U.S. supervision.

Damn fool war. Bush should have left bad enough alone.

87

In bin Laden’s latest message to Iraqis, he once again called Baathists ‘infidels’ and lumped them together w/ Americans, secular Kurds, Kuwaitis, Spanish, Brits, Aussies, Poles, Italians, etc.

Calling for the death of ones allies is an odd step don’t you think? Maybe they weren’t ever that close to begin with whaddya s’pose guys?

88

cmkeller

Here’s a site and a blurb that delves into the colocnialism of what’s often referred to as the Colonial Period.

emphasis NOT mine

If you’ll note these important highlights:

Moreover, here’s a link to a map of the ME outlining various areas of Western control:© 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company

89

Yes.

90

SimonX:

That was prior to WWII, when the British had the League of Nations mandate over the area. That was (and I mentioned this in my most recent post) specifically one of the reasons why I made WWII the cutoff point.

Odd? Perhaps. But a valid line to draw when considered in contrast to colonialism.

I’m well aware of the Balfour declaration, thank you. However, no action was taken to actually carry out the Balfour declaration, because British foreign policy from that time onward was run by Arabists, notably T. E. Lawrence (“of Arabia”). It was he who made nice with the Hashemites and other local rulers, getting the British to officially grant them sovoreignty over their own lands…and sometimes, to appease them, over others, such as the installation of Hashemite rule in a good chunk of Palestine (Balfour Declaration? What Balfour Declaration?)

The actions taken by the West heavily discouraged Jews entering Palestine, to the point where boatsful refugees from the Nazis were sent back to the death camps rather than be allowed entry. When partition actually did take place, it was the Arabs who ended up with all the British weaponry, and the Zionists were lucky to have had the forethought to smuggle arms from Czechoslovakia and other places. The fact that after a while (your 1937 quote, as well as the ultimate 1947 partition) the British and others felt they had to deal with the reality of Jewish presence there rather than try to prevent Jewish presence there does not mean that it was not heavily discouraged. British foreign policy was heavily pro-Arab.

Did you read your own cite? The Shah was the ruler there. His Prime Minister was on the verge of overthrowing him, so the Americans helped prop up the existing sovoreign government rather than allow the coup to be successful. They did NOT help overthrow a government, they helped prevent an overthrow of government.

Okay, now that’s a different argument. If you’d like to put forth what you think might have been a better strategy for accomplishing such change, I’m open to considering its wisdom vs. our President’d choice. But I still maintain that this is a new strategem, and not, as you suggest, “expecting different results from similar actions.”

Chaim Mattis Keller

91

I’d say justified.

For example if you go back into Germany the first two years of the reconstruction went nowhere and things were looking pretty bad. Then Truman came in and fixed things.

Bush and crew wont be viewed favorably about the war, but the war itself will seem justified.

92

I’m not going to address the OP much, as in general I agree with Adaher and others that say that history will judge and history is not now. It is far too early to make a real assessment. I will say I’n not yet terribly encouraged, nor do I believe it was a wise gamble. But we will see.

More off-topic…

cmkeller: I don’t think it is terribly profitable from a historical point of view to make an arbitrary cut-off at WW II, especially in this case, as WW I and the inter-war years are undoubtedly the most significant in terms of shaping the current political landscape of the Middle East. This is not a period so remote that we can consign it to the dustbins of history just yet - it is directly relevant to conditions today. It would be a bit like making the same cut-off in terms of Belgium’s administration of Rwanda-Burundi, which would result in ignoring perhaps the single most damaging act by the Belgians in that region - the hardening of previously blurred ethnic lines, which was most notably enacted in the 1930’s.

In point of fact, memories in the MENA are long and western interference ( whether nobly intentioned or just grasping and opportunistic ) long predates WW I. From the partitioning of enfeebled Iran into British and Russian spheres of influence, to the predatory and unequal economic treaties enacted with the Ottomans, European interventions internally in the Ottoman state ( the Greek war of independence, the Egyptian wars ), the piece by piece conquest of the Maghreb, Egypt, and the Sudan, etc… All play a part in MENA perceptions of the west, fairly or unfairly.

