|
|
April 09, 2003
Celebrating In The Streets
We have seen this show before, and it didn't end happily. There was much dancing and rejoicing in the streets of Afghanistan, as the Taliban had been defeated by American forces - so we "won", right? Of course the problem is that much of the Taliban faded into Afghan society and Al Qaeda slipped across the border into our "ally", Pakistan. Currently, American forces are still engaged in conflict in Afghanistan, the Karzai government is under fire daily, while outside of Kabul warlords are the defacto rulers of the land. Fast forward to Iraq. A brutally oppresive dicatator has been removed from power, and the Iraqi people are justifiably jubilant - but the battle for Iraqi freedom is far from over. I don't think that any serious objector to the war believed that the Saddam regime was a good thing, but instead has severe misgivings about the American ability and track record in maintaining democracy in these nations. The American military doesn't need to be able to prove its military might, anyone who has been awake after Vietnam knows that. But how good is our government at nation building, the activity our president displayed contempt for in his campaign for office? The answer: not very. Fedayeen and Baath party members have done the same as the Taliban, taken off their uniforms and faded into Iraqi society. Posted By Oliver Willis at April 9, 2003 06:43 AM | TrackBackComments
The US may not be terrific at foreign-nation-building, but can do no worse than the UN. And our British partners do have better (if often inadvertent, via uprisings against them) experience - certainly better than the French, who still unilaterally involve themselves in civil wars in their [former] colonies. Posted by: John Anderson at April 9, 2003 06:55 AMNo disagreement there, but don't you think we now need to aspire to a more American level of success - as opposed to being "no worse than" the UN or the French? Posted by: Oliver at April 9, 2003 06:57 AMOliver, you should know better -- and if you actually don't, shame on you. The internationalist-leftist definition of "nation building" is what happened in Afghanistan; a suitably progressive-looking government of exiles in ties was installed under European pressure, and the actual political development of the country was neglected. Since Afghanistan has never had anything that could be described as rule-of-law democracy, this was a recipe for failure. Of course, the proper thing to do -- a Japanese-style occupation government, combined with a realization that the evolution of political though in Afghanistan is about on a par with that of 13th-century England -- would have been denounced as too imperialistic by the same pundits who now bewail the lack of reconstruction of Afghanistan. Turning Iraq over to the U.N. -- which effectively means allowing the French, Germans, Russians, and the Arabs to exploit the sweetheart deals that they made with the Hussein dynasty, and to sneak out the documentation of the crimes that they have committed -- is exactly the wrong thing to do. The U.N. can be allowed a humanitarian role -- although under the watchful eye of the Coalition, to make sure that they don't set up prostitution or drug smuggling operations as they have done in Africa and the Balkans. Attempting to set up Chalabi as the Great Brown Hope of a progressive democracy is also the wrong thing to do. Let Abizaid be the MacArthur of Iraq. Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at April 9, 2003 07:31 AMAgain, Oliver, see that you're not passing up an opportunity to predict gloom, doom, and disaster. There may be a few diferences between Afghanistan and Iraq. Namely, that Afghanistan never really made it into the 20th century, before decades of very destructive conflict effectively wiped away any semblence of coherent structure that may have been in place. Iraq, on the other hand, has had a structure - a deeply twisted and repressive structure, but a structure nonetheless. And while the Afghanis have been learning the law of everyone for themselves survivial these past 30 years, the Iraqis have learned a different variety of that. And its been done in an enviroment of structure - cruel, oppresive, and evil, but a structure. They are used to having lights. They are used to having cars and food deliveries (such as they've been). They are used to TV and radio. It won't be a picnic, because now the voices that would illustrate the differences in Iraqi society will come to the fore, and there will be many. Lets try the experiment one more time, and remove one of the constants that has been present in just about every example pointed to as an example of how hard or difficult this nation building thing is, and see what happens, shall we? Lets remove the UN piece, which has been a key player in some of the worst examples of what not to do, and lets see what happens. In the two examples without the involvement of the UN in its present form (Japan, Germany), things worked out pretty well. How about we try something that worked, instead of pissing around about the 'legitamacy' of the effort? The 'internationalist' view has been given its chance, for many years, and in many instances. Consistently, it has been an absolute mess. Time to try something else, despite the harpings of those with not so hidden agendas of national interest. I'm all for the complete removal of all the insruments that have contributed to the oppression of the peoples of Iraq, and that includes the UN, the French, the Germans, and the Russians. You recognize them, they're that bunch thats making the most noise about this. Chrac has almost reached the level of making one suspect he's Baghdad Bob's twin seperated at birth... Posted by: Wind Rider at April 9, 2003 08:06 AM One other difference - Fedayeen and Baath party members have done the same as the Taliban, taken off their uniforms and faded into Iraqi society.Well, not 'faded' per se, unless you consider changing clothes, grabbing and RPG and making a suicidal charge at American