Over at Crooked Timber, Daniel Davies writes (somewhat incoherently) about ‘The Iraqi Resistance and the Noble Cause.’ I think he means to suggest, on one hand that
bq. “Whatever Christopher Hitchens thinks, they are the direct moral equivalent of the Viet Cong; they represent much of what is worst about the human condition, and any future in which they gained power would most likely be outright disastrous, but for all that, to take up arms against an occupying foreign army is not an ignoble thing to do, and I can quite understand why lots of people on the left have been sympathetic to them.”
…and on the other that:
bq. “Iraq is not Vietnam (or more specifically, Iran is not China) and they have no hope of victory. All they can really do is prolong the occupation and therefore the misery.”
But then he moves directly to this:bq. “The time has well past by which anyone with brains in their head could reasonably hope for anything other than swift and reasonably democratic elections, a declaration of victory and for the coalition troops to jump in the tanks, start the engines and stop driving when they see the first McDonalds.”
So what the heck?
I don’t for a moment doubt that on February 1, there will be a long queue of Democrats queued up in front of the television cameras explaining that “we can bring the troops home now,” and that they will even be joined by some Republicans.
In January 2003, I said that I would support the Iraq war if several conditions were met – one of which was:
We’re in this for the long haul. We don’t get to ‘declare victory and go home’ when the going gets tough, elections are near, or TV shows pictures of the inevitable suffering that war causes. The Marshall Plan is a bad example, because the Europe that had been devastated by war had the commercial and entrepreneurial culture that simply needed stuff and money to get restarted. And we’re good with stuff and money. This is going to take more, and we’re going to have to be willing to figure it out as we go.
There are no good examples of this that I can think of in history. The postwar reconstruction of Japan comes the closest, and it’s not necessarily a good example, because the Japanese by WWII were a coherent, unified, hierarchical society that could be changed by fiat from the top. The Robert Kaplan-esque world we’re moving toward isn’t.
I supported Bush because I believed that he wouldn’t be inclined to ‘declare victory and go home,’ and so far haven’t seen anything to suggest that he’s changing his mind. The appointment of Rice as SoS, and her effort to bring like-minded staff into the core of the foreign policy apparatus is a key piece of evidence in this regard.
But I’m still watching, and to David and the others who think the troops should head for a Mickey D’s as soon as the Iraqi votes are counted, my response is simple … hell no.
Not only would such an act be deeply immoral in any world in which one doesn’t see murderous thugs as a ‘legitimate voice of national resistance,’ it would abandon the Arab world to more decades of brutal, kleptocratic dictatorship – wrapped in either the nationalist or pan-Islamist flag – and would expose Europe and the United States to a rising wave of violent, militant Islamist action.
We’ll be done when we’re finished, and we’ll be finished when we’ve won. It’s that simple.
AL, the line is already forming. There are 16 House Democrats who’ve signed a petition urging the President to pull out now.
My goodness! They’ve opened a McDonalds in Tehran?
There will be more… see Roger Simon post that refers to “The War Against World War IV”:http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/01/not_just_johns.php – there are people on the left AND right who have staked their ideological lives on failure in Iraq.
Defeatism is not new, and the pullout cries have been ongoing for the past several years. I say, let those who wish to withdraw and surrender declare this openly and honestly. Nothing like having a clear target.
NO WMD, other than those in the holds of the battle carrier groups offshore Iraq.
Bush has messed-up up BIG TIME.
HE HAS TO FIX IT!
I just can’t resist. Can I feed the troll just this one time, Blogfather?
Cloned Poster, you are aware that the only way to fix the problem in Iraq is to stay there, aren’t you?
Being descended from Scots (“Wha hae wi’ Wallace bled”) I resent seeing Robert Burns dragged into Davies’ confused mental landscape. It’s the moral equivalent of David Duke quoting Martin Luther King, I think. He should jump in his car and drive to the nearest Clue Tree, then give it a good running head-butt.
“We’ll be done when we’re finished, and we’ll be finished when we’ve won. It’s that simple.”
With all due respect, it is not, in fact, that simple. The U.S. has other things to think about, and there are opportunities for victory elsewhere in the event that, say, a sovereign Iraqi government demands that we leave.
“Not only would such an act be deeply immoral…”
Which explains its attraction to the Left.
Personally, i’m conflicted. I was also one of those who demanded we be in this for the long haul. But… there was only really one worse possibility than pulling out prematurely, and that was half assing the entire affair resulting in escalating levels of violence which always works in favor of the insurgent. So Im hesitant. For all the gradualism in this contest, there is still a definite air of Grenada on a grand scale on the political/reconstruction end. Its like a game of Tetrus, the longer you wait to get serious the fewer your options are, and to my mind we still arent _truly_ serious.
What I am pretty sure of is if we keep going about this the same way we have been all of our worst fears will come true. The hearts and minds battle is over (with mixed and disapointing results) so we might as well go along continuing to treat the reconstruction like a pothole filling project in Cook County. The only really interesting thing now is whether the Sunni resistance gains enough strength via Syria to challenge Shiia control of Baghdad after we are asked to leave, and hence whether Iran gets involved. Its plausible that we could reorient our mission into keeping foriegn (and Baathist refugee) influence out and let the Iraqis sort things out for themselves. But I dont see it happening, so we are back to square one, basically watching the insugency blast to bits every attempt at order the Shiia and Kurds make while we hammer down the nails that we manage to find. Until they ask us to leave.
