Iraq: No Winning Scenario in Sight

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding the state of affairs in Iraq today. In short, there is no winning scenario in sight. We can't afford to go ahead with the elections, for one, because of the danger to the public, and secondly, the Sunnis are guaranteed to receive under-representation, approx 5% instead of 25%, which will only serve to destabilize the country. Or course, we can't afford to postpone the elections because this would encourage the insurgents and destabilize the country.

The Iraqi security forces will require years at least, before they are ready to secure the peace.

Then you have the core problem: We can't pull out since this would guarantee civil war and a return to the status quo, but we can't stay because resentment is growing by the day. Like Vietnam, the resentment will eventually boil over and we won't even know who we're fighting for or against.

Dumb liberals. Why do they hate Bush so much?

 

[member 5645]

Regarding the state of affairs in Iraq today. In short, there is no winning scenario in sight. We can't afford to go ahead with the elections, for one, because of the danger to the public, and secondly, the Sunnis are guaranteed to receive under-representation, approx 5% instead of 25%, which will only serve to destabilize the country. Or course, we can't afford to postpone the elections because this would encourage the insurgents and destabilize the country.

The Iraqi security forces will require years at least, before they are ready to secure the peace.

Then you have the core problem: We can't pull out since this would guarantee civil war and a return to the status quo, but we can't stay because resentment is growing by the day. Like Vietnam, the resentment will eventually boil over and we won't even know who we're fighting for or against.

Dumb liberals. Why do they hate Bush so much?

How is your comparison to vietnam more appropriate than a comparison to S Korea?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It may or may not be, I would have to think about that for a while, but the concerns and analysis that I've read and seen indicate that the resentment on the street is growing, and it will turn against us, just like in VN, if we don't pull out soon. Of course, just like in VN, we can't. Now we're committed.

 

[Smurf]

Except in Vietnam you did just up and go, and it turned out to be the right thing to do.

 

[russ_watters]

It may or may not be, I would have to think about that for a while, but the concerns and analysis that I've read and seen indicate that the resentment on the street is growing, and it will turn against us, just like in VN, if we don't pull out soon. Of course, just like in VN, we can't. Now we're committed.

Why couldn't we just pull out of Vietnam?

 

[BobG]

Viet Nam and South Korea were more similar to each other than Iraq is to either one of them. The only real difference between SKorea and Viet Nam is that one worked out (somewhat, anyway - the country's still divided) and the other didn't.

The only similarity between Iraq and the Asian conflicts is that we're noticably the outsider in Iraq, the same as we were in the Asian conflicts.

Korea and Viet Nam were much more unified as a people than Iraq is. In fact, a divided Korea is more of an anomaly than a united Iraq. Both the Asian conflicts were political conflicts vs cultural. (at least initially - I would imagine SKorean culture has changed quite a bit faster than NKorean)

Toss the US out of the equation in Iraq and you still have a conflict. The US just opened the box, it didn't create the contents. Iraq is a cultural conflict between at least three major groups (plus a bunch of smaller sub-groups with conflicting aims). Hussein didn't use chemical weapons on his own people just for enjoyment. It isn't easy to keep a country like Iraq together in one piece.

But, the general gist is fairly accurate. Even Arab peacekeepers would find it almost impossible to handle things in Iraq. An outsider like the US has an even more difficult time.

 

[the number 42]

It isn't easy to keep a country like Iraq together in one piece.

Its worth remembering that the region we call Iraq was created by force by the British and French:

"Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq's inhabitants... and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny. The situation was so bad that the British commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, at one time called for supplies of poisonous gas".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_03.shtml

For a map of the former territory, see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_01.shtml

Iraq is a Frankenstein of our own creation.

 

[Locrian]

Except in Vietnam you did just up and go, and it turned out to be the right thing to do.

Hah, smurf with the stinger.

 

[kat]

Except in Vietnam you did just up and go, and it turned out to be the right thing to do.

How many died due to the fact that we did "just up and go"? I'm not so sure it was...the "right thing" to do, morally.

 

[BobG]

How many died due to the fact that we did "just up and go"? I'm not so sure it was...the "right thing" to do, morally.

Why not?

I don't see why the US is supposed to be the world's policemen. And, as the world's policemen, we don't even do that good of a job. We only address a few out of the many situations where a stronger group of people kill a weaker group of people.

The only reason the US military should get involved is to protect American interests. That's not morally cold - it's managing your resources so the help you do give also has a direct benefit on you as well. The current problems we're having obtaining enough manpower and supplies for both Afghanistan and Iraq while meeting our other world wide commitments show military power isn't an unlimited resource, especially since we've been cashing in on the 'peace dividend' ever since the end of the cold war.

