Uncovering the Hidden Motives Behind the Iraq War

[Astronuc]

New Orleans and Baghdad
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Memo to: Iraq's Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni leaders.

From: An American friend.

Dear Sirs: As someone who really wishes you well, I am writing to give you my best sense of how the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is going to affect the U.S. mission in Iraq. Let me begin with an analogy offered by Michael Mandelbaum, author of the forthcoming book "The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World's Government in the 21st Century." He points out: "The U.S. military presence in Iraq today is like the dikes and levees that were protecting New Orleans from the flood. The equivalent of the flood for Iraq is a civil war between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The U.S. military right now is holding that back."

Therefore, the key question in Iraq is whether your constitutional process now unfolding can produce a power-sharing accord between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that can be a homegrown, self-sustaining dike against civil war, replacing the Americans. In the wake of Katrina, this is now an urgent question. No, we will not be pulling out tomorrow just because of Katrina, let alone before your December parliamentary elections. But after that, when we will be in a Congressional election year, who knows what pressures may build.

Why? Because most Democrats have opposed the war from the start, and many Republicans no longer support the war per se, but only George Bush. The president has carried this war on his shoulders, and the more he's weakened politically by Katrina, the less he will be able to carry. Yes, Mr. Bush has said we'll do whatever it takes to finish the job in Iraq, but he said that before there was another huge job to do.

Can you imagine if Mr. Bush had to go to Congress this week to ask for yet another $100 billion to keep fixing Iraq, when an entire U.S. city needs rebuilding? And the Katrina TV drama is not going away. Hell hath no fury like journalists with a compelling TV story where they get to be the heroes and the government the fools.

Now, as for your draft constitution, it is at one level a remarkable document - a rare example of the elected citizens of an Arab state having a horizontal dialogue and forging their own social contract. There is already more free politics in Iraq than anywhere else in the Arab world except Lebanon. But this draft constitution will come to life only if Iraqi Sunnis of good will publicly embrace it, and up to now they have not.

Some Sunnis are intimidated, others are posturing for the elections, and some are acting in bad faith, still fantasizing that their Baath Party will come to power again. But Sunnis of good will, and Iraq has many, can be brought around if the constitution creates a politically and economically viable central government, and doesn't pave the way for Kurdish and Shiite separatism, which would leave the Sunnis isolated in central Iraq without power or oil.

As Yitzhak Nakash, the Brandeis University expert on the Shiites, put it: "We need to see a form of federalism in Iraq that is uniting Iraqis, not dividing them - a form of federalism that gives Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds a degree of cultural and religious autonomy without compromising either Iraq's political unity or Baghdad's role as the locus of national politics. The draft constitution is not quite there yet."

I know how justifiably bitter the Shiites and the Kurds of Iraq are over what they have suffered at the hands of murderous Sunni Baathists and jihadist fascists. But it is in their interest and ours to see if we can nurture more Iraqi Sunnis who understand that their best future lies in working with a new Iraq, rather than trying to subvert it. Will Iraqi Sunnis, like the Palestinians, waste a generation trying to reverse history - and destroy themselves and Iraq in the process? Or will they accept the fact that they are a minority that can no longer rule all of a fascist Iraq, but can get its fair share of power and oil in a free Iraq? I don't know.

The only way to find out is to make them an offer they can't refuse. If there is a constitution basically supported by all the key parties, a decent outcome is still possible in Iraq. Yes, Mr. Bush says he intends to stay the course there no matter what, but without a constitution embraced by all three communities, there will be no course to stay. The pressure on us to leave will only grow.

And if the dikes of stability that U.S. soldiers are holding together in Iraq give way, well, you all will envy the people of New Orleans. Most of them had somewhere to go when their floods hit. You and your neighbors will not.

Too bad Bush doesn't have someone like Friedman in the State Department.

 

[SOS2008]

New Orleans and Baghdad
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Memo to: Iraq's Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni leaders.

From: An American friend.