Glen Wishard, well put and the comparison between David Duke and the equally vile Daniel Davies is well made.
Interesting that many think Iraq will ask us to leave. Once we are gone, a democratic Iraqi government is likely to feel very lonely and isloated in a nasty neighborhood. They, and the world, also know that no one need fear the Iraqi military. Iraq can look at the example of U. S. troops remaining in Germany and Japan for half a century to assure, successfully, the government systems whose birth we assisted and conclude that there is no rush to send the Americans away. Especially if the Americans keep a low profile outside the major urban areas, say in the western desert and the eastern border.
I suspect we have between now and the next election cycle to establish a low profile presence in Iraq providing external security only. If we are successful, only the Sunnis will want us to go and that won’t be enough. I wouldn’t be surprised if we want to leave before the Iraqis want us gone.
I’m with you AL. We leave when the freely elected constitutional government of Iraq asks us to if it does. That will not happen until sometime after this election.
We need to see this through for a lot of reasons.
WHY would the Shias and Kurds want us to leave?
So they can fall prey to the stronger Iran (Persian arch-enemies) or Syrian Baathists (Saddam 2.0) or Saudis?
Having US troops there makes them safer, so likely we will have troops there like in Japan and Germany for a long time.
There is a heavily cited passage from Salam Pax (remember him?) which is pertinent to the discussion:
So far seems Salam was prescient.
The situation now is perhaps best thought of in terms of a superposition of positive and negative states, as opposed to some “shade of grey” in between. On the one hand, I don’t believe there is much that can prevent some sort of consensual government forming in Iraq, dominated by the Shia and Kurds, with a substantial (but not dominant) Shia clerical component. On the other hand, I honestly don’t see how Iraq will be able to completely avoid the “Beirutification” Salam feared – my conjecture is that the intransigent Sunni elements driving the “insurgency” are fighting primarily for their own status and station, not for the “national pride against the imperial occupier” nor the “global caliphate against the infidel”, although these are both existent in the mix. These intransigent elements will not soon be dissuaded.
The risk to the government comes not so much from the (despicable) violence of the “insurgency” as the legitimacy this insurgency is accorded in the rest of the world. The nascent Iraqi government, and the process of its evolution, ought to enjoy the support of any who would claim liberalism or progressivism as their creed – yet the allure of the Sunni insurgency will likely prove fatally attractive for those in Europe and the Middle East seeking any instrument with which to triangulate against the United States. The Iraqi government arising out of the next two elections will have to work hard to win legitimacy.
The phenomenon of “Beirutification” entails some moral risk for ourselves and allies. Iraq will be vulnerable to outright “Lebanonization” by Iran and Syria, absent our armed protection. On the other hand, the low grade civil war (and make no mistake, this war has started already) must be fought by the Iraqis, and is not likely to be fought under the rules of engagement prescribed by international law. Therefore we associate ourselves with it at some risk – witness the recent debate around “death squads”. The US will have to tread carefully here.
Ultimately I expect the coalition to be invited to leave, probably not this year, but sometime in ’06. A consensus between the major political players in Iraq (Sistani et al) could create a popular demonstration which would make this invitation binding. At that point, folks, it’s over, whether or not we’re “done”.
All the “major players” in Iraq know that the moment after elections they ask, we will leave. A popular demonstration would indicate they are no longer in control of events. Because to invite us out as the country is descending into beirutificaiton would be suicide for the major players.
Richard Heddleson,
I would hope we do, if asked.
Not if instigated by said players. Witness the Najaf demonstrations instigated by Sistani against Sadr. Sistani was pretty clearly in control there, IHMO. I hope it wouldn’t come to that, but some might see it as a useful drama to claim the legitimacy of those who “ended the occupation”.
There are limits to the extent to which we can protect the nascent Iraqi government – there is a civil war on, but it is Beirut, not Gettysburg. At some point the cost in lost legitimacy may balance out against the benefit of armed protection.
Of course, I’m speculating and extrapolating here, but I don’t believe I’m too far past the existing data points.
Ìt is not yet a civil war. Only the Sunni are engaged. The Shia and Kurds will have to decide if they wish to pick up the gauntlet after the election. It’s not clear they won’t yet. We can’t prop them up for ever, but we do owe them turning thengs over so that they have a chance of proceding to success.
Richard H and lewy14;
I’m with you. But I’d like to add that I don’t think the war on terrorism can be “won” in the foreseeable future. It will be ongoing with different arenas at different times. But ACKNOWLEDGING that fact is going to be the hardest battle. And I hope that steady improvement and some electoral validation in Iraq will gradually make some of the loons who think all terrorists are good guys driven to desperate measures by Western oppresstion reconsider. Don’t laugh; it has happened from time to time (see Norman Giras, in this frequently cited posting.
**oppression**
I continue to believe, with Mohammed and other posters, that the Shea’t and Sunni are far from monolithic blocs, and that there will be no sectarian factions in control after the Secret Ballot does its work. Note that this is what has happened in local election after local election, even in the Shia south.
I don’t think there is much “sympathy” for the insurgants from the left. Even Micheal Moore’s ) comparason of the insurgents with the Minutemen isn’t sympathetic in the “support them” kind of way. The insurgants are religious fanatics and in their own way extreme conservatives, not people leftists find sympatheitic at all.