Afghanistan would meet the standard of protecting US interests. The first Gulf War may have met that standard (there seemed to be at least a possibility that a success in Kuwait would just encourage Iraq to cause even more trouble in the region that would disrupt the flow of oil). The war in Iraq would meet that standard if the current situation in Iraq already existed prior to our involvement instead of being caused by us (it still meets that standard now, even if we're the cause of the situation we're trying to fix).

Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia were none of our business, regardless of whether the operations turned out good or bad.

In any event, if the country is devoting itself to improving the world in general on a given amount of money, would more lives be saved by using military action against 'evil' rulers or by your more standard forms of foreign aid, such as food and economic development programs?

 

[Kerrie]

http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51687-2005Jan5.html ...

It would seem (according to this article) that the troops are being overextended as well, another disaster also waiting to happen. I wonder, how many more of our troops would be in South Asia right now to help with the tsunami crisis had the war in Iraq never happened?

 

[russ_watters]

This is why I posed the question in my post:

Why not?

I don't see why the US is supposed to be the world's policemen. And, as the world's policemen, we don't even do that good of a job. We only address a few out of the many situations where a stronger group of people kill a weaker group of people.

The only reason the US military should get involved is to protect American interests. That's not morally cold - it's managing your resources so the help you do give also has a direct benefit on you as well.

The key difference I see between Vietnam and Iraq (Iraq today) is that we created the current situation in Iraq and we didn't create the situation in Vietnam (the French, and to a lesser extent, the Sovs and Chinese did). So whether or not you agree with the general principle of the Moral Imperative, we do have a personal obligation to stay in Iraq until its fixed, and we didn't have that obligation in Vietnam.

That said, part of the reason (the non-political part, and yes, the lesser part) we went to both is because of the general obligation of the Moral Imperative.

The Moral Imperative is strong, but its not rock-hard: I don't know anyone who doesn't believe it a little bit, your "the only reason..." statement notwithstanding. Do you know what the biggest relief organization in Indonesia is right now? Its the United States Marine Corps. What selfish benefit do we get out of sending a billion dollars and a small army to Indonesia? How about Somalia? Rwanda? Haiti? Yugoslavia? Ivory Coast? All of these are combination military-humanitarian efforts with virtuall no selfish benefit for the countries involved. These are all trouble-spots where either collectively or individually, the nations of the world acted primarily upon the Moral Imperative that they all signed up for when they signed the UN charter and said "Never Again."

The reason why we are the world's policeman is that we can and because we can, the Moral Imperative compells us to be.

In any event, if the country is devoting itself to improving the world in general on a given amount of money, would more lives be saved by using military action against 'evil' rulers or by your more standard forms of foreign aid, such as food and economic development programs?

Well, you tell me: how well did sending food to Somalia work before the UN sent troops? How are things going on the Ivory Coast these days? Rwanda? Like it or not, sometimes humanitarian efforts can only be accomplished at the barrel of a gun.

 

[sheldon]

Time will heal, buy stock in Iraq corp. give it ten years and be rich.

 

[Integral]

we do have a personal obligation to stay in Iraq until its fixed, and we didn't have that obligation in Vietnam.

Unfortunately our presence in Iraq IS the problem. The quicker we get out the better for everybody.

 

[loseyourname]

Unfortunately our presence in Iraq IS the problem. The quicker we get out the better for everybody.

Not really. It was just as necessary for Saddam to use military force to keep Iraq in order as it is for the US. The US gives many people a common enemy for now, but if the military simply withdrew, I doubt peace would ensue. There would still be serious questions as to who gets what. Personally, I doubt whether there will ever be a free and peaceful unified Iraq unless it is made that way by tyranny or martial law.

 

[Integral]

I doubt whether there will ever be a free and peaceful unified Iraq unless it is made that way by tyranny or martial law

Imposed by who?

I said nothing about peace following an American withdrawal. But at least it would be Iraqis fighting Iraqis, not the Americans. We can accomplish nothing by staying. All we have accomplished is destabilization. We have ousted Saddam, so now it is a crap shoot as to who will finally take over. Will the new government be any better then Saddam? Maybe, Maybe not. You can bet that anybody we support will have a tough time of it. We need to pull out and start promoting Bin Laden for president of Iraq, Perhaps then someone who might be a friend has a chance at winning. The only thing that we can accomplish by staying is the ruin our military through demoralization of the common soldier. This is one area where there are similarities with Vietnam, the local citizen who is your friend in daylight is shooting at you in the night. Soldiers soon learn that they cannot trust any locals. In this atmosphere atrocities happen (think Mei Lei) , moral and discipline go soon after. This is a nasty, nasty situation we must get free of it soon. There is nothing to gain and much to lose.