Too bad Bush doesn't have someone like Friedman in the State Department.

Oh, that's right, this is the "Is Iraq War a Just War" thread. :tongue: That was a good summary of where things stand--thanks Astronuc.

 

[vanesch]

I mean, you'd be opposed by the entire population.

That depends, whether or not you can convince a part of the population that siding with you will bring them advantage (like ethernal afterlife, or Fox news :-)

I agree that a population of people who are convinced that their way of life is good and that they are willing to invest in it and even make sacrifices for it would be a stabilizing force. But if that were true, then why did agriculture devellop in the first place ? It is now accepted that for the lowest layers in social structure, the switch from nomads to civilisation was in fact a step back. So why did it happen then ? In several places ? Mesopotamia, Africa, America, India, China... why did people start a static structure in the first place ?

state. n,
The supreme public power within a sovereign political entity.
The sphere of supreme civil power within a given polity: matters of state

Well, isn't that junta a state ? Or the assembly of the people or whatever it is? I mean: what organ takes the decision, say, of building a dam on a river, or to set up a car factory ?

What is 'in common' violence?

Well, the idea is that instead of having to invest much in your self-defense, you are willing to give up your self-defense on the condition that a common organ (the state) protects you against agression. In order to do so of course, it needs to possesses violent organs, such as a police force which should be vastly superior in potential violence than any potential agression you could be a victim of. So you've delegated your self-defense to the common state. As such you liberate ressources that you used to invest in your self defense to do other things. It is the economy of scale in violence that makes this liberation of ressources possible. You have of course to give part of your ressources to that state in order for it to be able to organize this police force.
It is the essence of the state function. Once its subjets are renouncing on violence, you will now have to establish a kind of justice to decide on how to use that state violence in the case members are having a conflict. This means establishing property rights. Imagine someone walking to the door of my house and cracking the door. I call the police. What happens ? The police comes and prevents the person from beating up my family. But now the guy starts taking the stuff in my house. What should the police do ? If it intervenes, it means it has assigned *property rights* to me: the stuff in my house is mine, and the guy shouldn't take it. The simplest rule of settling what the police should do in the case of conflicts is to assign property rights to the members, and enforce them. If you STOP at that point, you have the perfect capitalist society.
Note that we don't have a "gouvernment" or anything, but a police force which acts according to certain rules: protect people against physical agression and protect their property rights.

 

[DM]

Well, the idea is that instead of having to invest much in your self-defense, you are willing to give up your self-defense on the condition that a common organ (the state) protects you against agression.

Are you referring to losing rights of owning a GUN on the condition of being served with an "organ" that protects citizens from aggression?

 

[vanesch]

Are you referring to losing rights of owning a GUN on the condition of being served with an "organ" that protects citizens from aggression?

Well, that would be the "completion" of that state function, but it is minor. After all 1) owning a gun is not a major investment and 2) you are not free to do with your gun what you want ; you will be in trouble with the police and justice if you try to do so.

What I was talking about was the entire machinery of justice and police ; imagine for a moment that no such thing exists. In that case, owning a gun will not do the thing: how are you going to handle assaults from organized, rather heavily armed groups ? There's no calling the police, and there's not going to be any organized repressive action taken (because every such organized action IS a piece of state function). So the only way to do so is to set up your own small armed group, which IS a far heavier investment than "owning a gun".
And once you HAVE invested in such a group (which will cost you a lot of ressources) you can just as well use it to raid some less-well armed neighbours. It is like the lords in the middle ages when the king was weak.

 

[DM]

Well, that would be the "completion" of that state function, but it is minor. After all 1) owning a gun is not a major investment and 2) you are not free to do with your gun what you want ; you will be in trouble with the police and justice if you try to do so.

Points 2 & 3 are not viable in our current system. Notice that aggression continues to prevail on those points, assailants still use guns to kill citizens and all of them (exception of minors) are aware of the consequences.

In your opinion can the "completion" of that state function ever reach the stages of imposing your given points and more importantly make our citizens MORE aminable to them?

