Logic Times

Comments

Page Two

The Disastrous Bush Plan

2: James Weaks

March 2, 2005 1:19am EST

(continued)

"The new prime minister is also known to have strong ties with Iran."

You mean Allawi?  Well, he's got strong ties with Washington and London and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait too.  He's way too secular for the "religious" types. He may have connections in Iran, but they're not counting on him opening any doors.

"The Iranians must feel Bush is Allah's gift to them, since they are by far the biggest winners in this: Saddam is out, their religious compatriots may soon be in power..."

The Iranians are feeling something all right, but it isn't smelling like a victory.

"...the US is shown to be the liar and torturing devil they always claimed we were, our administrators are demonstrably both incompetent and corrupt, and we are generating thousands of anti-American jihadists."

The facts indicate just the opposite.  By staying the course, saving Iraqi lives, and giving them a chance to determine their own fate we're showing Iraq and Iran and everyone else where the US stands.  There was no lack for anti-American jihad cats before the liberation of Iraq.  Their numbers are declining and will continue to go down.  They grow when they are not challenged.  Now, they can no longer operate with impunity and they are losing.  Success will thin their numbers even more.  Suicide bombers only get one run and recruiting is going to get harder.

"In addition, our vaunted power has been shown to be much less effective than advertised. Yes, we can roll over an army that was badly weakened by a decade of sanctions, but after two years we still don't control anything beyond our immediate gunsights, and we can't provide the most basic requirements of a civil society."

Again, the facts on the ground contradict this.  The smoothness of the elections and the rate at which the Iraqis are taking over their own security are just two examples.  What has been done in two years is nothing short of amazing.

"This new government will not be our friend."

All indications are they will be a friend, but even if they choose to be less than a friend there is no evidence that they will turn into an enemy. The new Iraq already has enemies and they know it. They need friends.

"2. A "Saddam-lite" strong man, like Alawi. This is a recipe for civil war. But it seems this can be successful in holding together an ethnically and religiously fractured society like Iraq's. It worked for a while in Iraq, Yugoslavia, the USSR, and a few others. But it is not clear how to ensure the ruling party is our friend."

Alawi or whoever the next Prime Minister is will be chosen by the Council and voted on by the National Assembly.  It has a good chance to succeed. Yes, even with a fractured society.  (It could easily be argued that the USA is a "fractured" society and we're holding it together.)  The disparate groups have a chance to swim together or sink together.  At least they have the chance.

"Everybody seems to want to distance themselves from the US."

Who?  In what way?  Yes, there is a lot of anti-American talk all over the globe, but the "distance" is short and brief.

"3. A split of the country into the three ethnic regional groups. This is theoretically the most appealing to me, since the past genocidal policies will make it almost impossible for them to trust each other in a single nation. However, no one likes this option. Turkey and Iran are likely to invade any Kurdish region because of their concerns about their own Kurdish minorities. The groups are well intermixed, and any attempt to separate them may lead to further battles and horrors such as occurred in the India-Pakistan split. And in the future the Sunnis and Shiites will always be able to find a demagogue to claim the other regions based on history (as Saddam claimed Kuwait, and Syria claims Lebanon). I don't see any prospects for long-term stability with this option."

What is the basis for thinking that Turkey and Iran would invade the northern region?  That's not likely at all.  It's highly unlikely.

"4. A liberal democracy. I give this less than a 100:1 shot. Your bringing up Japan and Germany forgets the fact that we planned for that war's aftermath for over 2 years before we set foot in their countries. Our cadres of military and civilian professionals were carefully selected and trained to rebuild the society and economy, and we had enough troops to keep the countries pacified. In addition, each of those countries was relatively

homogeneous, and we didn't have the genocidal ethnic rivalries like in Iraq."

Depends on how you define a "liberal democracy," but I would probably give that fairly long odds as well.  However, a democratic, constitutional, federation is much more likely.

"We also were ready to pay the bill to do this, and did not hide the costs behind a disinformation screen, as Bush seems to do (remember when he claimed the total cost of the Iraq war to the American taxpayer would be $1.7 billion?)."