 

[LENIN]

Finally a good idea I can souport. Thanks Integral.

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately our presence in Iraq IS the problem. The quicker we get out the better for everybody.

You really believe that if we just pull chocks and leave now that a peaceful, prosperous, free Iraq would emerge? Germany and Japan didn't become the way they are today by accident: we imposed it by force.

...and that seems to contradict your next post:

I said nothing about peace following an American withdrawal. But at least it would be Iraqis fighting Iraqis, not the Americans. We can accomplish nothing by staying. All we have accomplished is destabilization.

Who is everybody if it doesn't also include the Iraqi people? You're saying:

-Staying causes destabilization.
-Leaving won't bring peace.

Are you simply saying there is no hope for Iraq?

 

[revelator]

I don't think pulling out would bring a prosperous and free Iraq. But I do think, staying and occupying Iraq , inspires Iraqi's to fight the invaders.

 

[Integral]

Did any of you read the first sentence of my last post! No I do not think pulling out will mean a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. Do YOU think that staying there, making new enemies every day, ruining our army and wasting American lives will bring a peaceful and prosperous Iraq?


What a silly notion, how can it possibly do anything but more harm? Every day we stay there it makes it LESS likely that a USA friendly govnerment will result. Unless of course we do as Loseyourname proposes and impose "tyranny or martial law ". Now that sounds like a lot of fun! :yuck:

EDIT:
Once we pull out, then it will clear that the invaders are actually invaders and not "freedom" fighters comming to help defeat the American army. The Iraqis should then be able to deal with the obvious outsiders.

 

[plover]

From Middle East scholar Juan Cole:

On Sistani and the elections:

[The fact that Allawi can be bombed while holding a press conference underlines] [t]he problematic character of these elections, with their artificial national candidate lists such that people cannot vote for someone from their own city; with almost no announcements of the names of actual candidates so far; with so much of the Sunni Arab population not registered to vote (and often unable to go out of their houses for fear of poor security) ...

What do do? Probably nothing can be done. The US didn't drive having these elections this way at this time. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani did, though he wanted them earlier. So this is his call. And he can make so much trouble if he doesn't get the elections he wants that it is not worthwhile crossing him.

My guess is that his next call, after the elections, will be for a timetable for US withdrawal ... [and if his acquiescence is revoked,] the US presence in Iraq is untenable and really would, globally, do more harm than good.

And on Iraqi factions and the likely consequences of a partition:

Iraq is not divided neatly into three ethnic enclaves. It is all mixed up. There are a million Kurds in Baghdad, a million Sunnis in the Shiite deep south, and lots of mixed provinces (Ta'mim, Ninevah, Diyalah, Babil, Baghdad, etc.). There is a lot of intermarriage among various Iraqi groups. Look at President Ghazi Yawir. He is from the Sunni Arab branch of the Shamar tribe. But some Shamar are Shiites. One of his wives is Nasrin Barwari, a Kurdish cabinet minister. What would partition do to the Yawirs?

Then, how do you split up the resources? If the Sunni Arabs don't get Kirkuk, then they will be poorer than Jordan. Don't you think they will fight for it? The Kurds would fight to the last man for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk if it was a matter of determining in which country it ended up.

If the Kurds got Kirkuk and the Sunni Arabs became a poor cousin to Jordan, the Sunni Arabs would almost certainly turn to al-Qaeda in large numbers. [...]

Sistani has declared participation in the election to be mukallaf, which translates as something like "religious obligation". If I understand correctly, under Shi'ite doctrine such a ruling from a top-level cleric essentially has the force of holy law – to disobey would be considered sinful. Sistani has also made quite it clear to the U.S. that postponing elections would earn the displeasure of his clerical faction, which has the largest following among Iraqi Shi'ites. (Muqtada al-Sadr also has a significant following, but it is rather smaller than Sistani's and I think may be geographically limited.) The (mostly) Shi'ite candidate list organized by Sistani is expected to get the lion's share of seats in the parliament (especially since Sadr is now boycotting the election).

 

[russ_watters]

Did any of you read the first sentence of my last post! No I do not think pulling out will mean a peaceful and prosperous Iraq.

But you did say if we pull out it would be "better for everyone" and your edit also implies it. Exactly what does that mean, then?

What a silly notion, how can it possibly do anything but more harm? Every day we stay there it makes it LESS likely that a USA friendly govnerment will result. Unless of course we do as Loseyourname proposes and impose "tyranny or martial law ". Now that sounds like a lot of fun! :yuck:

Like it or not, Germany is what it is today and Japan is what it is today because we bombed them into the stone-age, then rebuilt them and their governments. Yes, forceably imposed democracy, though it sounds like an oxymoron, does work (the US also became a democracy via the gun).

