December 20, 2002
REMEMBER THE LONG-TERM
Natasha Walter has an article up at Common Dreams that I have a number of quibbles with, but she does make a good point about not liberating the Iraqis and then leaving them high and dry, as she argues we're doing in Afghanistan:
"How long will we give the people of Iraq before we get bored by the reports that they have still not achieved democracy? Will it be just a year after a US invasion that some report by Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, documenting abuses against Kurds or dissidents, will be relegated to a couple of paragraphs on page 15 of our newspapers, rather than being the subject of government launches?There is much too much lazy hopefulness being expressed that the blood that will be spilt in Iraq will easily be compensated for by the flowering of democracy once Saddam Hussein has been removed. But the conference of Iraqi exiles that wound up yesterday left the post-war future of Iraq as obscure as ever. Although it is clear that the United States wants to install a government that will be more amenable to US interests than Saddam Hussein's, it is not at all clear how hard it will work to make sure that such a government will be more accountable to its own people."
She's right. If we're going to go into Iraq--and we are--it's going to have to be for the long-term, the really long-term. Hell, WWII ended 57 years ago, and we're still in Germany. All these dreams of having democracy take hold in the Arab world will be just that--dreams--if we're not patient and thorough. The flip side could be a nightmare: the US deposes Iraq and skedaddles too soon, leaving the Middle East to degenerate into intra-tribal bloodletting and eventual international war. You can't just knock off the despots and leave a power vacuum; you have to fill it.
We hear about America's military strength every day; let's hope America's nation-building commitment is at least as strong.
Next Entry: IMPULSE BUY
Comments
Dang, girl, you got my url? You DO have some mojo working.About Afghistan, where we 'Are leaving them high and dry'...I see the link is from Common Dreams. Sorry, I don't discuss such matters with children, or bother to consider childish opinions.That may sound harsh, but if only one of us is reality based (and that would be me), there isn't much point.
Not only Iraq and Afghanistan, but soon Iran, then the Big S: Saudi Arabia.Couldn't happen to a nicer buncha guys...
I don't think we'll abandon them. We didn't walk away from the cold war, and that lasted fifty years. Despite all the carping and moaning from American leftists, and rightwing isolationists, we staid the course. Our pop culture may have the attention span of a toddler, but grownups take out mortgages, buy stock, invest in retirement, we can do this. We can be patient, popular opinion to the contrary.
America is not about to abandon Iraq for a long time to come. To be in control of a large, secular, oil producing country bordering on Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait is a gift from heaven. America will be able to set the price for oil and will no longer have to negotiate for air rights or bases will ensure that they are indeed there for a long time.
Don't ignore the fact that oil is a finite resource and will run out. We need to find alternative sources of power. We have the capability to use battery and solar power--even cars which run off of methanol in chicken manure.The politics of oil and greed may work for a time. However, I don't think that greed and conquest is a way to go for the American people. I thought we had gotten that out of our system in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth.
What the hell do you guys think you are? We are not God to control the fate of this world!!! What you all say violates not only international laws but common decency and let's not forget that 60, 000 of our troops are there if any uprisings "Intefada like" happens.......Lets not cut our selves too thin! Germany, Korea, Japan, Turkey, Afgahanistan?????
Ditto on that, let the congregation say "Amen" says my cousin, the Right Rev. Antman Bea.
Asparagirl,I am afraid the article from Common Dreams is correct. I believe that Bush & Co. just want a victory so they can be elected legitimately this time and do not want the post-Saddam clean up, which is going to be long and messy, on their hands and on the minds of the rest of US.
Egad! Plonk's back, just when I thought he left for Baghdad Human Shield Duty.Our friend #4, Belman, is right. Having a hand on the oil spigot is worth more than you can dream about. Realpolitik at its best and Sayonara to OPEC.Remember that when the economy jumps with joy over a steady supply of inexpensive oil. And remind yourself to thank dear Saddam for being the fool he is (was).
ur ref to Germany, we may still be there, but it's not cuz we're trying to help Germans. Of the 16 AF bases we had there in the 80s (remember the Cold War, it was long term) two are left, and only cuz of places like Iraq. yeah it'll be long term, but it's already been 12, what's another 38?