No, I don't remember that. I don't think the President has ever put a  "total" cost on the war.  (Shame on him if he did.)

"Finally, we had the enthusiastic support of many allies and we didn't go out of our way to antagonize them."

It is the anti-US, anti-Iraqi forces who are the antagonists and are going to end up on the wrong side of history.

"It may have been possible to get this result, if we had spent the time to plan it properly, if we had enough troops, if we had skilled people, if we funded it properly, etc. etc. However, we did not do any of these things, so I don't see how the situation can be salvaged."

I'm glad you're so chipper.  With all the positive things happening such pessimism is hard to fathom.  It's not logical either.  The situation is better now than it was under Saddam so. if we accept your premise and said that it could be done with the right plan, troops, people, and money then there is no logical reason that it could not be done if we started now.

"I really doubt George Bush can ever be a competent visionary for reconstructing the Middle East. He doesn't have the intellectual curiosity or character to do the homework necessary to understand what is happening and to make the right decisions. It is like being forced to travel in a 747 piloted by a man who never studied the operations manual and never flew a simulator, and who navigates "by my gut." It doesn't matter what his vision is - he won't get there!"

Ad hominem.  Deserves no response.

"Also, I doubt the "democracy vision" is really what drove this. He and his cronies were looking at Iraq long before 9/11. That just served as their pretext. Oil and ego are much more reasonable explanations for going into Iraq."

Unproven speculations.  Oil and ego as reasonable explanations?  Doubtful, highly doubtful.  They could have gotten all the oil they wanted without a war.  Ever hear of the "oil for food" scandal?

{Aslan: Very nicely done, James.  Thank you!}

3: Larry Horacek

March 2, 2005 1:44am EST

Aslan,

Jack means well but his observations are anecdotal, weakly developed, and not interrelated.  I would like to comment on each of his paragraphs.

1. Jack believes that Iraq will be a mini-Me Iran.  That is very unlikely.  Iran is 98% Shiite; their theocracy is based on a single, homogeneous religion.  In Iraq, Shiites are less than 2/3 of the population so there won’t be any theocratic structure like in Iran (there have been several interesting articles lately which explain why Saudi Arabia and Syria would not quietly sit by and allow a Shia political takeover in Iraq…nor would the US allow it).  I think a better comparison of the political scene in Iraq would probably be with Israel.  Islam and Judaism represent the central cultural and religious roles in each society, yet there are multiple political parties, ethnicities, languages, and minorities which will have a voice in public affairs.  Iraq today has a free press, far freer than what is in Iran.  Iran needs a neighborly Iraq that it can control or that is friendly to Iran.  Given that the US will have a military presence in Iraq during the next several years, I think Iran will have to settle for having a friendly Iraq.  
2. I don’t understand the reference to Alawi here.  Alawi came in a distant third in the election so I doubt he will be behaving like Saddaam lite anytime soon.  Also, to compare the kind of societal differences in Iraq to the unique situations found in the formerYugoslavia and the former USSR is very naïve, like comparing apples and oranges.  Also, I don’t think the US foreign policy objective for Iraq is to be friendly with whatever government arises in Iraq.  What we want is a democratic Iraq that behaves like other constitutional democracies and is an ally with the US.  (France and the US aren’t very friendly right now but we are allies and have been for more than 60 years).
3. The idea of establishing three separate sovereign countries (Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias) will simply not happen for the sake of the obvious.  It doesn’t merit further discussion.
4. This paragraph is a bit confusing.  It starts with the premise of whether Iraq could emerge as a liberal democracy, but then immediately starts describing some aspects of the Marshal Plan in WWII.  Jack forgets that the Marshal Plan did not begin until two years AFTER WWII ended, while in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US attempted rebuilding efforts almost immediately following the end of major combat operations, a very difficult thing to do.  If we compare our post-WWII rebuilding in Europe and Japan with our activity in Iraq, I’d say we are already miles ahead of the game in rebuilding Iraq.  It is amazing how no one wants to look at our last major post-war rebuilding effort to see how well we are doing this time around.  I spent a career in the Army and understand that events almost NEVER happen as you plan for them.  What the US does very well is react to new situations (better and faster than the enemy), and that’s what we have done in Iraq, to the great credit of our uniformed forces.  What Jack tries to describe in this paragraph just does not make any sense…it isn’t logical.

