Fiasco: The American Military Adventure In Iraq

[M. Porcius Cato]

Perhaps the more relevant and louder "now" comes from another group polled earlier this year in February--US troops.

 

After you were initially non-responsive to my challenge, I thought you were merely careless. Now, I'm beginning to think you're intellectually dishonest. The poll you cite found that 71% of troops are opposed to the US leaving now, roughly the same proportion of Iraqis who are opposed to our leaving immediately. Thus, the loudest voice on "now?" is "NO!" Indeed, 53% of those soldiers surveyed said the US should double the number of troops and increase bombing missions to contain the insurgency. To take these results as support for your claim that US troops want to leave now is to deliberately misrepresent the facts.

 

I do agree with Virgil that military operations should not be conducted by poll, but if you're going to cite poll numbers, you should at the very least distinguish between what is and is not a majority opinion when characterizing the views of large groups of people.

[Pertinax]

Did no one in the US Establishment give this work any credence?

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Babel-Dragomans-In...TF8&s=books

 

which says , in effect, get tough and take no crap or get out (or leave it alone) and forget it.

[Kosmo]

I disliked the US intervention in Iraq and I still do. It was a very poor decision, but should not mean that now US can pack and leave the place a mess.

Both the confilct between sunni, shia and kurds and the increase in Jihadism were easy to predict events. Not for me, of course, but the roots of today conflict were visible for a trained eye. Maybe the Iraq blunder it's not just an error, but a test for decision taking on foreign policy for US and other major players.

If the US could find internal resources to change his aproach on decision taking in foreign policy it will continue to be the world's superpower. If not, both the system of alliances and internal public opinion will force a withdrow of US power from abroad.

Things do not go so bad in Afghanistan and nasty talibans and terrorists made the attack more justified, but it was as well a bad decision because the presence of NATO forces depends on Pakistan and Pakistan has no intention or capability of leting those insurgents down. Taliban forces are on a steady rise and they will force an increase in international forces to keep up.

The War on Terror got stuck in 2 conflicts with no solution in sight. But neither the opponents have a solution and so the wars are still open ended.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

LII, it seems Bush forgot to write his document for pre-emptive strike without a declaration of war. [/sarcasm] Perhaps he did, maybe it stated something about 'WMDs'. We didn't find any. Good job president.

 

Here's my take on things: We won the war, we kicked a$$. Didn't the troops reach Bahgdad in 21 days? We won the war, but are losing the occupation. War and occupation are two drastically different things. The US can destroy an enemy army with ease, but standing on a street corner playing police is a different thing.

 

Hopefully a lesson is learned. Presidential power should be a little more limited. Congress declaring war is useless when you can send 'em in anyway. Mexican War, Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq.

Edited December 7, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[Moonlapse]

I'm reading 'Hegemony or Survival' by Noam Chomsky and I find it incredibly relevant to this topic. Anyways, speaking of lessons learned, I hope that people learn that simply being cynical about the misuse of global dominance won't change a damn thing.

[Northern Neil]

One of the lessons that should have been learnt by western democracies in the last 60 years is that western style democracy cannot be imposed or suddenly brought about in countries which have only ever known feudalism or dictatorship; it has to evolve through very traumatic events. The UK and the US both had to undergo civil wars and a role as dictator to colonial peoples before the democratic state of those countries was finally achieved in the early years of the 20th century. Germany and Russia had to suffer far worse, and the other democratic nations of Europe had to either go through occupation, or assume the role as a dictatorial colonial power. These processes took in some cases hundreds of years. Afghanistan and Iraq were assuming the intermediate stage between feudalism and democracy (dictatorship). Religion had no firm place in government, which was open to people of all faiths. Women were allowed education and minor jobs in government. With respect to Afghanistan, I am refering to the communist government, not the western sponsored Talibans who subsequently gained power. Both countries have now returned to feudalism because of attempts from without to try and impose full democracy (or for more shady economical reasons). In Iraq, the Shah tried to make the place a western style country in the space of a few years; the result was a kneejerk reaction by religious conservatives, and then the Ayatollah. As Tariq Aziz, the Christian deputy to Saddam, said: 'If you get rid of us, you will end up with something far worse'.