armor in a Toyota pickup or a commandeered ambulance 'fading'. The Taliban guys slunk away in huge numbers, and the Afghans just minded their own business about it. The Iraqis, on the other hand, are actively outing these guys. The ones, that is, that aren't outing themselves into a free fire zone... Which is, in a way, a good thing, as they won't be around to stir up trouble on the other side of this thing, like the remnants of the Taliban is trying to do in Afghanistan. So, repeat after me - Iraq is not Afghanistan is not Kosovo is not Rawanda is not Vietnam...Iraq is just Iraq. Ok? Posted by: Wind Rider at April 9, 2003 08:15 AM>Again, Oliver, see that you're not passing up an opportunity to predict gloom, doom, and disaster. Actually, it's more like a warning. My expectations for Bush are quite low in this pursuit, so here's hoping he does the right thing. At least this thread didn't devolve into a bunch of attacks. Posted by: Oliver at April 9, 2003 08:37 AMTrue, the Ba'athists may try to fade into the woodwork. Granted it may all go horribly pear-shaped; but it is not inevitable. Cheer up, man. Posted by: John Farren at April 9, 2003 09:31 AMOliver, you say Afghanistan didn't end happily. I wasn't aware that our involvement in Afghanistan had ended, for openers. Who says we're done there. Anyway, didn't end happily for who? Compared to what? I would say that, for many Afghans, the current state of affairs, however flawed it may be compared to, say, the Upper West Side, is much happier than Afghanistan under the Taliban. So far, I don't think anyone would claim that most Afghans are worse off because of US involvement. That's plenty good enough for me: Afghans, by and large, better off, combined with the safety and security of the US enhanced by closing down a major terrorist sponsor. Posted by: T. Hartin at April 9, 2003 09:39 AMI agree that we're not done in Afghanistan ... but the budget we set aside to help them seemed pitifully small. I'm very impressed with out ability to conduct regime changes, I'd like to see an equivalent capapibility to get new regimes on their feet and productive members of a free and democratic society. Right to sound a note of caution. Iraq may become an Arab Yugoslavia, reverting to ethnic and tribal loyalties. Hussein held a precarious nation together - brutally, perhaps, but hold it did. I'd have to say that I agree with this, unfortunately. The hard work is ahead, and our track record is mixed. We started out with an outstanding record. Europe, Japan, and South Korea stand out as some of the most successful nation-building exercises ever. But they're old precedents, and more recent ones haven't been as good. Vietnam was an obvious disaster, and I can't really think of any successes as obvious as the Big Ones pre-1960. (Panama? You don't hear much about them these days.) OTOH, I think the jury is still out on some of them. Maybe we can reclaim some of the WWII-era mojo. Maybe the Brits are better at this, and can teach us some things. It's been proposed (don't remember where) that a representative from a successful Eastern European nation might be of even more help now than a Brit or American, given their recent experience in rebuilding their own countries. Isn't Poland a member of the coalition? Ed wrote: > Iraq may become an Arab Yugoslavia, reverting Is there any reason why Iraq _should_ hold together? The model of Yugoslavia (and of the Soviet Union) may be more stable. Small, autonomous, cohesive nations, held together by religion or language, would preferable to a nation held together through brutality and fear. BTW, Oliver, we already have voices -- mostly from the left, but some from the right -- urging that the thing to do now in Iraq is to hold elections for a "democratic" Iraqi regime as fast as possible and then leave. Shall we agree that this is exactly the thing to do? Posted by: John "Akatsukami" Braue at April 9, 2003 04:12 PMI see the lefties are playing their favorite game - raising expectations to unreasonable levels. I propose that the Iraqi war will be a success in the long run if: (a) WMD are removed from Iraq and no WMD development is pursued. (b) Islamofascist terrortists are driven from Iraq and do not return in any significant numbers or enjoy Iraqi state sponsorship again. (c) Whoever governs Iraq is less tyrannical than Saddam Hussein. In other words, if the Iraqi people are better off, and US and world security is enhanced, why is that not a success? Why have we failed if we do not turn Iraq and Afghanistan into Mideastern Switzerlands in no more than a few months? Posted by: T. Hartin at April 9, 2003 05:18 PMNothing satisfies Liberals. Don't argue with Oliver, you can't win. Posted by: Greg Soon at April 9, 2003 07:37 PM3 key reasons why Iraq is different from Afghanistan: 1. Even before the Taliban, Afghanistan was a warlord-dominated society, with the federal government exercising limited authority in the countryside. Most of Iraq, by contrast, has always been relatively cosmopolitan by Middle Eastern standards. 2. Iraq has a long history of civil society, of respectable higher education institutions, of an educated middle class, of industrialized major cities. Also, Iraq has historically been viewed as a commercial hub for the region, standing as a crossroads between Asia Minor, Palestine/Transjordan, Assyria, Persia, and the Arabian Peninsula. 3. 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, and likely tens of billions more undiscovered. All of which can play a pivotal in rebuilding the country. Afghanistan, by contrast, has little in terms of natural resources. Not that I don't think there'll be major difficulties in rebuilding Iraq - I especially expect Iran and SCIRI to cause their fair share of trouble - I just think there are more reasons to be optimistic than with Afghanistan. Also, though Afghanistan has plenty of problems, I think very few people would argue that it's doing anywhere as poorly as it was under the Taliban. Posted by: Bob at April 9, 2003 07:50 PMPost a comment
|