The closing two paragraphs are embarrassing.  The claims that Jack makes are completely non-factual, shallow, and drivel.  Oil and ego???  Someone check Jack’s medications and make sure he knows what 9/11 is.

I note that today, even the New York Times (Friedman) is reporting that maybe GW Bush could be right with his Middle East vision.

{Aslan: Great responses, Larry.  Thanks!}

4: Benjamin Hieserich

March 2, 2005 2:06am EST

I have a comment on The Disastrous Bush Plan:

In case you may have forgotten exactly what is going on within the Iraqi government, let me remind you.

1. 8 million Iraqis would not have voted if they did not want liberty.  They could all have stayed at home on January 30th, watching poll workers sit at their stations alone, or they could have all built roadside bombs and rockets and attempted to blast us out.  Eight million Iraqis is a force to be reckoned with.
2. Representative government at least ensures that voices are heard. In Saddam's dictatorship, it was his way or the highway.  Another point to be made is that Ayatollah Sistani is, as you stated, pretty moderate.  Al-Sadr has agreed to work legitimately with the new Iraqi government, and if he goes back on his word, he will likely lose his popularity with those who voted in the election, as well as other peace-loving Iraqis.
3. A “Saddam-like” strong man would also somehow have to circumvent the rising force of liberty in the region.  I would refer you to the March 1st New York Times editorial, as well as others from around the world, including popular newspapers in countries that strongly oppose the US, for a description of how this is happening. This person would have to gain the support of a majority of the military, which is currently being trained by the US and our allies, as well as a strong grassroots base to become influential within the new government.  He would have to stage a coup like other despots have in the past.  International interest in the Middle East would probably nip the threat in the bud before it becomes too large, especially, as many who share Jack’s views are saying, if we are in Iraq for a span of many years.
4. Frankly, the option of ethnic regions also scares me.  We don’t need three more radical governments after deposing one.  However, I think that the majority of Iraqi politicians are wise enough to compromise on important issues.  After all, they do have the free world looking over their shoulder.  Should Iraq’s ethnic groups get into a squabble, it is a problem that they will have to work out themselves.  We may or may not be there to help, but if it breaks out into a civil war, international peacekeeping action is bound to ensue.
5. A less than 1% shot at liberal democracy just does not seem very logical to me.  The system for a liberal democracy is already there, and such politicians as Ahmed Chalabi and Allawi have won some seats in the new Parliament.  They will have their say during the drafting of the new constitution.  This is a good “test run”, if you will, of a liberal democratic process in Iraq that, as the constitution is being drafted, can show the Iraqis what a gift they have.  Other nations such as Israel, Palestine and Lebanon already know what a gift Iraqis have.  If they are smart, they will use it wisely.

Regardless of the original reason for entering Iraq, that nation now has a wonderful new beginning that we must help to grow.  Should the US leave now, while there will still be a chance at liberal democracy, it leaves things more open for a minority militant or fundamentalist party to step in as Saddam did.  Iraq’s people must now remember what they had to go through for the past fifty years, and like Germany and Japan, make sure it never happens again.

{Aslan: Wow. Benjamin is 19 and a hell of a lot smarter than I was at 19.  Great work.}

5: EvntPrdcr

March 2, 2005 2:09am EST

I made this point before [in early February] that we have accomplished what eight years of war with Iraq couldn't, we have installed a shiia government in Iraq. As far as history goes, GWB is the accidental tourist who just happens to be in a war, because he's a warlike kinda guy in the Old Testament sense, always the agent of an angry and vengeful God [how curious is that statement]. I am not sure that I would concede that he is as irrelevant as the other reader implied, but I do worry greatly that we have cut off any possibility of ever controlling Iran, since we have installed their ally at our back.

{Aslan: I think you will find Iran will control itself with liberty within the year.}

(more comments here)