| Monday
October 3, 2005
As promised, the pro-Iraq War position:
Dear Jerry,
It is 6:15 am, the coffee is brewing and I’m in my
office contemplating your retroactive writ of excommunication for all
neo-cons (or is it just all neo-cons who supported intervention in Bosnia
and Kosovo?). Since I contributed to the evolution of our conversation by
dragging in Israel I guess I guess I had Bosnia coming, but I want to return
to why I wrote in the first place. The original charge I was attempting to
answer was that our decision for war in Iraq was inherently flawed.
My argument in favor of intervention was that 1) there
is a world economy and we are not getting out of it - and we need to manage
it since even if we could achieve energy independence we would still be tied
to countries dependent upon oil 2) ergo the Middle East is a problem and our
engagement there is necessary (and fraught with additional peril because of
our necessary ties with Israel) and 3) the sanctions regime and Sadaam's
containment was untenable and Iraq is the center point from which we can
more easily deal with other problems in the region – such as Saudi Arabia’s
instability or Iran’s ambitions.
The serving officer has backed up my argument that the
sanctions were breaking down and that our ties to the global economy
(including our massive amount of trade) preclude a “fortress America” policy
(which Petronius both derides as a straw man and smuggles in by claiming we
can “walk softly and carry a big honking stick” and [when] any Hashishim or
Hashishim harboring "state", failed or otherwise, that pokes a finger at us
will get a visit by some very capable young men”). The main problem with
Petronius' assertion is that the finger which Jihadist fanatics might poke
in our eye could contain a nuke. It seems much better to carry on a struggle
which is costing lives but aims to avoid that than waiting for the Hashishim
miscalculation that destroys significant parts of New York, LA or D.C., even
if our vengeance would be spectacular.
I know the sticking point is whether our current
strategy is in fact keeping us safer, but Petronius wants to claim that
simply by being spectacularly strong we can preclude attacks is demonstrably
mistaken - we were that strong against ludicrously small Jihadist forces on
Sept. 11, and they still attacked us. Our enemies can miscalculate - I think
both the Iranians and North Koreans are in for some very nasty surprises,
but I would rather not wait until they grow Hitler size. Petronius derides
the notion that any combination of Arab states could even threaten Europe
much less us because the Swedes over 300 years ago were pretty frightening.
Oh my, where does one begin? He scores the naval officer for not knowing the
particulars of Germany's or the Soviet Union's economic potential of 80
years ago (a fair enough point) but then asserts that the (giggle, giggle)
Swedes once were tough customers? I will grant your point that there are
potential sources of strength in Europe (the French still maintain the
capacity to surprise) but on the whole, I think that times have changed
since the Battle of Leutzen and there are very few Europeans capable of
serious resistance to Islamo-fascists or other thugs.
The bigger problem with Petronius is his claim that we
wait until “Iraqi scientists [are] winning Nobel's, Iraqi industry
developing weapons as advanced as the V-2 rocket was in 1942, and
threatening to overrun all of Europe , then I will get worried about
IslamoFascists.”
Let me help the arbitrator of elegance (the first of
that namesake was, after all, so unable to read the signs of intrigue that
Nero killed him). The nature of the threat he is outlining is one of
existential proportions. He will "get worried" when Iraq or Islamofascists
can almost destroy our entire civilization? Outstanding, what insight, what
prudence! I am sorry, but to be taken to task by someone who can't wrap his
mind around the idea that preemption means moving before our enemies can
turn the entire planet into a nightmare is simply too much.
To be very cold blooded, our casualty rater per day
during WW II was 221 (so currently we're nine days into WWII and only
approximately 1359 to go), for Vietnam 18/day. Vietnam was (very) arguably
not worth fighting but there we weren't dealing with an absolutely vital
artery of trade and resources and the threat of free-lance dictators and
their surrogates acquiring and using nukes. Similarly, to try again, because
as an academic I believe in the power of education - a dirty nuke on the
Saudi oil fields means $15-$20 dollar/gallon gas (maybe more) and
correspondingly greater influence for such other icons of stability as
Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria. We will have incentives to get off the teat
of energy dependency then, but we will probably be watching the collapse of
the global economy while we do that - and I just wonder where we’ll find
that $300+ billion for research while we are preparing for the global party
following the collapse of the world economy).
So, now to your objections and criticisms Jerry....