However their is more of a willingness on the part of the political left to acknowledge the reality of other people’s nationnalism. conservatives, while frequently nationnalistic themselves, have a real blind spot when it comes to how other people feel. Also conservatives underestimate the power of nationalism. When Micheal Moore compares the insurgents to the Minutemen he is not saying that the insurgents are good people. He is saying that they are motivated by nationnalism and will be, therefore, far more willing to suffer and die in this conflict that we are. And he is probably right.
lily –
Nothing personal, but hi-ho, hi-ho, a-fisking I must go:
I don’t think there is much “sympathy”
I don’t know what you call sympathy, but Moore says the insurgents are the moral equivalent of Minutemen, he says that they will win, and he says we must ask God to forgive us for fighting against them. Moore’s rhetoric is extreme. His views on Iraq (shouldn’t have gone, get out, Bush sucks) are entirely typical of the left, and increasingly typical of liberal Democrats. Take away the embarrassing style and Moore could not be more representative than he is.
The insurgants are religious fanatics and in their own way extreme conservatives, not people leftists find sympatheitic at all.
Absolutely false. The left has no such consistency in their sentiments. When called upon to be consistent, the left obscures the religious fanaticism of the insurgents (and the Palestinian intifada) by talking about “nationalism”.
However their is more of a willingness on the part of the political left to acknowledge the reality of other people’s nationnalism.
Absolutely false. The left had no sympathy for the nationalism of Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler – Thank God, thank God, thank God. They had no sympathy for the rightful nationalism of Eastern Europe under Communism, with the exception of a few leftists like Susan Sontag. And the left absolutely hates American nationalism.
Davies says nationalism is a “not ignoble thing”, which is a weasel way of tipping his hat to the so-called nationalism of Jihadist butchers, but nationalism is a morally neutral concept – to everyone except leftists, who are unique in their hatred of nationalism. The left is interested only in the “nationalism” of America’s enemies, and only as a rhetorical dodge.
Also conservatives underestimate the power of nationalism.
Japanese and German nationalism was as robust as anybody’s, and they had tanks and aircraft carriers to back it up with. Obviously nationalism doesn’t necessarily win the ball game.
BTW – explain please what sort of nationalism motivates Syrians and Palestinians who are fighting in Iraq.
“We’ll be done when we’re finished, and we’ll be finished when we’ve won.”
Circular logic, if such a thing exists. The problem is how do you know we’ve won without ever defining it? This is not sports, we’re not counting points.
For me, as long as there is ONE american in Iraq, there is a target there for ONE unhappy Iraqi (at least), and therefore one more dead person, eventually. So if we accept that winning includes no more dead Americans, then we cannot win and it will never end.
I view the Iraq conflict not from the perspective of “victory” or “defeat,” but rather whether America and Iraq can create conditions that benefit both countries. This means a free and stable Iraq that respects the basic rights of its citizens, represents their interests, rejects terrorism, and does not make war against its neighbors.
The insurgents want Iraq to be free from America, yet they embrace instability and terrorism. They will never represent the interests of Iraq, because they want to continue the sad history of Sunni dominance over the Shiite majority. The thought of an armed minority suppressing the will of the majority should be offensive to Americans.
I buy into the theory that the Islamic militant aspect of the insurgency is very minor. It is predominantly driven by Baathists (Baathism being an extreme philosophy of Arab nationalism) and Sunni tribalists, who share the goal of maintaining Sunni control of Iraq and retoring the quality of life they enjoyed under Saddam (at the expense of the Shiites and Kurds.)
If the insurgents are freedom fighters, they aren’t getting the country any closer to freedom by suicide bombing crowds of children or by butchering humanitarians like Margaret Hassan or Nick Berg. The way to free Iraq is for the insurgents to join in the rebuilding of Iraq. When the country is stable, America will leave. The Sunnis can then regain their power by reconciling with Sunni Kurds and creating a rift in the Shiite community between Ayatollah Sistani’s religious-based coalition and Iyad Allawi’s secular coalition.
We will never know when to leave or even what really happened in Iraq. The Media gaps,gafs and shaded reporting will leave us all misinformed.
Here is a quick read.
Aiding and Abetting the Enemy: the Media in Iraq
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Wishard:
Your bizarre rant about The Left was more a blow against Straw Men than any kind of rational answer to Lily.
Just review Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh was a Communist, but also a Vietnamese nationalist. LBJ was obviously a member of “The Left” but also a strident anti-communist. “The Left” is a strawman, since there is no more of a unified “Left” than there is its equivalent on the “Right.” (Or have you not heard of “Pat Buchanan” and the paleoconservative critique of our current Iraq adventure?)
If you don’t yet understand that Islam and nationalism can go hand-in-hand, then you haven’t been paying attention to events since 1945. Rent “The Battle for Algiers” or look up Frantz Fanon’s _A Dying Colonialism_ to see how Islam was used in Algeria against the French.
Lily’s point, perhaps, was that too many “conservatives” think that inside every Iraqi is an American waiting to come out. Maybe, maybe not.
I just read Papa Ray’s link to a soldier on the ground in Fallujah. He’s optimistic, but angry that the “MSM” is going to lose us another war. Here’s a nice passage:
_I sit in my command post at Camp Fallujah, Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets in the city. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle’s 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. Right now, as elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year._
Okay, just digest that for a minute. He’s talking about reducing a city to rubble. This is guerrilla war, and the insurgency _always_ wins when it forces the stronger power to inflict disproportionate damage on civilians or infrastructure. That “symphony of destruction” sounds a lot like how we treated many Vietnamese towns, or how the Russians treated Grozny.