Once we pull out, then it will clear that the invaders are actually invaders and not "freedom" fighters comming to help defeat the American army. The Iraqis should then be able to deal with the obvious outsiders.

Without an army or a functioning government, how exactly will they do that? IMO, if we pull out now, Iraq will devolve quickly into full-anarchy and an open civil war, complete with genocide, ie, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Ivory Coast, Yugoslavia, etc.

 

[the number 42]

Like it or not, Germany is what it is today and Japan is what it is today because we bombed them into the stone-age, then rebuilt them and their governments. Yes, forceably imposed democracy, though it sounds like an oxymoron, does work (the US also became a democracy via the gun).

Anybody from Japan or Germany care to comment on this view?

 

[Integral]

Like it or not, Germany is what it is today and Japan is what it is today because we bombed them into the stone-age, then rebuilt them and their governments. Yes, forcibly imposed democracy, though it sounds like an oxymoron, does work (the US also became a democracy via the gun).

Like it or not, 50 yrs have passed. The parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are scant, the parallels between WWII an Iraq are non existent. What are you thinking?

As long as we stay there we attract Islam fundamentalist from around the world to Iraq, They are drawn like flies to shat, we are the shat. If we leave they will have no reason to flock to Iraq. The longer we stay the more that will be in Iraq when we do finally give up and pull out. The longer we stay the MORE likely it is that they will turn Iraq into an Islamic Theocracy the instant we leave. Indeed, it may be to late.

It is imperative that we get out FAST to minimize the damage, there can be no victory, indeed, the only hope is a quick clean exit. This will leave the fate of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqis, what a concept.

God only knows what the future holds.

 

[Zlex]

Now is unpleasant, and costly, and hard, and difficult, and gut wrenching. Unavoidable.

Now is, for the first time in a long time, finally, staying and passing judgement on what we believe is right, and what we believe is wrong, and choosing. And, in so choosing, backing up our choice if and when that is necessary. We either fight for our view of justice, or we succumb to the vision of those who will fight for theirs.

There used to be an endless argument whose primary purpose was to endlessly deny the need to ever choose; that path is vacuous, and wrong, and in the long run, much more costly than simply choosing.

It's not that hard to know what to choose; it's just that in the short term, it is harder to act than to not act. In the long term, our decades of putting off these hard choices have left a huge bill to pay.

It was wrong to leave Iraq in the hands of murdering thugs. It's wrong to let the future of Iraq be determined by kidnapping, murdering, terroristic thugs. It's right to back a peaceful, orderly process of assuming power in Iraq. The fact that there are a minority of ****fighters throwing gut wrenching ****, including, sending a hardly can be expected to be 'informed' six of seven year old girl out into the street to hurl explosives at a convoy, does not negate any of that. It merely makes it difficult and hard and costly and unpleasant and gut wrenching to stay and face the thugs that would do such things, in the name of anything on earth.

And, how telling that they chose a girl-child to dispose of in this fashion. That was not a 50-50 happenstance, not in that radical fundamentalist subset of that culture. I have no qualms at all about pointing at that aspect of that culture, as one example of many, and claiming, that is wrong, it is not an innocent matter of Vanilla/Chocolate/cultural diversity in the great rainbow of people making random choices, and it should not stand, even if force is required to squash it.

Oh, but we can't fix every wrong in the world, therefore... that is our license to endelssly fix none. That used to be the argument. That still is the argument. It is the argument that says, we should never fix any wrong in the world, ever, because ... we can't fix every one.

Or, there are "worse problems," and we are not fixing those, therefore, we should not fix these, or any.

Seriously, where is the holy consensus to fix those worse wrongs? Where was the holy consensus, prior to 9/11, that would have allowed us to eject the Taliban from control of Afghanistan? It is not funny, but it would be laughable to claim that, prior to 9/11, the world would have supported an effective war to remove the Taliban from running Club Terrorist in Afghanistan. It barely held its tongue when we did just that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. The entire premise of the western world has been to project merely the appearance of doing something, as opposed to actually doing something, because projecting appearances is much less costly in terms of lives, in terms of resources, and in terms of votes...in the short term. In the long term, "gesture politics" is a disaster.

The generation before us did not send The Blue Man Group to perform street theatre to confront Hitler. Today's Jew haters cannot be confronted with painless gestures of condemnation.

How could one generation act with such clarity, and their children be infected with such total puddingheadedness?

There is not one answer. But, here is part of it; a lie that has been spoon fed to us since birth. "Violence is never the answer." The source of that is not even Ghandi; not even Ghandi believed that absolute, and recognized the role of Superior Violence.