First of all, I am not absolutely wedded to democracy
in Iraq. It is, for me, an operational maneuver. I want to give the world a
Coke, and sing in perfect harmony, blah, blah, blah (and do believe that
globalization of the economy and culture probably will eventually BE A GOOD
THING). But at the end of the day, we need a stable decently governed Iraq,
not necessarily a democratic Iraq. So, the main reason I'm not a Jacobin is
that I didn't see our primary concern there as exporting democracy, but
ensuring stability. We are trying to move Iraq towards democracy as part of
the broader game of legitimization of our intervention and to generate
(hopefully) greater support within Iraq and around the world for our
presence. If this breaks down then we can re-arrange this in a more
authoritarian but still liberalizing direction, a'la Jordan or perhaps
consider partition of the country. So mainly I'm not a good Jacobin/neo-con
because I don't believe democracy per se is the one true god, and
Kristol-Poedhertz are his prophets.
As to our money to Israel - glad I would be to pocket
my portion of that $2,000/year, but then a little problem would come along.
Most of Israel's neighbors persist in remaining in a state of war with it,
funding terrorist groups, and in the case of Iran bragging about how once
they get the bomb that Israel will burn. Now in my insane little philo-Semitic
world, when you threaten a nuclear power with all sorts of nastiness very
bad things can happen. Also, when I look at the constant number of
casualties that the Israelis take from Palestinian terrorists I wonder how
any other country on the planet would handle such a thing. Methinks that a
case might be made that we are paying wereguilds to the Israelis to keep
them from doing what I would certainly do if I were in their situation,
which is kick the living crap out of every regime that didn't instantly sign
a peace treaty and work with all of its might to keep jihadniks from
operating on their territory. Such a state of affairs would create
incredible instability in the Middle East for any power deeply dependent on
oil (i.e. us) but if we are going to cut the Israelis lose, why should they
care? Given this alternative maybe $2,000/head is a cheap date after all –
it convinces the Israelis they are not alone, and so they don’t get
desperate in what would otherwise be a desperate situation.
Also, we are in absolute, 150% agreement that
incompetent Empire is not the way. I too want competent empire. I want us to
“rule” Mesopotamia (in the sense of ensuring that what goes on there assures
us our vital interests and we impose a decent, stable, pro-western
government), and 100 years wouldn't be a bad run though I think we could and
must do a bit better. If our disagreement is over means to that end, then
very good, but that is a different conversation from what I thought you
wanted - which is why did we get into Iraq in the first place. But I thought
that we were arguing that we shouldn't be there?
So far, you've argued that energy independence in the
alternative to being in Iraq, but there is that dangerous gap between that
eventuality and where we and the rest of the world economy are presently.
And that is dependent upon oil as a prime energy source. How do we change
that this year? By next year? In the next decade? We will not be there for a
long time, and even once we get there, again, are we going to share this
technology with our still fossil fuel energy dependent competitors and
trading partners?
As for Bosnia, can I ask what is Jacobin about wanting
to stop ethnic cleansing? I checked your archives and while I saw you
questioning the wisdom of intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia in 1999 (as far
as the search engine goes back?) there was no inference that this was the
dividing line that clearly separated Jacobin neo-cons from realist
conservatives. You claim in the current View that after the fall of the
Soviet Union we should have sought an exit strategy in Europe, but that was
about the time of Gulf War I, when some of our European allies had some
spine and backed us, so it would have been a very poor present to them to
have completely cut and run in Europe (and beside which, disengagement in
Europe would not have gotten us out of the Middle East – so the problem with
Iraq would be roughly the same, except that our alliances with Europe would
be even more strained). So even when the CW was over our entangling
alliances proved useful in containing Sadaam. Those same alliances drew us
into Bosnia when the Europeans wanted something done, but couldn't do it on
their own. So if there is some bright line that neo-cons walked over in
1995, I don't see it.
As for giving up on the Republic, I am only saying the
Republic of small government and self-reliance is dead, that does not mean
that the Republic of institutional safe-guards, checks and balances, etc is
gone. We can still have a Hamiltonian state. I would rather something
different and will work for that to be sure. But unlike Petronius I am
unwilling to roll the dice that we can wait to have someone poke us in the
eye only to discover the nail was covered with lethal poison.
Interventionism and empire are more realistic than trying to avoid
entangling alliances and achieve what could very well be the willo-the-wisp
of energy independence in an interdependent world.
Sincerely,
A Young Jacobin
PS: I just want to add that one way we could certainly
lose the Republic within weeks is due to the popular response to 2-3 WMDs or
several large scale suicide bombings. At that point, I fear many of our
fellow citizens, especially the more vocally anti-war types, would not just
accept a police state, they would demand it.
I will wait for others before I reply, but I
will remind you: in less time than we have spent in this War on Terror,
we defeated both the Axis and Japan; transformed the economy into a
mighty war machine; built, trained, and deployed two great armies, two
air forces and two navies; and generally rebuilt the energy industry.