And remember, too, what happened in Mosul just after Fallujah II. The Iraqi police and Nat’l Guard were chased out of town by insurgents.
To blame Dan Rather, or CNN, or the man in the moon, for obvious mistakes by OUR leadership, is to do the same thing a lot of Germans did after 1918. Google up the word _Dolchstosslegende_ for a few details.
Uh, no. They don’t always win. See under Hebrews, Romans, wars of. Or look at Algeria today. Or Sudan. Etc.
Careful you don’t fall into simplistic traps yourself.
“…the insurgency always wins when it forces the stronger power to inflict disproportionate damage on civilians or infrastructure.”
And no, this guy is not talking about reducing Fallujah to rubble, which has not happened – and your claim that it has (or, most laughably, that it resembles Grozny in any way) undermines your credibility. Badly.
“Scissors, good comment.”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006163.php#c23 I wouldn’t worry about the Sunnis suppressing the Shi’ites or Kurds again, though – no way either community will stand for that. The Shi’a won’t blow their chance to throw off the shackles of Sunni domination themselves in an election, and their leaders preach restraint for now while advocating the vote as the best response to frequent anti-Shia terrorist attacks. But after the election, that won’t be a factor any more, and the war will begin to get very serious if the Sunni tribes are determined to continue.
There really is no way for the Sunnis BUT forward, in a country where the relevant question is WHOSE nationalism one is talking about and wherein they sit as a distinct minority.
How many of the Sunnis get that yet remains to be seen.
stickler: If you don’t yet understand that Islam and nationalism can go hand-in-hand …
I said no such thing, as you can see from what I wrote. Of course Islam and nationalism can go hand in hand, as we are witnessing an attempt by Muslims to build a democratic nation under the current leadership of Allawi, who is a native Iraqi.
Al-Zarqawi, on the other hand, is a Jordanian terrorist who is under sentence of death in his own country. Bin Laden is a Saudi terrorist who is likewise an enemy of his own country.
Who represents the true nationalist cause in Iraq? The Iraqis who are determined to hold elections, or the Jihadists and Syrian-backed thugs who murder them?
Some very interesting reading here.
Insurgencies don’t always win, but then they don’t always have to. They only have to endure until the occupier no longer has the stomach to sustain the cost. I don’t think we’re ever going to do what the Romans did to the Hebrews, not without totally discrediting our cause. And I don’t think the references to Algeria and Sudan are apt, because in both cases the insurgents are fighting an entrenched power structure that will never give up and go home, because it already IS home.
I was opposed to this war because the evidence presented to the public (WMD, links to Al Qaeda) stunk like week-old fish. This, I think has been borne out. My feeling is that the grand geopolitical plans of Perle, Wolfowitz, _et al_, are what really got us in (i.e. establish strong US presence and friendly client state in strategic oil-rich area), but that they vastly underestimated the difficulties presented and resources required, so now we’re stuck in Iraq, damned if we leave and damned if we don’t.
If we pull out soon, there will almost certainly be lots of blood spilled in the ensuing power struggle, but if we stay, the current guerilla-insurgency scenario will likely just drag on and on. Iraq isn’t Vietnam, but there are parallels: an unpopular/ineffectual government, an army that doesn’t want to fight, an unpopular US military presence… It is sadly ironic that we’re staying to guarantee security, but we don’t seem to be able to establish much security. I don’t think the powers-that-be have the political will to take it up a notch, and it isn’t clear whether that would even do any good.
It is going to take a lot to “succeed” in Iraq: intelligence, skill, money, blood, and not a small amount of luck. Frankly, I don’t think that those who got us in have the wherewithal to pull it off. I fear that this is going to be one of those wars that span administrations and even generations. (Unless of course we just declare victory and get out, _a la_ Vietnam.) It is nation-building with an intense degree of difficulty, and I don’t see the political will. LBJ sacrificed his political career on the altar of Vietnam. Is GWB willing to go that far? Well, he’s a lame duck anyway, so perhaps he is.
Maybe we should hand it off to the UN. If that works, then it’s all good, right? And if it doesn’t work, then the neocons can say, “See, I told you so.” It’s hard to see how it could be much worse than it is now. I don’t see the Baathists regaining control now that their power structure has been smashed, and I think the jihadis are only there looking for targets of opportunity. (It’s strange to talk about “jihadi nationalism” anyway, since the beheaders are mostly “foreign fighters,” are they not? I wouldn’t count the Shiite militias among the jihadis, since they clearly have a political dog in the political fight.) And on the subject of jihadis, I frequently wonder how the “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” rationale sounds to the ears of the average Iraqi. Not too good, I imagine, like we’re having our brawl in their backyard: Two wars in one.
My guess is that if we were to leave we’d see a short civil war followed by the emergence of a quasi-Islamist Shiite-dominated government. Not exactly what the architects of the war had in mind, but it’s hard to figure out exactly what they DID have in mind beyond the removal of Saddam and some flower-strewing and statue-yanking. (The next person to say “a free and democratic Iraq as a force for peace and stability in a troubled region” gets the Mindless Parrot award currently held by Scott McClellan.)
Needless to say, a lot is riding on this election. Clearly a lot of the violent opposition to it is motivated by anti-US sentiment, as has been mentioned. Given that, it would seem that the less we have to do with this election, the better. I would say postpone it to a firm date in the future, 3 months or so, and get as many countries as possible involved in the security and administration of it, even if that requires going to the UN with hat in hand. I’m afraid, though, that the domestic political considerations of the Republican party would rule this out.
