Edward Hugh is fair and balanced and living in Barcelona. In company with Elliot Oti, he tries to figure out just what is going on in Iraq:
Posted by DeLong at August 19, 2003 08:18 AM | TrackBackBONOBO LAND: Whither Iraq? Interesting question,and one which I think we may well be asking ourselves for some time to come. One of the biggest conundrums has been trying to actually sort out what the hell has been going on. This is one of the reasons I tried to keep my mouth wide shut during the whole Iraq crisis. Not being convinced by either the pro or the anti camp, I had a hard time figuring out what was happening (and I still do, Blair in the end swung it for me since - if there were no WMD's - I couldn't believe he would risk so much for so little. Incidentally, and this would be truly comic if it were not so tragic, didn't Idi Amin just die in Saudi Arabia?)
As Elliott Oti points out "not privy to the deep wisdom of the US Administration, we proles have had to do the grunt work of rationalising the US's motives, from either a pro-war or pacifist viewpoint. Liberation, oil, revenge, neocon conspiracies ... blogs, print and online media have covered the various angles in exhausting depth". But still we are non the wiser.
My best bet would be to see what just happened in Iraq as an attempt to facilitate the Israel-Palestine peace process, since on the one hand the US can never realistically hope to be free of Islamic Fundamentalist inspired terrorism while the conflict there continues, and on the other neither Sharon, nor any other conceivable Israeli prime minister, would be in any position internally to make substantial concessions to the US with Saddam in Iraq. But you just try explaining this at the UN. This I take it is what Wolfowitz had in mind when he referred to the bureaucratic factors behind the decision to highlight WMD's. But as Elliott points out this now makes US foreign policy a hostage to fortune of what may, or may not, happen in Iraq. Having taken the decision which was easier in the short-term the longer-term problem is much bigger. Looking around the planet I cannot bring myself to understand what it is that makes Iraq so different. Sure there is the petrol money, but this often seems to cause more not less problems (even in Texas). Nation building may be a worthy aim, but for all the same reasons which mean a centrally planned economy doesn't work, surely a centrally planned national identity won't either, and certainly not on the sort of timescale envisaged by the US administration. So one day or another we're going to be back with multilateralism. The only thing which really puzzles me is why people as apparently intelligent as Wolfowitz and Rumsfeldt turn out to be so stupid that they imagine they can see a solution where no-one else can. (No please don't try to answer this one for me, it is rhetorical).In August 2002 it became obvious that the US was going to invade Iraq no matter what, and in the months leading up to the actual conflict it was also obvious that the presented rationales - weapons of mass destruction, Al-Qaeda - were flimsy and largely unconvincing. Not privy to the deep wisdom of the US Administration, we proles have had to do the grunt work of rationalising the US's motives, from either a pro-war or pacifist viewpoint. Liberation, oil, revenge, neocon conspiracies ... blogs, print and online media have covered the various angles in exhausting depth.
Almost no-one buys the WMD theory any more, not even its more prominent supporters at the start of the year; the pro-war segment of the blogosphere is gradually shifing towards the idea that the Liberation Of Iraq and the Transformation Of The Middle East has been the true goal all along, and that the glorious leaders of the free world lied out of necessity in order to get us doubting thomases down with the program, to mangle a metaphor or two. Fine. I can almost buy that story. But.
MORE
Fatalities:
American soldiers 130
British soldiers 14
---
144 Since May 2
American 269
British 47
---
316 Since March 20
Note: Danish fatality listed with British
Note: American forces have risen to 148,000
British forces have been cut from 10,000 to 5,000
Lise, why don't you support our troops? ;-)
Posted by: Jean-Philippe Stijns on August 19, 2003 10:12 AMLise would like to, she really, really would, and has repeatedly tried to support the troops. However, since she has no power, she has been unable to cut veterans benefits, or to remove scheduled pay raises. She has also lied to them a lot, sending them e-mails which promise that they'll be home soon. Unfortunately, they didn't believe her, and her ISP terminated her account (I've suggested a .gov or .mil account - I've heard that those come with unlimited BS bandwidth).
Posted by: Barry on August 19, 2003 11:53 AMThe lack of planning and the lack of a price tag for post war Iraq has not escaped notice. The military brass has been arguing with the civilians about this for months. Senator Lugar has been asking these questions since before the vote was held in Fall 2002.
These questions can be avoided for now by hiding in Crawford and avoiding press conferences. However, once campaign 04 starts, I cannot imagine that post war Iraq and its costs in lives and money will not be a major issue. In fact, the Democrat candidates are already back seat driving on how they would proceed differently from the path chosen by the president.
Americans don't like to be suckered. In Huck Finn, the suckers at the Great Nonesuch bring plenty of rotten fruit on the third night.
Posted by: bakho on August 19, 2003 12:03 PMRegarding the piece DeLong posted: From the beginning I have pretty much assumed the worst about Bush, including the assumption that his administration has not been honest, and I've had pretty good luck with that policy.
The bizarre thing for me from the beginning is that there always has been a more plausible explanation for the Bush policies than the one publically stated. Something like "With the fall of the USSR we have a one-time opportunity to achieve worldwide military domination and gain control of the world oil supply." And many support Bush on grounds like that, even though that rationale has never been publically stated by anyone connected with the administration (at least not while they were serving the administration). It's hard to argue against an unstated (secret, denied) argument.
As I keep saying, Never-never land. Through the looking-glass.
One consequence of this is that the assumption of goodwill on the part of the administration is no longer valid. I am not a temperamental paranoid, but I think that the paranoid interpretation has been the best one during much of this debate.