As to your criticisms re: Operation Ajax ( the anti-Mossadegh coup ), that cite of Simon X’s isn’t very detailed. I don’t have my reference material immediately on hand ( I can get them tomorrow ), but suffice it to say that the U.S./British intervention was not exactly a humanitarian gesture designed to save the noble Shah from a grasping dictator. Mossadegh was in place through a democratic process and the Shah was very much the force of royal reaction. Defending the Shah in this situation a bit like defending George III from those evil American colonists bent on removing him through a coup :wink: ( actually, it’s rather worse in my view - Mossadegh may have ultimately turned out to be a bad apple, but crushing democratic opposition for a tyrant for the sake of economic and political expediancy is an ugly thing ). Removing Mossadegh allowed the Shah to transform himself from a powerful constitutional monarch bound within a democratic framework, into an absolutist tyrant. Dulles doubtless disagreed, but personally, I absolutely consider it a black mark on the U.S… More to the point, most Iranians wouls agree with me, I think.

All that said, I think this…

…certainly has some truth to it. The West is a convenient scapegoat, sometimes even a better one than Israel, since it can be accused of rather more amorphous sins, like insidiously causing societal collapse through cultural imperialism. So your criticism in that regard is fair enough.

Ultimately, though, it is perception that matters. More so at times, than truth. The West needs better press and personally I remain unconvinced that this current effort is a good way of getting it ( certainly not if idiots in congress and elsewhere keep moaning about $89 billion, which frankly, far as I can tell, seems to be far too little to start with - the U.S. should be pouring cash into Iraq right now ).

  • Tamerlane
93

Yes, damn fool is being kind.

I assume/hope Milum was being ironic… “a courageous and magnificent expression of human love for other humans”?!?

94

Add another tally to the “damn fool war” count.

95

(bolding is mine)

The above comments are typical of the fanciful theorizing of neo-con policymakers. I didn’t realize the “Un-Realpolitik Daily” newsletter circulated all the way to Canada, Sam. It used to be that conservatives could at least be counted upon to be brutally pragmatic worst-case-scenario types. Perle, Wolfowitz, and Rummy clearly aren’t even that bright.

Even the most junior policy hack with his freshly minted Political Science B.S. can tell you that if you are going to commit to a ten-year plan of action, you damned well better have great big boatloads of political will (which derives directly from the electorate) to keep the plan going. Not to mention a commensurate commitment of resources and capital. The Bush administration has failed miserably to lay even the most basic groundwork to provide these types of prerequisites for successful international intervention. Instead they kept the whole thing secret, like an unseen brain tumor, until it was big enough to start causing migraines. By that time, it was too late - you either die from a brain tumor, or you submit to painful, expensive, debilitiating chemo and radiation therapy to try to make it go away.

Your “ifs”, Sam, are two reasonable alternatives, but hardly the only possible scenarios. And even if they were the two most plausible outcomes, the unalterable fact is that the Bush administration does not have, nor do they appear to be on the verge of having, a plan in place that is designed to either achieve the desirable outcome, or prevent the non-desirable one.

And as for the “End justifies the Means” crowd - I trust you will revise your perspective when Israel, Iran, India, and North Korea all launch major military offensives against their neighbors in the interest of preemptively defusing threats to their security. Did I mention that all four nations referenced possess nuclear weapons?

96

Tamerlane:

I don’t disagree with that, but the question is whether pre-WWII actions can be termed “outside interference” that logically should breed resenement amongst the populace. Once the Ottoman Empire was dismantled as a result of their loss in WWI, the victorious powers had every right to administer the lands that were once part of it. It was only after the British (and later, the French) began to grant independence to the countries of that region (a process that, I will grant you, began before WWII but wasn’t complete until after it) that any Western meddling could rightfully be considered “interference.”

True, but I think it’s important that the fair perceptions be separated from the unfair ones. To try to deal with misperceiving people by admitting to their isperceptions and acting as if they were real will only backfire, because those basic misperceptions could too easily change into others. Only when raw reality is the starting point for relations will attempts at good relations succeed.

I have few illusions about the humanitarianism of Western foreign policy during the Cold War era. Nonetheless, the Shah was just as constitutional an institution as the Prime Minister at the time. Rather than saving George III from American colonists, a more apt analogy would be saving Queen Beartice of the Netherlands from a (hypothetical) attempted coup by that country’s parliament. Is it wrong for an ally to come to the aid of an embattled allied ruler?

No doubt the Shah was a nasty, but he was a) the rightful ruler, b) a native ruler, and c) merely maintained by, not put in place by Western power. If that’s the kind of “western interference” that makes the “Arab Street” hate America, then it’s highly probable that future American absence from the region will merely increase misperception-based hatred, and that this war (segueing back to the OP’s question) was not at all "damn fool"ish.

Chaim Mattis Keller

97

No, that’s notexactly the question. It’s not so much a question of ‘should’ so much as it is a question of whether pre-WWII actions can be termed “outside interference” that logically did breed resenement amongst the populace.