The source of that lie is a movement to render us unable to defend ourselves, and as well, to destroy ourselves. Our schools have been surrendered to that lie, our streets are bieng surrendered to that lie, and now the entire world is being surrendered to that lie. For a people that believe that 'violence is never the answer,' we have not made any inroads at all in reducing the amount of it raging around the world.

If there is one Iraqi left, pressing for a peaceful non-violent Iraq, ruled by law and not murdering thugs sending 7 year old girls out to hurl explosives at convoys, then even if 25 million Iraqis minus one are dancing in the street, cheering on the bloodshed, kidnapping Japenses woman and threatening to burn them alive, dragging corpses throught the sreets, lining up behind whatever Shiite cleric drew the knife across the throat first, then shame on us for leaving that one human being to be overrun by thug/animals.

I would make that argument all the way until that last one. But in fact, I don't think we're close to that situation in Iraq. In fact, I think we're much closer to the following:

A tiny minority of ****fighters moved to extreme violence in a country of 25 million who have been ruled by fear and violence and murder and mass graves and Saddam's Goon Guard for three decades, nervously whatching the CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS led cheerleaders for 'cut and run again' on their heretofore illegal satellite dishes, wondering if America is once again going to leave the Kurds and Shia swinging in the wind like we did as recently as 1996, complete with No FLy Zones to watch but don't touch.

We have no credibility with those 25 million; why on Earth should we? They've seen us cut and run and leave Iraq to thugs before. They've seen us covertly egging them on, just to have us watch safely from 15,000 feet while knives were dragged across throats.

It is as if the combined media resources of the balance of the civilized world were focused on only one goal; a campaign to boost the morale of the ****fighters in Iraq, to cheer them on as they murder and kidnap and torture and send out 7 year old girls to hurl bombs at convoys. Hold on, we've almost convinced our leaders to cut and run again, if you just ramp up the ****fight just a little bit, you could yet turn this around and ... we'll cut and run again.

In the interest of 'peace,' where are the peace marchers condeming the ****fighters in Iraq? Where are the heartfelt calls to 'end the violence?' It is glaringly missing; the so called 'peace movement' is not about peace at all; it is about defeat of the US by those who believe they have to destroy the USA in order to save it. Cute line, indeed, our own religious fanatics live by this, fervently.

 

[Smurf]

Too much to read, I'll just assume you agree with me and applaud.

Good Post.

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's a question : When will the Allied mission in Iraq be complete ? What indicators will determine that the job is done and it's time to go home ?

If Bush pulls troops out immediately after the elections, claiming that the mission is a success and now that Iraq has freely elected its own government it's time to close shop, how would you react ?

 

[dextercioby]

Like it or not, Germany is what it is today and Japan is what it is today because we bombed them into the stone-age, then rebuilt them and their governments.

Germany and Japan are like they are today,because are made from Germans and Japanese and because they got a little help (let's call that 'initial momentum' :tongue2: ),and not because they lost the war,Soon after the war,the US had an interest to rebuild Germany and Japan (economically,from what i know of,they are banned from having nuclear weapons),because they needed to stop the invasion of comunism into Europe and geopolitically,a weak West-Germany would have meant trouble,while in the Atlantic they needed to have some close-range control over the Soviets and later,Chinese.
However,this policy almost backfired,coz these guys,Germans and Japanese are a buch of intelligent working dudes and soon the American market had been invaded by Japanese and German manufactured goods better qualitatively tan the ones made in th US and,in the case of the Japanese,at lesser cost,and,naturally,Americans didn't like it.They don't like it today,especially today,when Russia ain't not threat to Western Civilization and,economically,the situation is not that great.
Having seen that,i doubt US will ever have the misfortune of reconstructing a country economically,so that after a number of years,all to come back into their faces.And BTW,this part wouldn't work with other countries.The Germans and the Japanese are the way they are,no wonder the US 'imported' almost all the physicists from Germany before and after the war...
Plus Werner von Braun,his crew and the space program...

Daniel.

Daniel.

 

[loseyourname]

Unless of course we do as Loseyourname proposes and impose "tyranny or martial law ". Now that sounds like a lot of fun! :yuck:

I don't recall proposing that. I said that that was what it took for Iraq to be peaceful under Saddam's reign, and if we wanted immediate peace again, that's probably what it would take, for a unified Iraq. What I would actually propose is to not have a unified Iraq. Let the different ethnic groups define their own boundaries and select their own governments. They were the reason there was conflict before and they will be the reason there is conflict well after the US withdraws.