Steve: Yep, oil will run out (assuming that oil and natural gas are not continuously being produced, as is now proposed - but even if they are, doubtless they aren't at a sufficient rate)... but so what? Known oil reserves should last well over a century (prices will go up a bit as it costs more to extract - the low hanging fruit, as it were, are already being pumped').Oil is used for fuel because it's the most efficient source of ready energy available. The only other significant sources of power at a scale sufficient to run a modern society are coal (filthy and also finite) and nuclear power. I'm all for nuclear power, but I notice you don't mention it at all, preferring a fantasy where vehicles run on chicken-crap (Methane is a useful fuel, but animals don't produce it in the sheer quantity required, and the environmental effects of mass animal farming are more significant than you seem to be aware of). If you desire "alternative" power, nuclear is the only workable option I can see.Why "greed" enters into this I can't see. How is it "greedy" to want oil for energy, but not "greedy" to want energy from another source? The point is the energy (and the plastics, and the fertilizer, etc...) - if all human production is reduced to "greed", what's the term mean? I suggest that such use is, well, abuse. Thinking that desire for security and prosperity is something to "outgrow" indicates, to me, more of a disconnect from human nature than anything else.
Very teutonic of you, Sigivald. Skole!
Mmm. Me think American character much changed since end of Second Big War. Me think America no longer need prove itself to European forebears. Me think America believe its supreme place on world stage achieved, and no longer need uphold high moral standard in land of vanquished foe like in Germany and Japan. When last time you hear real news from Karzai? How goes his army? How strong his hold on power? How great his need for American troops and tax dollars?Me think America will get buttocks bitten fierce by lack of commitment to development of Iraqi and Afghani nations, because unlike Germany and Japan they fall far outside Eurocentric sphere.In addition, me think home PC breathalyzer fine idea: when drink too much firewater, no posting allowed. Mmm.
We will be in Iraq through the second Bush term and beyond. At the very least we are going to rebuild the place with Iraqi oil revenues and we are going to use Iraq as a base to take down Iran, Syria and eventually the "Saudi entity."As for nation building in Afghanistan, you have to have a "nation" first. At best there has been a city-state in Kabul with a border guard to take tolls from the people unwilling to use smugglers.Beyond Kabul there were the tribes.Returning Afghanistan to its 1940-1960 "golden age" is the best we can do without the Afghans maturing as a people, rather than tribal factions.
About a quarter of all the anti-invade Iraq commentary cites America's not terrifically great "nation-building" record as yet another reason not to replace Saddam. Iraq, Saudi, Syria, Iran and the rest of the Middle East are legacy nations of the internal collapse of the Ottoman Empire following WWI. Those glorious straight line borders suggest a few too many brandy and sodas in a London or Paris clubroom rather than any sense of "nation".There is little doubt that Iraq will splinter into a number of ethnic enclaves - Kurds, Sunnis, Shi'ites, Arabs - and some of those will be run well and others badly. This is surely not America's problem.America's issue, and all eyes should be focused on it, is the destruction of a vile regime which has WMDs and a proven willingness to use them on its own people. Once that mission is accomplished there is no particular reason for America to continue in Iraq. In fact, there are many very good reasons for it to leave forthwith.The oil issue is a canard - there is not any need to physically occupy the oil fields when you can buy the oil. The requirement for midwifing Middle Eastern "democracy" is specious - democracy is a choice made by the citizens of developed nations. It cannot be imposed by victor's fiat. (Historically Germany was something of a democracy and, lest we forget, Hitler was elected.) The best the Americans can do is eliminate a horrid regime as efficiently as possible and then leave Iraq's fate to her people. It may not be pretty but it is in line with the very best principles of the American dream.
Asparagirl--Notwithstanding some comments here (sane, serious, and otherwise), you hit the nail on the head. If America is going to invade Iraq ("and we are"), we have a moral obligation to see that Iraqis have a chance for a decent life afterwards. Fortunately, as you realize, there are practical benefits to the West to this approach. Jay Currie's comments are correct as far as they go, but he is comparing the very real costs of "nation-building" to an imaginary cheap "let 'em go to hell" approach. George Marshall made this case 55 years ago.I only wish the debate within my own (Democratic) party was on managing the aftermath of the war...