Categories
culture politics

Liberty is the Priority

Much of what has gone wrong in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam is a result of a culture that is very different from ours. As I thought about that recently it occurred to me that Iraq is typical of all (or virtually all) of the fighting that the U.S. has engaged in since the end of World War II in that our goal has been to establish or protect democracy. It would seem that democracy is our standard for measuring the relative liberty found in various nations.

The problem that we generate when we confuse democracy with liberty is that we get so focused on the structure that we forget the fundamental principle. The truth is that I would much rather live under a dictator who enforced law with consistency and equity than vote regularly to determine who would take the lead in telling me what to do and suppressing my freedoms as they deemed appropriate.

I believe that the last half century has offered conclusive proof that we cannot enforce liberty by the installation of democracy. Instead we should be spending out resources of time and energy towards the perfecting and perpetuating of liberty here so that our nation can stand as an example of liberty to the world. Rather than going out and policing other nations we would find that by policing ourselves, other nations would seek our counsel when necessary after they were able to support a free society.

Right now China, which is a fully communist country, seems more prepared to sustain a free society than Iraq even since we toppled their dictator. In fact, Iran might already be more prepared than Iraq is currently. Liberty cannot be imposed from outside. Our nation would not have survived its own founding if the society in the 13 colonies had not already been prepared to maintain the principle of freedom upon which our country was founded.

The question for each succeeding generation will always be – are they still prepared to maintain the freedom they inherited?

It is a question without a pre-determined answer.

Categories
culture politics

Good News From Iraq

The report that the Iraqi Prime Minister called for the removal of American military checkpoints in Baghdad was the best news I have heard from Iraq in a long time. The reason it was good news is because we removed the checkpoints. I’m sure some would argue that the fact that violence escalated in Baghdad afterwards means it was a bad move. I disagree.

One message that needs to be sent loud and clear to the Iraqi government, the insurgents, Iraqi citizens in general, American citizens, and the world is that Iraq is a sovereign nation. That means that the duly elected Iraqi government is in charge of that country If they ask something of the American military in Iraq, we should do as they request. This is a clear case where that happened. Too many people think that we can make Iraq stable. The fact is, we can’t. We can help them, but they are the ones who make it stable or not. The citizens of Iraq are the ones who determine is this experiment in democracy works.

Americans need to recognize that no amount of military might will enable us to dictate the way things will work in another country. We can disrupt the existing system, but when it comes to setting up a new system we can only suggest – we cannot force. We have Americans saying that women should have the right to vote, and that the majority cannot trample the rights of the a minority. The fact is that Iraqis can reverse those decisions the minute we leave the country – no matter how long we stay. They are the only ones who can make lasting decisions.

We should also recognize that there is no way to forcibly end the insurgency so long as the perception remains that the government in Baghdad is under American control. If jihadists view the government of Iraq as autonomous from America they will not support the insurgency unless their goal is to fight Iraq. Until then, they will come make trouble in Iraq as a fight against America. Our goal is not to stop the fight against Iraq, only the Iraqis can do that. Our goal is to help the Iraqis and stop the fight against America.

The only way to stop people from fighting against America is to treat people with respect. We need to treat them with respect when we visit their countries and we need to treat them with respect when they visit our country. That responsibility does not rest solely with the government. That responsibility also lies with the military, it lies with each corporation, and it lies with all Americans.

If we respect Iraq and Iraqis we must be there to support and help, not to dictate. If we do not respect Iraq and Iraqis we will never be able to help and we should cut our losses because we cannot change them. We must respect them for who they are or else we have no business there.

Categories
politics

Iraq

After three years in Iraq (and three years worth of news and commentary on Iraq) I just had a new thought on the situation this morning. What would happen if we left Iraq now?

I am not an advocate of cut-and-run but I think we have to ask ourselves that question if we are to make an honest assessment of the situation. The only reason to stay in Iraq is if we want to prevent what would happen if we were to leave. The general consensus seems to be that if we leave there will be anarchy and its attending chaos. I am beginning to wonder how much worse it would be than it already is.

I know the Bush Administration would argue that it would be worse, and that they don’t intend to leave until Iraq is stable. I believe that violence would get worse soon after the US military leaves, but will Iraq ever be stable?

Sometimes a temporary solution to a problem may prevent a final solution (like propping up “friendly dictators” rather than allowing other countries their autonomy). Currently in Iraq there are thousands of Iraqis dying each month. What would it look like if we left?

What if, in the absence of the US military, Iraq entered an unchecked civil war where 10,000 Iraqis died each month for 6 months before they reached some sort of stability and the death tolls fell to 500 per month. The reason for my thoughts this morning was that I began to wonder if that was inevitable. If we stayed in Iraq for two more years and then pulled out would they have a short period of extreme instability as soon as we left before things settled down? Perhaps they would have 10,000 casualties per month for only two months.

