Iraq Round-Up
Michael Young suggests the U.S. must do something to prevent both Syria and Iran from exploiting the ongoing uncertainty in Iraq. Iran is the biggest problem, but it would be hard to take on; Syria is probably more vulnerable. So: the Bushies will be tempted to start another war, this time in Syria, hoping to put on a show of force that will impress both the insurgents in Iraq and the Iranians. Perpetual war in order to achieve peace; is that what people mean by Trotskyism?
Still, it makes sense that the U.S. would benefit from doing something dramatic, instead of allowing Iraq to drift into increasing disorder. The growing response from the left is that the U.S. should simply withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible. Following the logic of their rhetoric so far, Bushies tend to say: this would only show weakness, open us to further attacks at home, etc.
Larry Diamond has a long, rambling post on TPM Cafe. Mostly he insists that even where some good might be done by U.S. forces in Iraq, the present administration is not competent to do it. "The Bush Administration confronts a dilemma that it cannot resolve." "It is too late to simply reverse this [the polarization of the country along...ethnic lines]." The U.S. "must" withdraw. How are these ringing negative assertions any more well-grounded than the positive assertions from the other side? Diamond does give the U.S. credit for pushing to get Sunnis included in the Constitution-making process; and he does say the truly pro-Iranian Shiites are not a majority even in southern Iraq--and they do not include Sistani. Still, they might be able to take over.
(Diamond was a senior advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority during the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. He has a book out called Squandered Victory.)
The most striking part of his remarks, linked by Kevin Drum, are to the effect that building permanent bases in Iraq, to replace the ones in Saudi, must have been a major U.S. objective--an unspoken one--from the beginning. This sounds right to me.
Maybe one main thread of the history that will someday be written will go something like this:
1. Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush Jr. were never ideological Republicans--they were moderate Republicans like Ford and Bush Senior--in whose administrations they had risen. They never gave any sign of having the "vision thing," to quote from Bush Sr. Maybe they were constantly full of ideology and wrath, frustrated at answering to, and defending, blockheads, but there was never any sign of that. Reagan at least gave them more of a taste for the vision thing. Maybe somebody, somewhere, has some inspiring PowerPoint slides?
2. Even before 9/11, Bush wants to withdraw big US bases from Saudi Arabia, while building big new ones close by. (Why close by? Er ... oil.) Saudi leaders, trusted by Bush, convince him that military occupation, combined with religious and cultural differences, is sure to breed resentment and political instability. (Unless you saturation-bomb the civilian population, as in World War II. That could work). A pro-American oligarchy will have difficulty helping their American friends in this situation.
3. Somewhere in here, the neo-con PowerPoint slides become very important. We don't just act for oil; we're Boy Scouts. We act for democracy. If we build and spread pro-American regimes, that's almost like spreading democracy--and it might magically turn out to achieve the spreading of democracy!
4. So Bush is thinking: why not regime change in Iraq? There's been a lot of talk that Saddam might have WMDs. No sane person will be sorry to see him regime-changed. He's not running a democracy. Everyone remembers being mad at him over Kuwait. It's personal for Bush and some senior advisers.
5. Post-9/11: It becomes more urgent to do something (more than Afghanistan). Overwhelming force, shock and awe, should do the trick (Powell doctrine). (Although not nearly as many tanks this time--they take too long to transport). There will probably be a pro-American uprising. (Insert Chalabi crap here--also WMDs, ties to Al Qaeda). Whether any of this is true or not, the weakening of Islamic terrorists, or regime change in a place that has the kind of regime that might have once supported terrorism, or might do so in the future, is a worthy goal. Convince the followers of terrorists, if not terrorists themselves, there is no hope except in Westernizing/modernizing. Benefits for whole region, world, democracy. More neo-con Power Point slides.
6. As both Afghanistan and Iraq drag on, the Bushies stick to the message that military occupation, combined with religious and cultural differences, is sure to do more good than harm. (This somewhat contradicts the rationale for closing the Saudi bases). Saddam was evil. Americans reject any claims of moral equivalence between themselves and ... er ... anyone else.
|