This comment has gone on long enough already, but I’m compelled to say that comparisons to the occupations of Japan and Germany are not apt. First of all, our occupation troops there weren’t so much “establishing security” as (a) consolidating our victory and (b) starting to build bulwarks against our Russian, and later Chinese, rivals. And Japan and Germany alike were nations with relatively homogeneous populations (tragically, in the case of Germany) and strong traditions of willing obedience to authority. Neither is the case in Iraq.
No _schadenfreude_, honest. I would like to see the best possible solution for both the American and the Iraqi people, but I’ve got a bad feeling about this one.
We will know that it is time to pull out when the Left finds a new source of moral outrage. That is the surest indicator of success.
Then we can ‘withdraw’ our troops to a few desert outposts well outside of Baghdad and begin dealing with Iraq’s neighbor to the West.
I am still suspicious that there were weapons in the Bekaa valley. The only question is whether they are still there, or steaming around on a ship somewhere.
Stickler:
_Who represents the true nationalist cause in Iraq? The Iraqis who are determined to hold elections, or the Jihadists and Syrian-backed thugs who murder them?_
The Iraqis who are determined to hold elections? They are either former unofficial co-workers for the CIA (Allawi) or Shiites confident they’ll inherit the country (Sistani). I’m sure that many if not most Iraqis want representative government but I’ll bet their enthusiasm for a permanent American military presence (even if off in desert bases west of Baghdad) is almost nil. Do you really think Sistani — or Sadr — will ask Uncle Sam to stick around and help run the oil fields?
The people attacking our troops are … whom, exactly? Baathists? Syrians? Criminals? What makes you so sure they’re all foreigners? Don’t you think many Iraqis see us as occupiers? In international law, that’s what we are.
Remember, too, the touchstone of Iraqi nationalism (since, being thrown together by the British as a “nation-state” in 1919, they didn’t have much else). The 1920 revolt against Britain. Even before the Baathists took over, that event was held up as a national moment of glory. Do you not see how this might make things more complicated for an Anglo-Saxon, Christian, occupying force?
What is it with everybody using international law as some sort of woobie? Is it because the Left is upset that Bush is trying to appoint judges who won’t legislate from the bench?
I haven’t heard anyone even cite specific international laws to back up there point.
The only international law that I am interested in is maritime law. The need for agreements on maritime law has existed for hundreds of years.
But don’t start citing international law in governing America’s actions unless you are willing to admit that this is a sly attempt to set the stage for trying to join the ICC.
We’ll be done when we’re finished, and we’ll be finished when we’ve won. It’s that simple
Let me be so bold as to fill in the blanks.
We’ll be done when we’re finished Sucking up all that precious OIL, and we’ll be finished when there won’t be any more OIL left. It’s that simple.
stickler –
Everynow and then I have to argue with you, just to remind myself why I never argue with you.
Yes, it’s all about Oil, the CIA, and military bases. In fact, my post was just part of a COINTELPRO operation to annoy you. Sorry.
One of the sadly forgotten chapters of American history is the Phillippine insurgency, as it holds lessons for the United States in Iraq. The lesson I draw from the experience is that the US can defeat insurgencies, but it will require extremely brutal measures, an offensive mindset on the part of the US, generous humanitarian projects, and a decades-long commitment.
Much like in Iraq, Aguinaldo’s regular army was crushed in 1899, and he made the decision to launch a guerrilla campaign instead. The bulk of the fighting continued into mid-1902, by which time Aguinaldo and his military commanders were captured. After this point, there was still sporadic resistance for a decade, and the US (due in part to Japanese invasion) did not restore full independence until 1946.
Saddam Hussein was no Aguinaldo, but it makes me wonder whether Izzat Ibrahim (or whoever else is funneling Baathist money and weapons to the insurgents) could fill that role.
Bottom line is that for the US to succeed in Iraq, we will be there in some capacity for decades. The insurgency may take five years to vanquish, as Tommy Franks predicts. The nation-building effort may take 20 years or more. One can only imagine the cost in money and lives, and each individual will have to decide whether the benefits of a democratic Iraq (or the consequences of massive American weakness in the event of withdrawl) are worth it.
In case you folks are interested, I wrote a (warning – fairly long) post on my site called “The Catastrophe of the Iraqi Resistance”:http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2004/12/catastrophe-of-iraqi-resistance.html. Basically, it is a pretty strong critique of the present state of the Iraqi resistance from a Left POV. The post essentially says that the Left should not really be supporting either army in Iraq – not the US imperialist/colonist/Crusaders nor their super-reactionary, racist, Medieval, religious fundamentalist opponents. I do take *strong* exception to Glen Wishard’s repeated posts about the Left, or US liberals, supports the Iraqi resistance. Some do, some don’t. US liberals usally don’t but some on the Left do.
Those of us on the who take the position I do get pounded from both sides – the reaction to my piece has been either “I’m bad cuz I support the resistance and hate the US” or “I’m bad cuz I support the US resistance and hate the resistance”. They can’t both be true. We are under pressure to support the resistance, but if we live in the US, we are aslo under pressure not to flame “the US military”.
The Phillipines is a bad example precisely because the US is not in Iraq in the capacity of empire building.
It isn’t up to us to crush the “insurgents”. Ultimately it will be up to the Iraqis. On the one had there are enough elements of Iraqi society with enough unity for this to be possible. On the other hand, it will be at best very bloody and protracted.