Let’s compare these two scenarios to see what the cost would be of “staying the course” for two more years. The war is costing us roughly $100 billion per year and (conservatively) 50 US casualties per month. That translates into a cost to the US of $200 billion dollars and 1200 more lives. What does that purchase give us according to my scenario? Assuming 2500 Iraqi casualties per month while the US is on the ground, there would be 80,000 Iraqi deaths (60,000 over 2 years at 2500 per month plus 10,000 per month for two months of instability) before they achieved stability. If we were to cut and run under my scenario there would be 70,000 Iraqi casualties (60,000 over six months of civil war plus 500 per month for the next 20 months) before they achieved stability.

I don’t pretend that my numbers are accurate, if they were it would be easy to decide to save $200 billion dollars, 1200 US lives, and 10,000 Iraqi lives. I think my numbers should be just realistic enough to make people want to see real estimates of the cost of continuing this war. Let’s get experts to consider all the factors so that the public knows what they are supporting, or opposing.

Categories
politics

The Iraqi Constitution

I have been very interested to hear about the progress on the Iraqi constitution. Naturally most of the commentary was about how bad the constitution was and how it was a step backwards for the US. I keep hearing about a new Iran. Finally I read this article where there was something positive to say. I grant that David Brooks is one of the people who is more likely to agree with the president, but I have to agree with much of what he says because I had recognized the reality of the following quotes back when I reviewed No God but GOD:

“The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering this constitution,” Galbraith exclaimed, then added: “This is the only possible deal that can bring stability. … I do believe it might save the country.”

Galbraith’s argument is that the constitution reflects the reality of the nation it is meant to serve.

What’s important, Gerecht has emphasized, is the democratic process: setting up a system in which the different groups, secular and clerical, will have to bargain with one another, campaign and deal with the real-world consequences of their ideas. This is what’s going to moderate them and lead to progress. This constitution does that. Shutting them out would lead to war.

The men being quoted here by Brooks are Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia and Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute.

I make no claim of special understanding regarding the Iraqi people or this draft of a constitution but we must have a constitution that fits the people that it is intended to govern. If these men that Brooks has quoted are right about the Iraqis and this constitution than I have to conclude that it is a good thing. If our American values see it as too much like Iran perhaps we would do well to remember that the Iraqis are much more like their Iranian neighbors than they are like us Americans from halfway across the world and that’s just fine with me. If we are attempting to remake them in our image then we should not be there in the first place because it will never happen.

Categories
politics

Nugget of Truth

It is not often that I agree with Maureen Dowd more than grudgingly, but in her article about female interrogators torturing detainees in Iraq I found myself agreeing with her without reservation. She put the perfect perspective in one sentence: “However the Bush White House is redefining torture these days, the point is this: Such behavior degrades the women who are doing it, the men they are doing it to, and the country they are doing it for.”

There is no other point that could be made. It would be better in the long run to not have the intelligence gotten by such deplorable means then to stoop to such a level of depravity.

Categories
politics

Courage of the Iraqis

To all appearances, today was a success in Iraq. As reported in the New York Times, the turnout in the Iraqi elections was solid – even exceeding expectations in some Sunni areas. David Anderson (another dead link from ISOU – archives/2005/01/bravery_and_det.html) also has a good commentary (as usual) on the elections.

It makes no difference if you supported or opposed the invasion of Iraq, unless you support anarchy you must hail the Iraqis for turning out to vote despite the vocal threats against voters.

Time will tell how successfully Iraq turns the corner towards democracy and freedom, but the turnout at the polls today is one positive indicator.

Categories
National politics

The Fastest Way Out

I drive around the city and see a smattering of yard signs saying “Bring the troops home now.” I feel that those who post the signs do not care about the welfare of the Iraqis. No matter how bad their lives are now with insurgents, the worst course of action we could take would be to walk away right now. After reading Friedman’s “Pop-Tarts or Freedom?” I had an interesting thought about those who display those signs. Undoubtedly those who post the signs disagree with the Bush administration regarding the war in Iraq. Friedman suggests that the fastest way to get the troops home is to hold elections. If people believe that then these people who don’t support the administration would have to support the stance of the administration in not postponing the Iraqi elections.

Categories
National politics

Bad Logic

I know I’m a little late blogging about this because I have been at a conference this week, but . . .

I have been hearing this argument that Sadaam was not a threat to us because Sadaam and Al Qaeda were enemies. It just makes me sick that people can use such poor logic as the basis for their public arguments. Even if they have better reasons for opposing the war, they put forth the nice sound bite that proves nothing about whether Sadaam was a threat. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” has never been more obviously false. The fact that Sadaam and Al Qaeda were enemies does nothing to make either one of them a friend to the United States.

Categories
politics

The final gamble

The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Fresh Starts: One for Iraq, One for Bush
Here it is, the final gamble on Iraq. What happens in the next couple of months will largely determine how Bush is viewed in averything he has done over the last 18 months.

Will he be vindicated or vilified?

If for no other reason than the sake of the Iraqis I hope he is vindicated.