The War--Or At Least The Debate About It 

The War--Or At Least The Debate About It

I'm not sure about the War on Terrorism itself, but the battle lines in the debate over the war now seem to have been clearly drawn.

Critics of President Bush say Iraq now resembles Lebanon in 1982 if not Vietnam in the early 60s--an inscrutable and dangerous morass, if not a quagmire. The U.S. should pull out (or surrender authority to a truly multi-national force), more or less gracefully, with the understanding that problems in Iraq are simply too many and too complex for the U.S. to deal with them successfully. Not enough thought was given to problems of military occupation in advance, and the sight of armed U.S. troops performing various tasks, while the economy remains in a slump, can only cause a deepening backlash. The analogy might be to the ending of the movie "Chinatown": "never mind, Jake, it's Chinatown"--meaning, you'll never understand it, you'll only put yourself in danger, and you'll probably do more harm than good. (Scroll down to the very end.)

President Bush's duty is to protect U.S. civilians, and it is increasingly unlikely that invading Iraq had much if anything to do with that essential task. There have been
signs of "moderating" or "Westernizing" in various Middle Eastern hotspots, but many of these trends were developing before the U.S. invaded Iraq; it's not clear what if any positive effects the invasion itself has had (other of course than the removal of Saddam's regime); and a long, trouble-prone occupation is likely to make things worse.

On the other hand, Bush has many defenders who are more convinced than ever that he and they have been right all along. There is some more or less monolithic terrorist movement or organization, committed to attacking the U.S. and other Western targets, and closely allied with suicide bombers in Israel. The terrorist acts of these groups are basically disconnected from any real grievance; they are the acts of enraged or deranged people who simply want to prove the success of the West is a lie, or can be reversed by pinpricks of terror. The terrorists speak, or claim to speak, for an impoverished and desperate Arab and/or Moslem world; but instead of working for progress at home, they simply want to hurt the West (including Israel).

By fighting in Iraq, on this view, the U.S. is leading the fight for a noble cause for the whole world. They are going to weaken or eliminate despotic regimes that foster terror; and strengthen or build new and better regimes. There is an analogy to World War II: the U.S. military will go beyond protecting U.S. civilians, and re-make substantial parts of the world to make it a better place. Anyone who opposes U.S. actions must be cynically indifferent to the fate of Iraqi children, and children in many other parts of the world, including the U.S. The two bombings in one day--one targeting the UN in Baghdad, the other in Jerusalem--confirm that there is one more or less united terrorist enemy, and the U.S. has been making progress against it.

There is a great deal of overlap in these two accounts. What the U.S. is doing is risky, and based on very skimpy evidence (as far as we know). For critics, these facts make the enterprise stupid, and contrary to the real interests of any U.S. government. For defenders, they make it noble. As Mickey Kaus might say, "stupid" and "noble" are not necessarily contradictory descriptions. (To show how high-minded I am, I won't mention--well, I'll barely mention--the "Karl Rove is just trying to win the 2004 election" meme, or "it's all about oil.")

Perhaps Bush's most sophisticated defenders are now arguing that the occupation that seems so unplanned and floundering is actually a work of genius. Iraq is being used as "flypaper" to attract all the anti-U.S. and anti-Western hooligans to one place, where they can be killed with impunity. Here is where the same facts will lend themselves to contradictory interpretations. If there is an increase in terrorism and sabotage in Iraq, critics will say that normally law abiding Iraqis have been driven to desperation by the U.S. occupation; Bush defenders will say the U.S. is providing a target for existing terrorist groups, all somehow linked to 9/11, and increasing violence is a good sign rather than a bad sign. Mickey Kaus
has tracked the "flypaper" argument as it has moved from rather obscure blogs into the mainstream.(Scroll down to Daniel Drezner, and then to Wednesday, August 20, "It seems like only yesterday....").

I share the skepticism of those who think the Bush defenders have a view of the whole world, and of entire civilizations, which seems to have been sketched on the back of a napkin. There are real questions as to who is responsible for what bombing, and to what extent various terrorist groups are working together. In World War II, long before Pearl Harbour, no one had to prove that the evil regimes of the Axis existed, nor that they were collaborating in an attempt to conquer the world. It just seems there is room for honest doubt as to whether there is a similar enemy today.

Having raised doubts about the "World War II" analogy, I'll raise questions about the "Vietnam" analogy as well. The Vietcong were not a truly indigenous force of South Vietnamese, motivated by a determination to resist all foreign invaders, perhaps especially the U.S. Instead they were shock troops of the Communist regime in Hanoi, supported by China. Once they gained victory, they became allies of the Soviet Union. In Iraq today, China is not a factor, and there is no Soviet Union. This is more of an "authentic" opportunity to see if Americans, with their noble purposes, can win the hearts and minds of a people.

For many people, replacing a U.S.-only action with some kind of truly multi-national action, under the auspices of the UN, would make the mission more promising even if there were no more convincing evidence as to who the terrorists are, or what they are up to. Why? For one thing, the UN actually employs people with skills and experience in many of the peace-keeping or nation-building activities that Iraq now needs. They also have staff who, ahem, speak Farsi or Arabic, or both. So they might be of more actual practical help, and they might attract less resentment or hatred than the Americans. Maybe the bombing of UN headquarters makes this unlikely, or maybe some small group of terrorists just wants the UN to leave.

My biggest concern is that the President's Sunday School baby talk is not helpful. [Update August 26: after thinking about it for a few days, I take back that expression. It is not for me to criticize the President in such a personal way. Josh Marshall puts it much more diplomatically; see link below]. Obviously international politics is a world of moral ambiguity. Every U.S. president since Nixon is going to engage in "constructive engagement" with China, which can still be fairly described as a brutal tyranny. The U.S. has entered negotiations with North Korea, a member of the badly named "Axis of Evil." The President's spin doctors are saying North Korea gave in by agreeing that the talks will be multi-national, not bilateral; but in fact the U.S. has agreed to private talks that are indeed bilateral. It is Bush who has already agreed to conditions--probably wisely.

Naomi Klein repeats claims that the government of the Philippines has committed acts of terrorism against its own people in order to blame some nebulous "terrorists," and create a pretext to invite U.S. forces to return to that country.
Update August 24: here's the link.

In Indonesia the U.S. is allied with a fairly scummy government. And of course, the only government that has been really closely linked to the attacks on 9/11 is that of Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. has proceeded against them with kid gloves.

Some remaining questions about the Iraq operation specifically: Is there some big terrorist group with many tentacles, more or less co-ordinated, or not? If so, are its numbers at least manageable/finite, so that they can be drastically reduced in two or three military or pseudo-military campaigns? Is there a point at which U.S. military actions cause more terrorism, rather than less? What will a future "all-Iraq" government look like? Will it be any kind of democracy?

Update: Josh Marshall has an excellent interview with Peter Bergen. Marshall thinks that in Afghanistan, the U.S. drained the swamp; but in Iraq, they are creating the swamp. Bergen does not seem quite so gloomy, but he does say Al Quaeda forces are coming in to Iraq both because it is a great opportunity to attack an "infidel" American military force far from home, in the heart of the Arab world, and because there is now a crack down on terrorists in Saudi Arabia. Bergen says it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq--the outcome could be very good or very bad.

Update August 24: Of course, treating Iraq as fly-paper to attract terrorists is very different from liberating Iraqis--including children. This means making Iraqi civilians hostage to a war that will probably escalate, not decrease, and may go on indefinitely.