 

[vanesch]

Points 2 & 3 are not viable in our current system. Notice that aggression continues to prevail on those points, assailants still use guns to kill citizens and all of them (exception of minors) are aware of the consequences.

Come on, this function is essentially complete in most "civilized" places, no ? When I walk over the street, I do not have any impression of being under the potential attack of possible armed groups, so that I have to walk around with heavy armory. I never even witnessed any such assault. Maybe I've been lucky for most of my life then. Of course there are some places and times to avoid, and something could eventually happen, but that's now reduced to "acceptable risk" like having a tree falling on my head or so.
You cannot compare this to the risk of travelling, say, through Europe in the year 500 just after the collapse of the Roman empire, no ?

 

[DM]

Come on, this function is essentially complete in most "civilized" places, no ? When I walk over the street, I do not have any impression of being under the potential attack of possible armed groups, so that I have to walk around with heavy armory.

No. Civilized places STILL have to cope with major flaws that our current system imposes on us all. You only address calm times, this is rather fatal in my eyes.

I never even witnessed any such assault. Maybe I've been lucky for most of my life then. Of course there are some places and times to avoid, and something could eventually happen, but that's now reduced to "acceptable risk" like having a tree falling on my head or so.

I don't agree. For every crime there has been, it counts as a major flaw because it happens on others. When you argue that nothing has happened to you as a means of analysing our self-defence system, you completely forget about all the other citizens. I'm not entirely sure you understand what an "acceptable risk" means because you're being biased, you only focus on the positive, tranquil and possibly friendly regions on the globe.

 

[Smurf]

That depends, whether or not you can convince a part of the population that siding with you will bring them advantage (like ethernal afterlife, or Fox news :-)

If you convince a municipality that being a state under your control, instead of being a zapatismo, then zapatistas from other municiaplities will leave without fighting. They do not impose themselves on other people.

I agree that a population of people who are convinced that their way of life is good and that they are willing to invest in it and even make sacrifices for it would be a stabilizing force.

That's just a side effect as far as I'm concerned. If a people get direct control and power in their politics, local and macro, they automatically don't want to give up that power. That's the stabilizing force, being convinced that their way of life is good and willing to make sacrafices from it is just a side affect of being happy in and proud of your society. I don't think that most people would be willing to give that up just because you offer them FOX news.

But if that were true, then why did agriculture devellop in the first place ?

Because humans found out how to plant crops? What's wrong with agriculture?

It is now accepted that for the lowest layers in social structure, the switch from nomads to civilisation was in fact a step back.

What do you mean? A step back in what? What is the 'layer' of social structure?

So why did it happen then ? In several places ? Mesopotamia, Africa, America, India, China... why did people start a static structure in the first place ?

I think you're making some misconceptions again. Zapatismo, (or most kinds of anarchism) are not primitivism. They do not identify with nomads, nor early hunterer-gatherers, they consider themselves another step in the evolution of society, from which there (hopefully) will be other evolutions.

"Zapatismo is not a new political ideology or a rehash of old ideologies. Zapatismo is nothing, it doesn't exist. It only serves as a bridge, to cross from one side to the other. So everyone fits within Zapatismo, everyone who wants to cross from one side to the other. Everyone has his or her own side and other side. There are no universal recipes, lines, strategies, tactics, laws, rules or slogans. There is only a desire: to build a better world, that is, a new world.”

-- The Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous General Command of the EZLN.

They didn't really have to 'start' static culture, (I'm assuming you mean static to be hierarchial) because they always had it. In hunter-gatherer tribes there was a chief for life who made all the decisions. Usually when he died it was his son or some other way of establishing another chief.
This basic structure was never 'started', it was adopted by early humans from animals, probably namely from certain primeapes that we evolved from, in which the Alpha male is something of a 'leader' for the group.

But this is all irrelevant to zapatismo, which is quite different.

Well, isn't that junta a state ? Or the assembly of the people or whatever it is?