 

A pattern has evolved here. Secular, Middle Eastern countries, often western - or at least, Socialist - in outlook, are pressed by various means into becoming fully western and democratic, only to slip back into a feudal, Islamic groundstate. How many times does this have to happen? Why are our sights now on Syria, for God's sake?

 

At present Iraqis do not want western style democracy; the majority would be glad to return to a dictatorship in which you were ok as long as you kept your mouth shut about religion or politics. The remainder - a minority, but a very large one - want revenge.

 

Imagine: a neighbour, the local gangster, murders your wife and kids for not giving protection money. He has done this to other people on the street. you can do nothing about it because he is powerful. A policeman moves in across the road, removes his power, and then decides to hold a party, saying 'let bygones be bygones'. He expects everyone on the street to do this, attend his party, and henceforth become good neighbours. Your violent neighbour is suddenly powerless and friendless. What would you do?

 

That is the current situation in Iraq. A child could have predicted it, and some did when interviewed by the BBC. We shouldn't have gone in. We now need to stay. As an earlier commentator stated, war and occupation are two entirely different things.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

One of the lessons that should have been learnt by western democracies in the last 60 years is that western style democracy cannot be imposed or suddenly brought about in countries which have only ever known feudalism or dictatorship

 

What about Japan after WWII?

[Northern Neil]

What about Japan after WWII?

 

As far as its citizens (if not its own colonial slaves) were concerned, Japan had a similar standard of living to the US and Europe, and its citizens had a measure of democracy already. Tojo, after all, was the Prime minister of a constitutional monarchy, in which the Emperor had little say. They went to war with us, not the other way round, and because of competing economic interests. The differences we made there were economical, not political. It was a war between modern, industrialised nations, and an utterly different situation to which has existed in the Middle East since WW2.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

What about Japan after WWII?

 

As far as its citizens (if not its own colonial slaves) were concerned, Japan had a similar standard of living to the US and Europe, and its citizens had a measure of democracy already.

 

To sustain the argument you're making, you need to show that Japan was considerably more democratic and industrialized than Iraq. Based on the Meiji Constitution, I don't think it was. What evidence do you have that the Japanese had a similar standard of living to the US? I'm almost positive I've seen evidence of the opposite--that the per capita GDP of the Japanese prior to WWII was comparable to that of Czarist Russia, and certainly far, far less than that in the US and Europe.

 

I think the lesson from Japan is that if you want to export democracy, you have to break the will of your opponent and write the constitution for them. We didn't do either in Iraq.

[Northern Neil]

I'm caught a little on the hop there, as my initial discussion was not centred around Japan or WW2. All I'm saying is, that the Japan/allied war had many differences to the evolving pattern of enforced democritisation and subsequent failure as seen in the Midlle East. Suffice to say, Britain and the US did not see any reason to dismantle the existing governmental structure of Japan, and left its police force intact. There were no competing groups in Japan over which a dictatorship had to be imposed to keep order. There were no ideological or religious differences between Japan and the west, just economic ones, and on reading your much appreciated link, it seems that Japan was keen to adopt Western models of government and incipient democratic processes. I have not the intellectual equipment to verify my point empirically. My anecdotal evidence that standards of living were similar to ours is however direct - a Japanese friend of mine's grandfather was a Jazz Guitarist in a big band and he went to the cinema to see Hollywood movies as well as enjoying other aspects of a thoroughly western lifestyle. Yes, there were imperfections in this evolving democracy - but at this time, the Brits were still killing Irish, the US had black -white segregation and the French were happily slaughtering Arabs in Algeria. WW2 - eastern theatre was an utterly different political situation to modern day Middle East, and my very broad and imperfect definition of Japan in the 40's is given to exemplify this.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm caught a little on the hop there, as my initial discussion was not centred around Japan or WW2.

Yes, I know. I think Japan is a telling counter-example to the general lesson that you're attempting to draw from the failure in Iraq. Japan had been a fascist dictatorship (like Iraq) before a liberal democracy was imposed on it at the point of a gun (and battleship and nuclear weapon). Thus, the notion that you can't impose liberal democracy on a nation that has only known dictatorship is contradicted by the American experience in Japan.