Posted by: zizka on August 19, 2003 12:32 PM"One consequence of this is that the assumption of goodwill on the part of the administration is no longer valid."
Much to my surprise, this was the conclusion I have come to these past months.
Posted by: lise on August 19, 2003 01:09 PMIraq policy is neocolonialism. The US thinks it is needed to save our little brown brothers in Iraq from the evil dictator and then take over and show them the ways of the wealthy white man. The Iraqis think we are arrogant interlopers. What do those Iraqis mean by the thumbs up signs they gave to Mr. Wolfowitz?
Mr. Bush and the neocons have taken up the white man's burden in Iraq.
Mistah Kurtz. He Dead.
A penny for the old Guy.- Eliot
The people who are neutral in the US struggle with Ba'athist and Islamist fascism are same people, or the same type of people, who were neutral during the Cold War.
These people made excuses for Communist tyranny and brutality, and claimed that the US anti-Communism was merely a disguise for colonialism, imperialism, etc. Here we go again.
It's better for any number of people to live in misery, poverty and oppression in the Middle East than that a wicked Republican should have anything to do with their liberation. That's the line anyway.
American left-liberalism's principle tenet is that Republicans are white trash and that anything they do must be wrong. Left-liberals are free riders. They want to enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous society, while sneering at those who are willing to pay the price for that freedom and that prosperity.
@Joe: who besides the dead coalition soldiers and Iraqis paid? you? Bush?
in my book cutting veteran's benefits and even contemplating removing the increase in combat pay clearly counts as "[wanting] to enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous society, while sneering at those who are willing to pay the price for that freedom and that prosperity."
YMMV, but at least I made an argument, not some baseless assertions.
Tell you what, I would have supported that war if there was a proper debate on regime change before the war and not so much hyped WMD "evidence". If Iraq is a stable democracy in a few years and the domino theory holds and democracy sweeps through the middle east I assure you I will not hesitate to praise Bush as one of the great presidents of the US. Unfortunately, given his record so far, I believe there is zero chance of that, but I'd be terribly happy to be surprised.
Now please take your "knowledge" of what left-liberals think and I put it wherever you please. I'd suggest some sunless spot, but maybe the Free Republic will do as well, I heard they like your level of argument there.
@Joe: who besides the dead coalition soldiers and Iraqis paid? you? Bush?
in my book cutting veteran's benefits and even contemplating removing the increase in combat pay clearly counts as "[wanting] to enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous society, while sneering at those who are willing to pay the price for that freedom and that prosperity."
YMMV, but at least I made an argument, not some baseless assertions.
Tell you what, I would have supported that war if there was a proper debate on regime change before the war and not so much hyped WMD "evidence". If Iraq is a stable democracy in a few years and the domino theory holds and democracy sweeps through the middle east I assure you I will not hesitate to praise Bush as one of the great presidents of the US. Unfortunately, given his record so far, I believe there is zero chance of that, but I'd be terribly happy to be surprised.
Now please take your "knowledge" of what left-liberals think and I put it wherever you please. I'd suggest some sunless spot, but maybe the Free Republic will do as well, I heard they like your level of argument there.
@Joe: who besides the dead coalition soldiers and Iraqis paid? you? Bush?
in my book cutting veteran's benefits and even contemplating removing the increase in combat pay clearly counts as "[wanting] to enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous society, while sneering at those who are willing to pay the price for that freedom and that prosperity."
YMMV, but at least I made an argument, not some baseless assertions.
Tell you what, I would have supported that war if there was a proper debate on regime change before the war and not so much hyped WMD "evidence". If Iraq is a stable democracy in a few years and the domino theory holds and democracy sweeps through the middle east I assure you I will not hesitate to praise Bush as one of the great presidents of the US. Unfortunately, given his record so far, I believe there is zero chance of that, but I'd be terribly happy to be surprised.
Now please take your "knowledge" of what left-liberals think and I put it wherever you please. I'd suggest some sunless spot, but maybe the Free Republic will do as well, I heard they like your level of argument there.
@Joe: who besides the dead coalition soldiers and Iraqis paid? you? Bush?
in my book cutting veteran's benefits and even contemplating removing the increase in combat pay clearly counts as "[wanting] to enjoy the benefits of living in a free and prosperous society, while sneering at those who are willing to pay the price for that freedom and that prosperity."
YMMV, but at least I made an argument, not some baseless assertions.
Tell you what, I would have supported that war if there was a proper debate on regime change before the war and not so much hyped WMD "evidence". If Iraq is a stable democracy in a few years and the domino theory holds and democracy sweeps through the middle east I assure you I will not hesitate to praise Bush as one of the great presidents of the US. Unfortunately, given his record so far, I believe there is zero chance of that, but I'd be terribly happy to be surprised.
Now please take your "knowledge" of what left-liberals think and I put it wherever you please. I'd suggest some sunless spot, but maybe the Free Republic will do as well, I heard they like your level of argument there.
"Now please take your "knowledge" of what left-liberals think and I put it wherever you please."
C'mon markus, without a couple of people with pro-western political views these fora would be a total liberal circle jerk.
There is one big question in politics today. Is western civilization worth saving, or should it be flushed down the toilet as the left-liberals propose?
Posted by: Joe Willingham on August 20, 2003 01:22 AMmarcus, making unsupported statements about hyped WMD does not make you more rational than Joe. The UN's weapons inpectors believed that Iraq likely had WMD.
Posted by: Stan on August 21, 2003 08:44 AM