 

[Integral]

don't recall proposing that. I said that that was what it took for Iraq to be peaceful under Saddam's reign, and if we wanted immediate peace again, that's probably what it would take, for a unified Iraq. What I would actually propose is to not have a unified Iraq. Let the different ethnic groups define their own boundaries and select their own governments. They were the reason there was conflict before and they will be the reason there is conflict well after the US withdraws.

In other words we should get the heck out and let them solve their own problems. I can agree with that.

 

[vanesch]

It was wrong to leave Iraq in the hands of murdering thugs. It's wrong to let the future of Iraq be determined by kidnapping, murdering, terroristic thugs.

The problem with the Iraq invasion is that the moment and the way the decision was made to go to war just promoted (as was evident from the start) a transit from the first undesirable situation into the second one, with not much hope to get rid of the second situation, and it had a lot of other, nasty side effects, which harmed the worlds' ability to put into action your long term program. As I lined out already a few times, one of the principal bad side effects is the end of international law, and hence a justification for any strong nation to invade a weaker one (you'll always find an excuse, style WMD to justify darker ambitions), and another important side effect is the promotion of strong anti-western feelings and related with it, the promotion of terrorism.

I will agree with you that violence can exceptionally be a good thing. Nevertheless, if the exceptional character of violence is not underlined, every violent action "for the good" is also a justification of violent action "to be condamned". There's only one way to use violence safely, without serving as a justification for "bad violence": that is a worldwide consensus on its necessity, and a judiciously chosen way to use it, within a frame of "international law".
You find that process inefficient. However, it is the price to pay in order to avoid that "good violence" is used as an excuse for "bad violence". We were, after millenia of tyranny, useless bloodshed and repression, very slowly on the way to establish such a world order. Slowly. It would probably have taken a few centuries more, but what's that in the face of our murderous history. The Iraq invasion almost destroyed that perspective ; I say almost, because happily there was the South-east Asian tsunami which allows a certain re-emergence of that idea, on a humanitarian level.

There's another argument for using violence sparely: often it is hard to predict what will be the result. Look at Iraq again: things do not run as planned ! Is the actual situation really what was planned after 2 years when the tanks were crossing the Kuweiti borderline ?

All this illustrates that world politics is, even for a powerful nation such as the US, a complex thing, and that you have to use your brains more than your guns if you want to achieve something "good". In the same way as there is no royal road to mathematics, there is also no royal road to a better world.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Patrick, without copying your excellent discussion I want to bring up the problems with the current agent of "international concensus", the UN.

It is common to say that the UN represents a stage beyond the old League of Nations, which had so miserable a record confronting European Fascism. But I think if you look at the weapon the UN used against Saddam, leaky sanctions, and compare it to what the League used against Mussolini, leaky sanctions, you will see the the distinction is without a difference.

The root of the problem is that our international institutions are founded on treating nations as unitary. We have no techniques for addressing regimes apart from the peoples they rule, or different factions within a country. Most critics of the UN address the common evils of democracy, log-rolling, pork, and corruption. But history shows that those problems are miniscule when a democracy is working properly; they exist but don't truly interfere with governance.

We have to achieve a more flexible rule of international law and a more adaptible international governance before we can rely on world consensus to mean anything.

 

[russ_watters]

vanesch, I agree with most of what you said, but what happens when the process fails? And it does fail. Several examples:

-France is fighting a little war in the Ivory Coast right now, which has UN approval, but I'm pretty sure the troops went there before they got the approval.

-The UN has violently refused to address the situtation in the Sudan - attacking Colin Powell for using the "G" word instead of addressing the content of his statement.

-The UN refused to act on the Kosovo genocide and the US (along with most of the rest of Europe) went in under a NATO flag.

 

[Zlex]

The problem with the Iraq invasion is that the moment and the way the decision was made to go to war just promoted (as was evident from the start) a transit from the first undesirable situation into the second one, with not much hope to get rid of the second situation, and it had a lot of other, nasty side effects, which harmed the worlds' ability to put into action your long term program. As I lined out already a few times, one of the principal bad side effects is the end of international law, and hence a justification for any strong nation to invade a weaker one (you'll always find an excuse, style WMD to justify darker ambitions), and another important side effect is the promotion of strong anti-western feelings and related with it, the promotion of terrorism.

I will agree with you that violence can exceptionally be a good thing. Nevertheless, if the exceptional character of violence is not underlined, every violent action "for the good" is also a justification of violent action "to be condamned". There's only one way to use violence safely, without serving as a justification for "bad violence": that is a worldwide consensus on its necessity, and a judiciously chosen way to use it, within a frame of "international law".
You find that process inefficient. However, it is the price to pay in order to avoid that "good violence" is used as an excuse for "bad violence". We were, after millenia of tyranny, useless bloodshed and repression, very slowly on the way to establish such a world order. Slowly. It would probably have taken a few centuries more, but what's that in the face of our murderous history. The Iraq invasion almost destroyed that perspective ; I say almost, because happily there was the South-east Asian tsunami which allows a certain re-emergence of that idea, on a humanitarian level.