No

I mean: what organ takes the decision, say, of building a dam on a river, or to set up a car factory ?

If the people want to build a school, then they can build a school. If the people want to build a dam, then they build a dam. However, should the junta consider this dam to be too harmfull they may decide to call a public audience/assembly and there decide wether it should be allowed. Notice that the junta does not make the final decision, the people of the municipality does. Also, juntas may come from other municipalities nearby who are also affected and take part. I suppose one could liken their role to that of a judge and/or spokesperson. To keep order but not to make decisions for the people. All of this is very much a simplification though.

Note that we don't have a "gouvernment" or anything, but a police force which acts according to certain rules: protect people against physical agression and protect their property rights.

And what do the police do when a guy starts polluting a river that he owns, and kills and makes sick 100s of people? Do they protect his private property rights, or the safety rights of the 100s of people? Don't answer that, nvm.

 

[vanesch]

No If the people want to build a school, then they can build a school. If the people want to build a dam, then they build a dam. However, should the junta consider this dam to be too harmfull they may decide to call a public audience/assembly and there decide wether it should be allowed. Notice that the junta does not make the final decision, the people of the municipality does.

Yes, and what happens when the majority of people find it a good idea to build the dam, but I'm against it because I want to plant potatous there ? And I say that I will try to stop them from building the dam. What's going to happen to me ? Am I going to face collective violence or not?

And what do the police do when a guy starts polluting a river that he owns, and kills and makes sick 100s of people? Do they protect his private property rights, or the safety rights of the 100s of people? Don't answer that, nvm.

And what if I do this in your Zapatisto system, and people vote against me doing that, and I say that I don't care about their system, I continue to do what I always did because it is the only way for me to make a great beer I'm fond of ? Am I, or am I not, going to face collective violence ?

 

[Smurf]

I can't say Vanesch, it's not structured like a state. If it were up to me all action would be delayed until something was agreed upon. However, If you cause damage to the community, you will have to repair that damage. And it's zapatismo.

What is this 'Collective Violence' supposed to represent anyways?

 

[Smurf]

And what if I do this in your Zapatisto system, and people vote against me doing that, and I say that I don't care about their system, I continue to do what I always did because it is the only way for me to make a great beer I'm fond of ? Am I, or am I not, going to face collective violence ?

That situation would not arise in a zapatismo system because private ownership of a resources, such as a river, is not recognized. You havn't answered my question.

 

[vanesch]

What is this 'Collective Violence' supposed to represent anyways?

The same kind of response you would get as in a democracy, for instance when you go against the established rules. People (part time or full time police men and women) coming in, instructed by an authority (such as a people's convention) to use force upon me, going from simply taking me up and placing me somewhere, to shooting me down.

 

[vanesch]

That situation would not arise in a zapatismo system because private ownership of a resources, such as a river, is not recognized. You havn't answered my question.

I do not need to "own" the river to pollute it. Imagine that I produce a lot of chemicals in order to produce my beer, and that I regularly dump them in the river, making the water unfit for consumption and I kill all the fish. I don't care because I don't like fish. Regularly, I come with my truck and dump the stuff. Is your people's assembly going to organize something to make me stop this or not ?
And don't come near my factory because I shoot on everybody that approaches...

 

[Skyhunter]

Smurf and Vanesch, you guys need to start your own thread and stop hi-jacking everyone elses to have your debate. :grumpy:

 

[vanesch]

Smurf and Vanesch, you guys need to start your own thread and stop hi-jacking everyone elses to have your debate. :grumpy:

Ok, I guess you're right...

 

[Smurf]

Psst Vanesch, we should move this thread to Skyhunter's (soon to be) newly hijacked "Do tax cuts pay for themselves" thread.

 

[SOS2008]

Or...you could PM Evo and ask her to split your posts from this thread to the new "stability of anarchy" thread. I've requested this on more than one occasion and have been kindly accommodated.

 

[Smurf]

Hmm, I don't think Evo likes me very much right now