Logic Times
 

The Disastrous Bush Plan

Posted by Jack Stafurik, 03/01/05, 3:24am.   Comments (10)

 

Let's look at what we are likely to get out of this great adventure in democratizing the Middle East.

 

  1. A Shiite theocracy, ala Iran. While Sistani seems moderate (at least compared to some of the other alternatives), he does support an Islamic government. It is not clear how much longer he will live, and really vicious guys like al-Sadr are waiting for their chance to take over. The new prime minister is also known to have strong ties with Iran. 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 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. 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. This new government will not be our friend.
  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. Everybody seems to want to distance themselves from the US.
  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.
  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. 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?). Finally, we had the enthusiastic support of many allies and we didn't go out of our way to antagonize them. 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 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!

 

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.

 

{Aslan: Wow.  I am throwing this one out to Logic Times readers for a change.  Anyone?}

Comments

 

1: William Hoevet

March 1, 2005 11:30pm EST

Jack sounds like another angry little man who just lost an election.  Should we really consider this wordy diatribe from someone who, by using words like intellectual, actually believes he is one?  Who really cares what fanatic next tries to over throw the new, duly elected government of Iraq.  Given time and security, the people of that country will rid themselves of the anarchistic strong men of that country, religious or secular.

 

Jack sounds like a lot of "old Europeans" I met in England this summer.  They hope the newly elected governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and those soon to be elected elsewhere in the Middle East will fail so they can triumph over George Bush.  All of these folks are on the wrong side of history.

 

The only way the citizens in Iraq can fail is if we "cut and run," failing to provide the security necessary for those brave citizens to put their house in order after three decades of slavery not seen since Fascist Europe.

 

Jack should go to Iran where he might be able to help the Mullahs in their next election. (Sic)

 

{Aslan: How sad that so many, like those in England, are actually hoping for death, failure and defeat.  How does one wake up each morning with such a poisonous mindset?}

 

2: James Weaks

March 2, 2005 1:19am EST

{Aslan: James has responded point by point to Jack.  Jack's original comments are in blue, followed by James's response.}

 

"Let's look at what we are likely to get out of this great adventure in democratizing the Middle East."

 

Okay

 

"1. A Shiite theocracy, ala Iran. While Sistani seems moderate (at least compared to some of the other alternatives), he does support an Islamic government."

 

No, he does not.  If one only gets their spin from sources like the New York Times, one would think this is true.  It isn't.  al-Sistani has said that he will not push for Shari'a and that elected representatives should determine the Iraqi government.

 

"It is not clear how much longer he will live, and really vicious guys like al-Sadr are waiting for their chance to take over."

 

To take over what exactly?  The religious factions are not going to unite behind al-Sadr and the new parliament and government makes a power takeover less than likely.  I think al-Sadr is still wanted on an Iraqi arrest warrant as well.  He has his followers, but he's not much more than a thorn.

 

(more comments here)