Constitutions matter, because they confer legitimacy.
Dan Darling talks below about the Iraqi constitutional referendum, and points out that while a success for the Iraqi political process, it certainly doesn’t mean that the terror will stop.
The war certainly isn’t over.
But we’re moving toward one of the key preconditions for it being over, both in Iraq and more widely.
And that is an increasing rejection of the legitimacy of terrorism, and even Islamist politics … within Iraq and the broader Arab world.
This is critical, because as commenter DJPR points out (in suggesting that the election wasn’t all that, with or without the bag of chips):
Max Weber stated that the monopoly on violence within a given delinated territory is the fundamental definition of a government.
In the mid-to-long term, can the Iraqi Government achive this in any sort of meaningful way?
DJ makes a common mistake (not unlike going against a Sicilian when death is on the line); he misquotes Weber.
What Weber actually said (as I discussed a while ago) was that:
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
The question isn’t whether there is terrorist violence within Iraq, but whether that violence is perceived by a substantial part of the population as legitimate.
The recent Pew study (cited in the L.A. Times) suggests that terrorism is perceived by the Muslim world as less legitimate than it has been in the past:
The percentage of people holding a favorable impression of the United States increased in Indonesia (+23 points), Lebanon (+15), Pakistan (+2) and Jordan (+16). It also went up in such non-Muslim nations as France, Germany, Russia and India.
What accounts for this shift? The answer varies by country, but analysts point to waning public anger over the invasion of Iraq, gratitude for the massive U.S. tsunami relief effort and growing conviction that the U.S. is serious about promoting democracy.
There is also increasing aversion to America’s enemies, even in the Islamic world. The Pew poll found that “nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries.”
Support for suicide bombing has declined dramatically in all the Muslim countries surveyed except Jordan, with its large anti-Israeli Palestinian population. The number of those saying that “violence against civilian targets is sometimes or often justified” has dropped by big margins in Lebanon (-34 points) and Indonesia (-12) since 2002, and in the last year in Pakistan (-16) and Morocco (-27).
The success of the elections in Iraq is independent of the outcome; what matters is that all parties – Sunni and Sh’ia alike are engaged in a political struggle over the direction of the state.
They are granting some measure of legitimacy to the state; that is exactly the outcome that the Islamists sought to block.
We’re not done yet. But the things that we need to see happen do, in fact seem to be happening.
In January of 2003, I said:
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 while we’re damn good with stuff and money, this is going to take much more, and we’re going to have to roll up our sleeves, work, and be willing to sweat with this for some time.
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. I don’t think that Germany is a good example, because once we de-Nazified, there was some tradition of liberal politics to work with. The Robert Kaplan-esque world we’re moving toward doesn’t have any of that.
That’s true today as much as it was then.
There may be no “good” example of what we’re doing in Iraq, but there is a bad one: Haiti — 1915 thru 1930 — uhm, 1932, I think.
The US military occupied and began wiping out malaria, a forgotten plague called “yaws” and malnutrition. We build roads, opened schools, and trained doctors. And we completely revamped the military –instilling the idea of civilian rule. (For the next sixty years, the Haitian “Guard” still more-or-less took any and all orders from whoever could claim the presidency…)
The US — FDR claimed, he himself — wrote the Haitians a shiny new modern constitution and scheduled elections to ratify it. Naturally the US military provided security at the polls. Naturally the voters ratified their new constitution.
The French, after WWI- used the occupation of Haiti to object to US concerns regarding “imperialism” and “colonialism” and the League of Nations “Mandate Territories”.
The US military leadership ignored tribal and racial divisions in occupied Haiti — treating black, brown and tan Haitians all alike (with racist scorn, but all alike.)
And the occupation became a campaign issue between Herbert Hoover and FDR — and a “cut and run” style withdrawal competing with a “vietnamization” sort of phased handover. The “cut and run” candidate won the election and that was the ultimate result.
Imperialist colonial powers such as Japan and Germany considered the US military and the US electorate’s “stomach” and “will” for military action and the costs of conquest and made plans accordingly…
Lessons:
Don’t be racist.
Make the wogs write their own constitution.
Build institutions IN ADDITION TO the local military.
Phase down — don’t withdraw abruptly.
Consider the appearance of strength to the world at large.
—
Compare the results of Haiti to, say, Puerto Rico. Circa FY 2000, Haiti had a per capita GDP of under $1400. Even commie Cuba was better at $1700. But ex-Brit colony Jamaica has about $3500 and the US “protectorate” of P.R. has nearly $10,000.
If, by that measure, the US continues to “occupy” Iraq for the next century, while leaving the neighboring states alone, the Iraqis will be the wealthiest, free-est, happiest, most prosperous, and still cantankerous sons of guns in the region.
Or, we could cut and run . . .
I took quite a while this morning and posted a round-up of links on the vote.
Iraq is a very big oil exporter. I really doubt they would need the US to guide them to prosperity. What Iraq needs is the same economic policies which they had in the 70’s but that is something that the US can’t have as it is the opposite of the official US way
What Iraq needs is the same economic policies which they had in the 70’s …
Ah yes, restore OPEC to its former glory. The dream of President Chavez – jack up oil prices, distribute the largesse to rotten anti-democratic elites, bribe Europe into submission, isolate Israel diplomatically, and annoy the United States.
Chavez would have better luck putting the 17th century Spanish Empire back together. Only the Saudis still have the flexibility to manipulate prices, so the other countries (some of which are now net importers) are superfluous. With alternative fuels and US oil shale development on the horizon, even the mighty Saudi wells may soon become so many buggy whip factories.
There’s no hope for Chavez and his legions of demented admirers, but I hope there are enough forward-looking Iraqis who realize that it is time for the oil empires to join civilization, instead of just extorting money from it.
a — your comment shows the terrible economic myopia of the left. Glenn is quite correct, friends who have worked and/or lived in Venezuela all remarked on the society just crushing all economic activity leaving it dependent on commodities. Oil is a commodity and one that can be substituted for if the price is high enough.
We have enough data to know what makes countries wealthy and what doesn’t. Finland and Nokia (a nation of only 6 million); South Korea and Samsung and Kia and Hyundai; Japan and Honda, Sony, and Toyota; even Taiwan and Singapore (electronic assembly) have found that the road to wealth consists of:
1. A well educated, nimble and very productive workforce that is able to …
2. Make products that are in demand in the global workplace to the degree that people around the world will pay extra for them.
This is not rocket science, and many of the things that the Left has historically stressed: education, public services, safety of the people, clean government and minimal corruption, social spending, infrastructure and so on form it’s backbone.
Where would you rather live? The Sweden of Ikea and Ericsson, or the United Oil Emirates?
Iraq had a well educated population because of the Baath party which shielded part of their companies so they could grow to become word class. The Gulf war against Iran was unplanned trouble but otherwise Iraq would have been the most developed country in the Middle East.
ps. Using Japan, South Korea and Finland as examples of capitalisme is IMO very weird as non of those countries are known for being run in a capitalistic way. I would even claim the complete opposite.
_Where would you rather live? The Sweden of Ikea and Ericsson, or the United Oil Emirates?_
Which answer should i give? Socialist and succesfull Sweden or succesfull despite(because) having not so much oil Emirates?
Want an indication of how well Iraqis are taking to democratic politics? One of the charges being leveled is that pro-constitution Iraqis were travelling to vote-No ‘swing state’ provinces to cast their ‘Yes’ ballots, in order to thwart the possible 3 province veto.
This is exactly the same as Al Franken’s “Vote in Ohio” plan democrats tried in the 2004 election!