If you want a comparison, think Lebanon, in the 70’s and 80’s. And it that sense, it isn’t even a pure insurgency, but a proxy war which also involves Syria and Iran.
The idea that the United States seeks colonies or empires and will fight for decades to conquer a foreign people is risible.
And another thing. As an exercise to concentrate our minds, it may be worth asking the question which is the complement of the original question which A.L. posed: namely, how will we know if we’re beaten?
If the Sunni “insurgency” kills enough people on election day to squelch the process. If the Arab League and the EU and the UN fail to recognize the results. If the Iraqi National Guard melts away. If the popular sentiment outruns popular leadership and mass demonstrations demand the withdrawal of the Americans and the return of the militias in the South and North, as a means of securing a protection which we fail to provide. If the “insurgency” pulls off a TET offensive which manages to control a few key locations, and wins recognition from the Arab League as the “true provisional revolutionary government” of Iraq. If the “insurgents” reestablish control in Fallujah and throughout al-Anbar, creating a terrorist safe haven. If the EU and the UN step in to “mediate”, propose “negotiations”, and attempt to feed us to the beast they would legitimize. If the “Kosovo” and “Bosnia” are added to “Beirut” in the palate of metaphors used to describe the civil war.
I don’t think this will happen. My aim here is to answer the question – if we were to lose, what would that look like? Going on two years after the invasion, the situation remains a close run thing – closer than we might have hoped, anyway.
Robert Lindsay: I do take strong exception to Glen Wishard’s repeated posts about the Left, or US liberals, supports the Iraqi resistance.
I said that Moore was representative, not that everybody agreed with him.
But when you talk about “Neo-Colonialist and Zionist imperialism” (and other such stuff out of dog-eared Marxist comic books) and you call that a “progressive” viewpoint … Well, it doesn’t matter too much which side you’re on, so long as it isn’t my side. If you’re the reasonable alternative to Moore, I’ll take Moore.
I know that reasonable leftists exist, of course. Some of us hope to see a sort of Coalition of Reasonable People who can see past left and right towards common interests and larger goals.
I don’t see getting much help from you in this effort, Robert, barring some major ideological make-over on your part. It’s not just because of the antique leftist jargon. You correctly recognize Zarqawi as a sadistic killer, but I can’t give you too many points for noticing something so obvious. The problem with the “resistance” is not that Zarqawi is a fiend – the problem is that they are trying to destroy a democratic future for Iraq. This is not in the interest of Iraq, and it is not in the interest of any so-called nationalism. It’s in the interest of Iraq’s enemies, and in the interest of the region’s anti-democratic elites who have denied liberty to Arabs for decades.
You recognize that the Islamism of Zarqawi and his ilk is brutal, backward, and bigoted. Unfortunately, it’s obvious that your sentiments extend to all of Islam, and to religion in general. This is neither correct nor helpful. Your brand of “progressive thought” has competed with Islamic culture before, in the old Soviet Union. Your side lost, big time. You might think Islamic culture is backward, but compared to the artistic and intellectual wasteland of socialism, it’s a regular Renaissance.
The Phillipines is a bad example precisely because the US is not in Iraq in the capacity of empire building.
Then, what is the US doing in Iraq?
Ps. The US killed/caused the death of ~200,000 philipinos between 1899 & 1902 (out of a population of 7.5 to 10 miilion).
How many will we have to kill in Iraq to create Peace? If we succeed by killing/causing the Death of a couple million iraqis, how will we be better than Saddam or any other Mass Murdering Dictator?
Lewy14 says “The idea that the United States seeks colonies or empires and will fight for decades to conquer a foreign people is risible.” But the contemporary vision of empire is somewhat more nuanced–we bolster friendly states and depose unfriendly ones. We do not respect sovereignty, believing that our interests (economic as well as security) are more important than that “antiquated” concept.
It can’t be a surprise to anyone that nations act primarily out of self-interest; the real issue is the extent of the actions they are willing to take in pursuit of that self-interest. The current administration has certainly “taken it to another level,” that of pre-emptive war, something that has heretofore been characteristic of nations that are characterized as “imperial.” (I would include the former Soviet Union in that characterization.)
What is a “colony?” A subservient economic unit, essentially. Richard Perle is fond of saying “We don’t take oil; we buy it.” But if the Iraqi oil industry is privatized by the new Iraqi government, as it almost certainly will be, then US companies will be first in line for the contracts and the US will be assured of a reliable supply of oil at congenial prices, weakening the hammerlock the OPEC has on our economy. Furthermore, our continued military presence in the Middle East will have a chilling effect on other area oil producers who may be tempted to turn off the tap. That is the new face of empire.
Here are the indicators to watch: Will the Iraqi oil industry be privatized, and who will get the contracts? Will the US establish permanent military bases in Iraq?
tomi: “That is the new face of empire.”
No, it isn’t. It’s just the new version of leftist rhetoric about “imperialism”, which is as useless as all previous versions.
Any nation having peaceful economic ties with the United States is accused of being part of an American Empire, and any effort to establish such ties is condemned as imperialism and neo-colonialism.
So what choices does a developing nation have, to avoid this awful fate? Only one, really: Poverty and economic isolation, under a dictator who controls all resources and who barters oil for weapons. The people won’t mind being brutalized by this dictator, because he is not a “foreign occupier”.
I guess we wrecked your idea of Third World Utopia when we overthrew Saddam. God forgive us.