Westerners are not perceived as insiders in the ME.
Whatever arguments you have to why their actions to redivide, reditribute and appropriate the wealth and political power of those living in the ME don’t constitute external interference may be interesting to hear.

When a country, on seperate continent, takes over the affairs of another country that doesn’t strike you as outside, or as logically producing resentment from those whose affairs have been taken over?

98

Chaim: "No doubt the Shah was a nasty, but he was a) the rightful ruler, b) a native ruler, and c) merely maintained by, not put in place by Western power. "

You’ve gotta be kidding. Rightful how? What did the average Iranian think of that - and his/hers is the only opinion that mattered? Do you think they simply did not care about Mossadegh’s disappearance? Our own ideology, one that has been an inspiration to the world, is based on the primacy of “the consent of the governed”, after all - whatever your views of Mossadegh and Pahlavi, one had it and one didn’t.

“Native ruler” doesn’t matter either - Ceausescu was a native Romanian, and that didn’t help him hold onto power. Again, the consent of the governed is what matters.

“Merely maintained by Western power” - you think that helped his legitimacy in Iranian eyes? Nope, the Shah was ultimately just another dictator who ruled by fear, and like any other, he was doomed as soon as his country’s people stopped fearing him. His Western connections didn’t help as long as they didn’t include massive numbers of troops to resist his people, and all the good they ultimately did us was to get some hostages taken from the embassy.

As for THIS war’s wisdom, the hopeful scenarios that have been proposed here so far all require the US government suddenly changing its approach to almost the exact opposite of what it’s been doing so far. The next administration might do something like that, if local attitudes haven’t sufficiently hardened against us by then, but to expect it from this bunch is simply fanciful. The same people who’ve made this situation such chicken shit aren’t going to turn it into chicken salad. This is such a damn fool war that Barbara Tuchman could have added a chapter about it to The March of Folly, and we don’t have to wait to know it.

99

SimonX:

Ah, there’s that magical word “perceive” again.

Because once the Allied powers beat the Ottoman Empire and its allies in World War I, those lands became theirs. The side of the war that the previous rulers of those lands was on lost. Being the loser is a tough reality to accept, but you can’t go forward after a war without accepting it.

Only if said take-over is an initial act of agression. If the take-over is the by-product of a defensive victory, no, it is not outside interference.

No, because logic has its basis in reality. Unfortunately, the mind-set of these Arabs is not based on the reality of having been on the losing end of WWI, and having been granted sovoreignty by the British and French as a gift, but (due to major ego-stroking, especially by the British), rather, on the perception that somehow these Arab rulers were being given what they’re entitled to, and that they’ve even been shortchanged somehow.

As a counter-example, post-WWII Japan and Germany understood that they lost their war, and, having accepted that, their governments did not scapegoat the Allies for whatever problems they had and forment unrest amongst the masses. LOGICALLY, the rulers and inhabitants of those countries understood that the problems were of their own predecessors’ making, and set about building a new society along a more productive model.

Chaim Mattis Keller

100

ElvisL1ves:

The Iranian constitution that was in force at the time dictated a form of government that included a Shah. If Mossadegh was plotting to overthrow the Shah, and the Shah was (with US assistance) defending his constitutional post, is that not rightful?

Be that as it may, I wouldn’t have characterized helping him, at his request, in maintaining his power as “outside interference.” If he originally came to power in a manner approved by the Romanian people (as the Shah did in Iran), then it was not outside interference.

Of course, how he originally came to power was not necessarily in a manner approved of by Romanians in the first place. The USSR effectively colonized Eastern Europe after WWII, though they nominally were considered separate countries.

Maybe not, but, whatever the Iranian perception, the reality is that the Shah was not a vassal of Western power, but an independent ally of it, already in power before the US became involved in any form. That’s been my point throughout…the Arab (and yes, I know Iranians aren’t Arabs, but in this manner they’re pretty much aligned with them) perception of their lives having been unduly impeded by Western powers is false, and if that’s what’s been fueling the anti-West sentiment in the Arab world, then the solution is not to nurse their misperceptions by continuing their non-interference that ends up being perceived as interference regardless, but to assert reality…that the problems are the doing of their own past rulers, and that democratically controlling their own futures, as the West does, will improve things in the long run.

(Sheesh, I think I just won the run-on sentence award.)

Now, please don’t confuse this with my saying that this is a morally right reason to initiate the Iraqi war. I’m merely saying it’s not a foolish one, which was the question posed in this thread.

Chaim Mattis Keller