This was in 1942-1945. Note that VE day was in Spring of 1945. Please do
not tell me that a couple of lean years would not restructure the energy
industry in this country. We might have to shoot some lawyers, but
perhaps that would be no bad thing.
Regarding Bosnia: Sometimes I despair. The
Jacobins think we can fix all the ills of the world, and that all ills of
the world are ours to fix. Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans has been going on
for a long time. The Turks cleansed the Serbs. The Serbs and Croats fight
each other and neither cares for the Turks. The Albanians -- but need I go
on? If you wanted to stop horrors you would have troops in Africa. A lot of
Africa. Nearly all of Africa. Fortunately not even the Jacobins think our
army capable of fixing Africa. Or at least not many of them do.
Dr. Pournelle,
Dr. Cochran starts his Saturday screed by
disposing of an argument that nobody is making. (Short form of the straw man
he valiently slays in his Saturday message: Iraq, in fact the entire
Arab/Islamic world, presents no threat to US vital interests because they do
not now, and never in the indefinite future will, have the ability to
threaten the US with a massive, conventional-forces invasion of our
shores.) Indeed, it is only remotely relevant to the current policy options
discussion about Iraq.
The rest of his message is a curious mixture of isolated facts, bald
assertions, self-congratulatory intellectual chest-thumping and denigration
(to the level of ad hominem attack) of everyone who disagrees with him. His
descriptions of those who disagree with him are worthy of the usual campus
PC though-police. I would just suggest to Dr. Cochran that he not consider a
new career in politics as it would probably be unavailing.
However, the subject of current and future policy alternatives in Iraq is an
important one. Below is my (very definitely amateur) first cut at a formal
analysis of the US options.
The overall Iraq debate can be broken down into two broad topics.
The first topic is: Should we have invaded Iraq? The second is the debate
about current options for the US (or "where do we go from here?" with
apologies to Joss Whedon). The debate over invading Iraq is irrelevant to
the current-policy debate. We did invade Iraq and arguments that explicitly
or implicitly pre-suppose that we didn't invade and proceed from that
assumption are wishful thinking totally divorced from reality. I address
here only the question of what policy the US should pursue from where we
stand today.
The strategic policy options the US has in Iraq can be divided into three
groups. The first is immediate withdrawal (cut-and-run). The second is
gradual withdrawal (nation-building) and the third is permanent occupation
(colonialism-imperialism). Cut-and-run is Dr.
Cochran's position. Nation-building is the Administration's position, which
(full disclosure) I share. Colonialism-imperialism has no serious advocates
that I am aware of and I will not consider it further since, in addition to
its serious and manifest drawbacks, any policy which lacks a constituency is
simply not going to be adopted.
We are left, then, to debate between the benefits and costs/risks of
cut-and-run vs. nation-building as US policy in Iraq. I'll list these, as I
see them. I'm sure other folks would have different lists and I would
welcome additions. I make no claim to omniscience (or even to knowing more
about Iraq than Dr. Rice :-).
Cut-and-run benefits (call this group A, for short):
1. Stops the bleeding. U.S. casualties in Iraq drop to zero very quickly (a
timescale of a few months for a more-or-less orderly evacuation).
2. Reduces military budget due to reduced operational tempo (training only,
no active military operations, except in Afganistan, unless we also
cut-and-run there).
3. Reduces or eliminates (in a pure cut-and-run scenario) Iraq
reconstruction costs.
4. Improve our image in the Arab/Islamic world (this is highly
speculative) , which might (piling speculation on speculation) lead to
improved cooperation in the Global War on Terror (GWT for short).
5. Reduce terrorist recruiting (highly speculative, see B5).
6. More resources available for border/immigration control and activities
like cargo screening at ports. (Highly speculative, given Congress' known
behavior)
Cut-and-run costs/risks (call this group B):
1. Proves, beyond doubt or question, that the US lacks the will to fight a
long-term war. Implications include many of the items below.
2. Jihadis around the world celebrate and start planning offensive
operations, since they are no longer on the defensive, pinned by our
presence in Iraq.
3. No positive change to Middle-East opinion of US, but they no longer fear
us as much. (implication of B1) 4. Danger of a repeat of the (US)
retreat-Islamist advance cycle from the latter 1970's. Doesn't anyone beside
Dr. Pournelle remember the effects of the fall of Saigon? (Hint: one of them
was the ascendance of a guy named Khomeini in Iran).