“and so far haven’t seen anything to suggest that he’s changing his mind.”
That’s true, but from James Baker’s remarks I wonder if we’re on the verge of bipartisan recognition that “we’ve won” is no longer an attainable goal. Now, I opposed the Iraq War in part because it seemed to me to establish a tithe of hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives annually as part of an anti-terrorist campaign that was largely symbolic (while our and our allies’ security agencies continue to disrupt terror networks through the derided policing techniques), and AFAICT, on current policies and “progress” we could be feeding the Baghdad Minotaur until the Earth falls into the Sun. The Republicans have run two very successful election campaigns on Iraq. But three? Five? Eight? “Stay the course” in 2024?
Has Iraq won two consecutive elections for the Republicans? It certainly played a role in the 2002 congressional campaign, but by 2004 it was President Bush’s biggest liability. Its impact was felt on the congressional elections as well. I would have to say that the Republicans triumphed in spite of Iraq in 2004. No, George, your re-election was not an affirmation of your Iraq policies (although a significant minority is calling for him to be more aggressive, rather than less aggressive.)
Of course, if you listened to the Democrats’ spin machine after the election, President Bush could attribute his victory solely to the same-sex marriage issue…
Robert Lindsay: I do take strong exception to Glen Wishard’s repeated posts about the Left, or US liberals, supports the Iraqi resistance.
I said that Moore was representative, not that everybody agreed with him.
That’s not really accurate, unless you are talking about the Left, and not your average liberal. Your average Dem liberal is not fond at all of the Iraqi resistance.
But when you talk about “Neo-Colonialist and Zionist imperialism” (and other such stuff out of dog-eared Marxist comic books) and you call that a “progressive” viewpoint …
Well let us look at this a moment. The theory that the US is now practicing neo-colonialism is an extremist theory, nor is the notion that the US is an imperialist state. That is not something out of “dog-eared Marxist comic books”, those are objectively provable notions, and you don’t have to be a Marxist to figure that out. And Zionism exists too, the notion that Zionism exists presently is only controversial with some Jews (mostly Israeli) in heavy denial.
And that’s all considered progressive, it’s not something you “call” progressive, it flat out IS progressive, that’s their line.
Well, it doesn’t matter too much which side you’re on, so long as it isn’t my side. If you’re the reasonable alternative to Moore, I’ll take Moore.
Fine, Moore, the guy who calls the IR the Minutemen, and me, the guy who calls them a monstosity. Great.
I know that reasonable leftists exist, of course. Some of us hope to see a sort of Coalition of Reasonable People who can see past left and right towards common interests and larger goals.
Your co-optation attempt will not work with me, buddy.
It’s not just because of the antique leftist jargon.
It’s not “antique”. Imperialism exists, notably US imperialism. Zionism exists. Colonialism exists, and so does neo-colonialism apparently. There is nothing outdated about those obvious facts.
You correctly recognize Zarqawi as a sadistic killer, but I can’t give you too many points for noticing something so obvious.
And it’s not a common view on the Left either, not commonly talked about anyway.
The problem with the “resistance” is not that Zarqawi is a fiend – the problem is that they are trying to destroy a democratic future for Iraq.
What democratic Iraq? There will never be any democracy in Iraq as long as the US is there. The US plan is to destroy any kind of democracy in Iraq into the forseeable future, and turn Iraq into another fear-controlled US vassal. Anyway, some of the resistance is pro-democracy, including a group I DO support, the Iraqi Patriotic Alliance.
This is not in the interest of Iraq,
What is “Iraq” anymore? Some colonial puppet Vichy regime in Baghdad? Is that “Iraq”? Or is Iraq the sum of its residents? Anyway, polls show only 25% of Iraqis even want democracy.
and it is not in the interest of any so-called nationalism.
And why not? Dictatorship is perfectly compatible with nationalism if the people desire it. The Iraqi resistance is highly nationalistic, I will grant them that. A lot more than the country-selling traitors in the Allawi Quisling state.
It’s in the interest of Iraq’s enemies,
Who are Iraq’s enemies, anymore, anyway? Israel? I have no idea, you tell me. You mean the enemies of this puppet vassal state?
and in the interest of the region’s anti-democratic elites who have denied liberty to Arabs for decades.
It’s sure a fascinating theory, but it sure doesn’t explain why the Iranians have been pushing so hard for these elections, nor why the Syrians have scores of Syrians who went to fight in Iraq in prison. The PA is a fairly democratic place these days, why aren’t the Arabs all attacking Palestine? Why don’t they attack Turkey?
You recognize that the Islamism of Zarqawi and his ilk is brutal, backward, and bigoted.
More to the point, it’s extremely *conservative*. Kinda like Republicans, and George Bush, and the Israelis, and Colombia.
Unfortunately, it’s obvious that your sentiments extend to all of Islam, and to religion in general.
Well you have hit on a very interesting point, but frankly, what I am outraged at is the Islamic *extremism* of the IR, not necessarily the fact that they are Muslims. That is really a highly radical Salafist/Wahhabi line they are pushing. I think Salafism and Wahhabism are the enemy, and perhaps should be considered *banned philosophies* in the US, with those subscribing to it either forced to renounce it or else be deported.
I am willing to live with Islam, but I think it’s a really good question whether a progressive Islam is even possible, or whether or not Islam is just a reactionay religion. IRT other religions, I do not really care, except that I don’t like conservative or reactionary anything, and that goes for religion. I myself am a *Christian revolutionary* of the liberation theology school. I don’t care how pious someone is. Personally, I don’t like puritanical or prudish anything, but that hasn’t much to do with Left politics.
his is neither correct nor helpful.
