Earlier today, we talked a bit about punitive expeditions, and why they're sometimes all a nation at war needs to accomplish in order to achieve its goals. Daniel Pipes argues that that's all we might be able to accomplish in Iraq:
. . .history suggests that the coalition's grand aspirations for Iraq will not succeed. However constructive its intentions to build democracy, the coalition cannot win the confidence of Muslim Iraq nor win acceptance as its overlord. Even spending $18 billion in one year on economic development does not improve matters.
I therefore counsel the occupying forces quickly to leave Iraqi cities and then, when feasible, to leave Iraq as a whole. They should seek out what I have been calling for since a year ago: a democratically-minded Iraqi strongman, someone who will work with the coalition forces, provide decent government, and move eventually toward a more open political system.
This sounds slow, dull, and unsatisfactory. But at least it will work — in contrast to the ambitious but failing current project.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Stephen Green at April 13, 2004 11:04 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
Umm...Democratically-minded strongman? Like Aristide? This one looks an awful lot like the magic wand solution of "bringing in the UN."
Who would this person be? What incentive would they have to remain "democratically-minded" once we left? How would they maintain their power with us gone? Would they be Sunni or Shi'a? How would the other group react?
I don't see any reason why this would work better than our current plan, other than getting US troops out of Iraq. Of course, doesn't that assume we want US troops out of Iraq? Isn't there a certain advantage to having US troops this close to Iran and Syria? Wasn't that part of the point?
The project is "failing" when 70-some percent of Iraqi citizens are begging us to stay and the vast majority of the country is at peace and prospering?
Pipes needs to turn off Dan Rather and educate himself as to what's actually going on in Iraq before he goes spouting off idiotic non-solutions that will flush everything we've done up until now straight down the toilet.
Should we have just turned over Japan to Hirohito an high-tailed it home in 1946? Yeah, great idea. Get a clue.
As Beth's friend seems to support, we aren't good at choosing leaders who are in touch with reality. I think it's better to set up a good system, at least the start of one, and then figure out the leaders.
They'd be lucky to get a Lee Kwan Yu or a Pinochet. Iraq probably needs a period of stability and reliable orderly government first, with local democracy. It will take a generation of kids growing up who didn't live under Saddam for anything good to happen there. Lowering expectations is the name of the game for Iraq.
Maybe we shouldn't worry so much about democracy, and instead go about creating a strong stable capitalist/market economy first. There are plenty of real world examples of countries that only became full fledged democracies through the creation of a middle class and market economies, think S. Korea in the 80's, much of Latin America, and hopefully China.
Just do what the victorious allies did in postwar NAZI GERMANY and JAPAN, with Eisenhower and MacArthur, as backed up by the allied armies and combined staffs, possessing supreme authority despite the creation of new local civilian governments. - by all accounts the allied military authorities did an excellent job and without much interference from their home governments! US and Allied military, democratic, and geopol interests supercede anything real or subjective as per the Iraqis or other outsiders - the US and its Allies set the timetable for proper departure and withdrawal, NOT the Iraqi Governing Authority, any ME Muslim state, NOT Russia, China, or the UNO! If the US stays 5, 10, or 100 years, the US should stay until it believes it can leave with a reliable and democratic Iraqi government and nation behind it! IF A WAR THAT IS NOT WORTH WINNING IS NOT WORTH FIGHTING, SO ALSO FOR BUILDING NEW NATIONS! AS Sun Tzu rightly teaches, the enemy is NOT responsible for your strengths or weaknesses, in anything; just as there no atheists in foxholes, who suddenly discover someone out there is wilfully trying to kill you and without caring about what you believe about the world, or what you have to say about his killing you!