5. Increased terrorist recruiting (perhaps Dr. Cochran can help here, who
was the source of the quote that begins "When people see a strong horse and
a weak horse..."?) 6. Reduce Mid-East cooperation in the GWT.
7. Could leave behind an Iraq as a "failed state" which is a haven for AQ
and related organizations.
8. Possible spill-over of disorder into Saudi Arabia and other neighboring
states.
9. Probable blood-bath as Baathists/jihadi's slaughter "collaborators" and
each other.
10. Massive exodus of refugees (remember the Vietnamese "boat people"?). How
many (including covert terrorists) would US be morally obliged to admit as
refugees?
11. If we bug out, it would be difficult and costly to re-invade should any
of several events (e.g., B7, B8) occur.
Nation-building benefits (call this group C):
1. Will leave a stable, possibly pro-US government in Iraq, which is
reasonable definition of victory (Gen. MacArthur was correct when he said
"In war, there is no substitute for victory") 2. Respect for US in
Arab/Islamic world will increase, especially after Iraqi government forces
(police & army) "stand up" and US forces begin to decline. (Opinion of US
has actually improved relative to before the invasion).
3. Possible spread of democracy (in some form) into more Arab nations (e.g.,
Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia).
4. Reduced terrorist recruiting (US is seen as the "strong horse").
5. Supports GWT by pulling jihad-inclined people into our killing zone.
6. Iraq voluntarily becomes a base for future GWT operations in the region.
7. If D4 occurs, we can at a later date withdraw from Iraq.
Nation-building costs/risks (call this group D):
1. Continued US casualties, level hard to predict.
2. Cost ($$-type) of continued combat ops in Iraq.
3. Costs of rebuilding Iraq.
4. Iraqi government forces may not "stand up" quickly, possibly not at all.
Bill Hembree
I point out that your alternatives are not
exhaustive. They do not include leaving Iraq to the Iraqis with a warning
that allowing a regime inimical to the United States will result in new
regime changes. Nor do they include setting up a subsidized client state.
There are other alternatives. If you say we must either build a nation or
bug out, then the question comes: what is possible?
==
Subject: Troops 'Sweep' Through Lawless Iraq Cities -
Yahoo! News
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBBUWHQBEE.html
Jerry,
This article is quite good. And it needs to be
carefully read by anyone enraptured with 'stay the course' delusions. One
continuing problem with the present force level is there are too few U.S.
troops in country to implement the current policy. Whenever enough are
massed in any one place to obtain decisive tactical results, say Fallujah,
insurgent activity merely spikes in the rest of the Sunni triangle. Out of
135,000 I seriously doubt CENTCOM could muster more than 20,000 in any one
place no matter how great the tactical opportunity or need. They can of
course introduce nearly infinite air power to any spot where US forces
themselves are in imminent danger of annihilation.
Our rulers in their wisdom recognized this in late
2003 and therefore accelerated their efforts to raise indigenous Iraqi
forces. Close followers of our fortunes in Iraq have noticed how the U.S.
Senate is almost entirely focused on the policy of Iraqi-ization. Progress
there is their sole subject of inquiry anytime they interview serving senior
commanders.
The concurrent policy of de-Ba'athizing these forces
has resulted in many privates, few sergeants and almost no officers with any
experience. People with more than two years' military service also have a
prior history in Hussein's regime. Despite this obstacle two years later we,
or 'they', actually have one battalion ready to stand alone. This is
breakneck progress.
It took from 1955 until 1962 to get a similar number
of South Vietnamese battalions up to this level. Two years later in mid-1965
there were two or three such units, plus the Airborne Brigade which fought
very effectively with American advisors and air support.
Impatient nay-sayers like Dr. Cochran need to get some
perspective. I'm sure the situation there will be greatly improved come
2013.
Mark
And when you are done building a Shiite
army, what will it do in Sunni and Kurd territories? I ask seriously.
=
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
You write -
"I am convinced that we will not build any kind of democracy in Iraq".
Am I being misled when I read that the Kurds are more or less a
functioning democracy and have been for some time, with freedom for women
established at a fairly high level ? All I know is what I read on the web
about this. But that idea has been a basis for my hope in Iraq. And what
about
the elections in Afghanistan, Egypt and Lebanon ?
And Best regards to you sir.
Tom Slater
Kurds are not Arabs, Kurdish
culture is not Arab culture, and Kurdish traditions are not Arab traditions.
The only reason for the Kurds to remain as part of Iraq is their claim to
part of the oil, all of which seems to be in Arab lands (so if they are not
part of a united Iraq they will have to include non-Kurd areas in their
state). That is a formula for civil war. Why people assume that a democracy
will be peaceful is a bit beyond me.