There's another argument for using violence sparely: often it is hard to predict what will be the result. Look at Iraq again: things do not run as planned ! Is the actual situation really what was planned after 2 years when the tanks were crossing the Kuweiti borderline ?

All this illustrates that world politics is, even for a powerful nation such as the US, a complex thing, and that you have to use your brains more than your guns if you want to achieve something "good". In the same way as there is no royal road to mathematics, there is also no royal road to a better world.

You don't establish 'peace' by declaring 'peace' and sending in MPs. Maybe, you enforce 'peace' --low level crime enforcement--like that, well after the fact. But, treating outbreaks of armed conflict, insurgencies, terrorist **** fights--as if they were low level crime in the street, into which the 'world authority' inserts blue bereted folks in uniform, complete with white gloves, ordered to avoid the use of force even when defending themselves, is simply serving up painted targets for the ****fighters to abuse and proving the point that the 'world authority' is impotent, even when armed.

Repeating this weak assed formula time after time after time has dangerously destroyed the credibility of the 'world authority' to the point that there is no longer a credible deterrent beyond the horizon to inhibit the local thugs anywhere; there is no fear anywhere that the UN is going to show up to enforce anything, so it's open season for thugs everywhere. The argument is used time and time again that "we can't fix every ****fight, we can't fix every skinned knee." Then, to reinforce the need to increasngly do so, in the few instances where the world authority does decide to act, instead of overwhelmingly proving the point that it is capable of recognizing the need to use force to inhibit abject thuggery, and is capable of effectively projecting that force when needed, the world authority demonstrates its embarrassed inneffectiveness via half measures loaded with apologies and propitiation and inneffectiveness and ultimately, an overwhlming propensity to cut and run when the heavy lifting of shouting down thuggery actually shows up.

So, these few demonstrated instances of failure increase the need to have to actually deploy force, as opposed to merely credibly threaten to use force, because the actual deployed uses of force have ruined any credibility the UN might have had.

Of what deterrent are the UN's many repeated threats to enforce their wishes on paper, when the actual instances of same are complete 800,000 senselessly murdered cut and run cluster ****s like Rwanda?

Stick a fork in the UN, it's done, and it has been done.

Belgium, I suppose, is an example of our former European friends who used to love us during the Clinton years. Sure. The "world community" that loved us when we busted a sweat only to back up Belgium's cutting and running in Rwanda, when we banded together with them in an act of complete moral disgrace, to help them and us 'save face.' That cowardly world loved us when we were cowards, too.

Count me ~way~ ****ing out of that love fest.

It couldn't be clearer, it is an absolute necessity; to continue to cling to that love fest, to value the UN after it disgraced all of (what is left of) humanity in the 90s, after it lowered the banner of the civilized world to level not equaled since Hitlers' Germany and the IRCs silence during the Holocaust, under no circumstances, sit through and witness 2 hrs of "Ghosts of Rwanda."

Better to bask to ignorance of those events, in the dark, and cling to those meaningless words on that crumpled Un Charter, than to expose oneself to the actual track record of the UN. "Ghosts of Rwanda" is a report card on the UN in the 90's; it's not necessary to actually look at the report card when they are all F's, so you might as well not.

It's not just that the UN is imperfectly funded or resourced or executed; hey, we're all naked sweaty apes. No, the problem is that, fundamentally, its instituional attempt to unilaterally repeal the Paradox of Violence is catastrophically flawed.

In Rwanda, it's not even that it was "impossible" for the rest of the world to get troops there in time; the Belgians had additional armed force there tout de suite, and there were several hundred US marines on the ground, all within days--sent there to help only with the evacuation of foreigners from Rwanda. In a sickening irony, there was plenty of force delivered to Rwanda, in time, to save a half million people from being hacked to death by teenagers with machetes. What was missing was the insitituional UN recongition that force was required. The force that was actually delivered to the region, in plenty of time, was sent there in support of the the UNs mission to cut and run and leave the Rwanda people to suffer genocide, the majority Hutus simply exterminating the minority Tutsis.

The UN--and the rest of the world--tried to justify our inaction by claiming it was a double genocide, of warring factions hacking each other to death, and there was no way to 'fairly' choose a side. That, the insurgent Tutsi armed rebels, who were figthing their own war of liberation, did not want the UN to interfere with their takeover of the country.