Nor is it correct. There are now revolutionary Christians all over Latin America, in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Guatemala, Haiti, Venezuela. And also in the Philippines and now in Palestine. Google “liberation theology”.
Your brand of “progressive thought” has competed with Islamic culture before, in the old Soviet Union.
I believe that was an atheist regime. I think Marxist rejection of religion is stupid and I don’t see why a Marxist can’t be a Christian. There are many in Cuba, it’s a big movement. Further, I have a soft spot for Orthodox Christianity in particular, and may want to join an Orthodox church even.
Your side lost, big time.
Who, the Russian Orthodox?
You might think Islamic culture is backward,
I think it really is, and this is not a new view, it’s been around for many 100’s of years, and it’s time we on the Left discussed it and quit sucking up to backwards Islam. Islam is a force of conservatism and reaction, and thus is not good. If someone comes up with a progressive Islam, I want to see it.
but compared to the artistic and intellectual wasteland of socialism, it’s a regular Renaissance.
Oh really? Is that why the Soviets beat us to the moon? Is that how Cuba has the best-developed economy, the finest health car and a world-class biotech industry? Is that why Cubans are the best-educated people in Latin America? Is that why North Korea is building a nuclear bomb?
Because socialism makes people stupid? Don’t make me laugh! As far as the arts go, well, I am not really a Marxist in general, though I might support it sometimes. I am more a non-Marxist Leftist. My big favorite now is Hugo Chavez. I generally support strong artistic freedoms in most cases.
The correct historical analogy to Iraq is the British defeat of communist insurgents in Malaya in the late 50s. We have employed some, but not all of the successful tactics used by the British.
The critical components we have failed to impliment include not declaring a total American departure once the violence ends and government is installed, and not creating a national picture ID for every Iraqi (combined with a modern database used for identifying and tracking suspects and trends). The former has never been fully hashed out by the administration and the latter is a no-brainer that is completely inexplicable.
Mr. Buehler, the British never really won that counterinsurgency. It’s just a big lie. That war went on on fits and starts until 1989, 30 years after the British “won”. I believe only 1 ethnic group was rebelling anyway. More than Communists, they were really anti-colonial nationalists like the VC first and foremost. When did Malaysia get its independence? That should be about when the insurgency settled down.
I have been studying insurgencies for many years now. You win if you kill lots and lots of guerrillas, usually, if the guerrilla has a powerful movement. Or you give in to the some of their demands, in which case it’s a tie and not a win. These cases of “winning insurgencies” tend to crop up again about 5-10-15-20 years later, when the greivances are not addressed. Examples would be Guatemala, Mexico, Colombia, El Salvador, Peru, Kurdistan, Chechnya, Bolivia, Philippines.
Oh, so the Brits agreed to take off when some new “puppet regime” got elected. I bet that did it right there.
“That war went on on fits and starts until 1989, 30 years after the British “won”.”
I think you are confused with Chinese and Indonesian incursians into Malaysia, which cropped up for many years.
“More than Communists, they were really anti-colonial nationalists like the VC first and foremost”
No they were communists since early in WW2 when they elected a Politburo and were the only effective resistance to the Japanese. They drew much of their strength and logistics from local ethnic Chinese. The Malayan indepedence movement was launched by the loyal Tunku Abdul Rahman who fought the communists and brokered the independence deal in 1956.
“When did Malaysia get its independence? That should be about when the insurgency settled down.”
1957. Which is indeed when the insurgency died down. Which was the British strategy all along.
“I have been studying insurgencies for many years now”
Apparently not very thoroughly.
“You win if you kill lots and lots of guerrillas, usually, if the guerrilla has a powerful movement.”
The US killed perhaps 1,000,000 in Vietnam.
“Oh, so the Brits agreed to take off when some new “puppet regime” got elected. I bet that did it right there”
It was a democratic election and in fact the British were invited to stay to help end the insurgency, which they did, and later helped fight against Indonesian invasion. Britain and Malaysia remain on close terms to this day.
Glen Wishard: “Any nation having peaceful economic ties with the United States is accused of being part of an American Empire, and any effort to establish such ties is condemned as imperialism and neo-colonialism.”
I hardly consider the current relationship of Iraq and the US to be “peaceful economic ties.” It is occupation in the aftermath of war, regardless of how you view the legitimacy of that war.
The US expedited the recovery of Japan and Germany after WWII with policies that promoted economic self-sufficiency, e.g. favorable trade policies, allowing protection of domestic industry, etc. I would hardly consider the resulting success stories to be examples of the “Third World Utopias” to which you so sarcastically refer. This is what we could and should be doing in Iraq, granted, that is, that we really do desire to see “a free and democratic Iraq as a force for peace and stablity in a troubled region.”
In contrast, the current ideologically-driven _laizzez faire_ policies force Iraq’s crippled industries into competition with powerful international cartels, virtually guaranteeing that Iraqi industry will never get back on its feet and Iraq will remain a client state into the foreseeable future. Even the Economist called this development scheme “a fire sale.”
I don’t believe that this outcome was inevitable, and while it is a huge improvement over continuing to suffer under Saddam’s tyranny, it certainly isn’t the best option for Iraq’s future. And isn’t Iraq’s future what it’s really supposed to be about?