 

My evidence that standards of living were similar to ours is direct - a Japanese friend of mine's grandfather was a Jazz Guitarist in a big band and he went to the cinema to see Hollywood movies as well as enjoying other aspects of a thoroughly western lifestyle.

That's an interesting anecdote, but one can't compare standards of living on the basis of anecdotes. According to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japanese per capita GNP was only $153 in 1950 and U.S. per capita GNP was $1,883.

 

As you can see in the following chart, while Africa and the rest of Asia remained very poor, per capita income skyrocketed in Japan (series III) after the US invaded and re-wrote the Japanese constitution:

 

In my view, the failure in Iraq did not come about because of any inherent impossibility in imposing democracy. The failure came because there is no guarantee of success, either, and the administration acted and planned as if all one had to do was topple the tyrant and watch liberty flourish. (Hey, Roman history fans, doesn't that sound familiar??)

[Northern Neil]

As you can see in the following chart, while Africa and the rest of Asia remained very poor, per capita income skyrocketed in Japan (series III) after the US invaded and re-wrote the Japanese constitution...

... before which it seems to have been on a par with Southern Europe and Scandinavia. Had it secured the resources it needed and waged its war for, its productivity may have rocketed anyway. Nevertheless, immense differences remain - the lack of competing groups and militias, the lack of any real ideological differences and the fact that the head of state and governmental structure remained. And, last but by no means least, the willingness to level cities with atomic bombs which is absent today. These circumstances are almost diametrically opposite to those surrounding the failure in Iraq, as indeed the natures of the preceeding wars were. You are quite correct that in Japan total democracy arose out of military intervention - but circumstances extant in the country were far different, and Japan had been westernising and industrialising for at least 100 years before WW2 started.

 

My anecdote, although not 'scientific' illustrates the fact that the Japanese people had no fundamental dislike of western culture or values, and even aspired to it. Less anecdotally, Mr. Yamaha started out in the 19th century making violins and other classical music instruments, for Japanese people playing European music. Many Middle Eastern people, on the other hand, are deeply resentful at the inroads our culture is making on theirs. Time and again, we have meddled in Middle Eastern countries which were starting to assume elements of western culture and government, only to find that our intervention has replaced secular dictatorship with religious and tribal feudalism.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

As you can see in the following chart, while Africa and the rest of Asia remained very poor, per capita income skyrocketed in Japan (series III) after the US invaded and re-wrote the Japanese constitution...

... before which it seems to have been on a par with Southern Europe and Scandinavia. Nevertheless, immense differences remain

 

Yes, there were also large differences between Japan and Iraq as well. But which of these differences really prevented the regime change in Iraq from having the same good outcomes as those attained in Japan?

 

My point is only that while blanket optimism for success in Iraq was unjustified, blanked opposition to democratic interventionism ignores the real success that have attained in the past. If there are lessons to be learned from Iraq, it's not isolationism.

[Northern Neil]

I think the problem is that so many people in the Middle East simply dont want our culture, or democracy. They have a culture of their own. Japan was embracing Western culture before WW2 began. I believe that a country such as Cuba would probably be ripe for liberal democracy, as so much of its culture is Western orientated anyway ( somebody told me they even play baseball - is that true? ). In such an instance, I think the points you have raised would very much apply. But I really think that we should leave the Middle East alone - unless a particular country, as with Japan, shows a trend towards Westernisation. And yes, Israel is a success in that respect.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Northern Neil

[M. Porcius Cato]

But I really think that we should leave the Middle East alone - unless a particular country, as with Japan, shows a trend towards Westernisation. And yes, Israel is a success in that respect.

 

But the problem is: a trend towards Westernization--in what respect and to what degree? Is Lebanon sufficiently Western? Egypt? Jordan? Syria? Iran? I think a case could be made for or against any one of these countries showing a trend towards Westernization, certainly as good a case as could have been made for Meiji Japan. Or: look at the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything, Afghanistan was far less Western than Iraq, yet Afghanistan seems to be going much better. How could this have been predicted beforehand--and why didn't anyone?