But, by an overwhelming margin, the vast majority of murders were by Hutu militia in advance of the rebel advances from the north; the later Tutsi retributions were in response to the miles and mounds of corpses they found as they advanced. Had sufficient UN troops simply did what they eventually did --establish large safe havens for the non-combatants, protecting them from teenagers with machetes who were often cowed simply by the sight of an unarmed foreigner saying "No," the UN could have still remained 'neutral' in the civil war. The UN could have acted exactly as was intended, and at least limited the fighting to the actual combatants in that civil war. Had they have done so, and had they have had any institutional recognition of when and how to use force, Rwanda would be an anecdote in the history books, instead of the well hidden Western shame that it is today.

Instead, when violence erupted, the UN, the world authority, ran screaming from the country; it was only the refusal of the local commanders on the ground to actually leave that kept the UN in Rwanda at all. Early on, after Belgium unilaterally rushed down to rescue their own troops from this UN cluster ****, and the UN Canadian commander Dellaire was left with his own officer staff, a few Senagalese, and some poorly armed Ghanan troops, the UN in NY/Kofi Annan, ordered Dellaire to pull the UN out of Rwanda altogether. Dellaire talks to the Ghanas commander, asks him, what are we going to do. The Ghanan commander tells him, we're not leaving. That gives Dellaire a rush of clarity, and he tells the UN into "Go to Hell." And, he stays, and does what he can, with nothing, while the armed troops from over the horizon are already on the ground, assiting in the UNs and USs cut and run to get all the Westerners out of Rwanda.

Here's a last bit of screaming irony in all of this. The story of the Senagalese hero, Capt. Mbaye Diagne, who courageously disobeyed UN policy/orders and saved Rwandans 100 or so at a time, hiding them in the UN hotel/HQ, illegally getting them out of the country any way he could, only to be later killed by a mortar shell at a militia road block.

His story led to this response on the PBS website:

In my faith, the fifth ceremonial cup of wine poured during the family Seder dinner on Passover is left untouched in honour of Elijah, who, according to our tradition, will arrive one day as an unknown guest to herald the advent of the Messiah.

Next Monday as the sun goes down and I gather my children around the table and retell the story of Jewish freedom I will place a second empty goblet in memory of Capt. Mbaye Diagne.

Once again one sole individual, with truth and justice on his side, made a profound a difference.

Capt Mbaya Diagne was a Senagalese Muslim.

The holy world community has no idea who Capt Mbaya Diagne is.

The holy world community gave Kofi Annan the Nobel Peace Prize.

**** the holy world community, this is what it does, this is who it celebrates, this is who it ignores.

Yes, Richard Clarke is in front of a commission looking into what the Us government did or did not do in the case of 3000 murdered Americans. Richard Clarke is yet a defender of our non-intervention in Rwanda.

There was no accounting for 800,000 murdered Rwandans. No greta circus hearings, explaining the calculus of the following: if it actually were a genocide, we'd have been legally compelled to do something as signatories to the Genocide Convention, as well as the rest of the UN, so, because our official policy was non-intervention at any cost, the sum and substance of the US effort in this regard was to lobby to make sure that the geneocide was never referred to as a genocide.

Realpolitick, except for one glaring fact; it was a genocide, everybody knew it was a genocide, folks were screaming the word genocide, and we did nothing except throw up legalese smoke screens as to why we were doing nothing.

One American, an Adventist church field worker, stayed in Rwanda during all of this, unarmed, and saved more Rwandans than the entire US Government, using far less resources than we spent spinning our inaction. One unarmed Muslim Captain saved more Rwandans than the entire USMC contingent sent to support the extraction/withdraw-- and eventual visit of the Clintons to Rwanda on one of his many trips of pouty propitiation, where, as one troop described it, "We played vollyball in Kigali for a month, the Clintons came and went, we withdrew."

No, this is not just about Clinton. We cut and ran in Vietnam, left the Montagnards and others to the tender mercies of 'cultural leveling/cleansing,' sure, that was a big win for Peace all right, that and the barelyu could hide it sight of thousands throwing themselves desperately into the SOuth China Sea. A real proud moment for 'peace.' We cut and ran in Lebanon. We left the Kurds hanging in Gulf War I, ran home to our parades, caving into that holy 'world community' and it's 'enough is enough' sensibilities. We cut and ran in Somalia. We pre-cut and ran in Rwanda. And, once again, we are making every sign of advocating cutting and running in Iraq. Is it no wonder that so much of the world hates us, so much of it despises us, and so much of it is in flames?

In Rwanda, once again, when it comes to facing down evil and suppressing megapolitcs, it comes down to the acts of a few lone individuals, not a giant committee bending over backwards to justify its inaction, cowering, pretending that the entire world will not be lost to flames if good men do nothing.

 

[russ_watters]

Great post, Zlex - I share your outrage.