=
Jerry,
Bravo to your answer to Young Jacobite.
[sic. Jacobite =/= Jacobin. Ed.]
>>we have to go in there and set up a democracy
preserving the integrity >>of a "nation" created not long ago as a
consolation prize to the >>Hashemites for their loss of Mecca.<<
The real British interest in keeping those three
ex-Turkish Empire vilyets banded together was to provide easy access to the
Mosul oil fields, and also prevent the French next door in Syria from
absorbing anything left dangling. Winston S. Churchill played a major role
in this as Colonial Secretary in 1921.
>>nor how to keep Iraq intact when it never was so<<
This one is easy. Hire someone like Saddam Hussein.
Mark
====
Subject: Greg Cochran on Iraq
Whatever his attackers may say, Mr. Cochran's facts
have convinced me that Iraq never was the threat I had believed it to be. I
had never considered population sizes nor industrial capacity, and in fact I
had assumed that making a nuclear bomb was pretty easy if you could just get
hold of the uranium. So while I'm not on intellectual par with some of your
correspondents, I've at least been partially-reeducated by the discussion
here. Thanks, and I hope we wake up in time to compete with China.
Max Wilson
And that should be quite enough on this
subject for the day.
===============
Subject: Political Corruption/Louisiana
Sorry, but I don't buy it. I moved from Louisiana
(born and raised, and worked 20 years for major industry there.) to
Washington. The politicians in Washington are AT LEAST as corrupt as those
in Louisiana. And given what I "read in the papers", I would say California
is "right up there", as well. The only real differences are that in
Louisiana, the corruption is "personal" (i.e. devoted to enrichment of the
politician), while in Washington and California, it is "political" (i.e.
devoted to fostering "party interest"), and that Louisiana politicians are
"more honest" (i.e. less hypocritical) about being corrupt.
I would question 3rd Most Corrupt state of the Union.
Louisiana can do better than that. Second at least. First sometimes.
Duane Walcott
There is also the competence issue. I grew up
in Memphis, which was run by a city boss named Ed Crump, and it was about as
well run as any city has been in the US; certainly better than it is now.
Chicago is another example of competence...
===========
I have a series of letters from a serving
officer in Iraq. There are enough that I have put them into a special
report. You may find those
here.
======
A Canadian view:
For all our faults we are still Great among Nations.
Douglas
David Warren…The Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, September 11, 2005
There's plenty wrong with America, since you
asked. I'm tempted to say that the only difference from Canada is that they
have a few things right. That would be unfair, of course -- I am often
pleased to discover things we still get right.
But one of them would not be disaster
preparation. If something happened up here, on the scale of Katrina, we
wouldn't even have the resources to arrive late. We would be waiting for the
Americans to come save us, the same way the government in Louisiana just
waved and pointed at Washington, D.C. The theory being that, when you're in
real trouble, that's where the adults live.
And that isn't an exaggeration. Almost
everything that has worked in the recovery operation along the U.S. Gulf
Coast has been military and National Guard. Within a few days, under several
commands, finally consolidated under the remarkable Lt.-Gen. Russell Honore,
it was once again the U.S. military efficiently cobbling together a recovery
operation on a scale beyond the capacity of any other earthly institution.
We hardly have a military up here. We have
elected one feckless government after another that has cut corners until
there is nothing substantial left. We don't have the ability even to
transport and equip our few soldiers. Should disaster strike at home, on a
big scale, we become a Third World country. At which point, our national
smugness is of no avail.
From Democrats and the American Left -- the
U.S. equivalent to the people who run Canada -- we are still hearing that
the disaster in New Orleans showed that a heartless, white Republican
America had abandoned its underclass.
This is garbage. The great majority of those
not evacuated lived in assisted housing and receive food stamps,
prescription medicine and government support through many other programs.
Many have, all their lives, expected someone to lift them to safety, without
input from themselves. And the demagogic mayor they elected left, quite
literally, hundreds of transit and school buses that could have driven them
out of town parked in rows, to be lost in the flood.
Yes, that was insensitive. But it is also the
truth; and sooner or later we must acknowledge that welfare dependency
creates exactly the sort of haplessness and social degeneration we saw on
display, as the floodwaters rose. Many suffered terribly, and many died, and
one's heart goes out. But already the survivors are being put up in new
accommodations, and their various entitlements have been directed to new
locations.
The scale of private charity has also been
unprecedented. There are yet no statistics, but I'll wager the most generous
state in the union will prove to have been arch-Republican Texas and that,
nationally, contributions in cash and kind are coming disproportionately
from people who vote Republican. For the world divides into "the mouths" and
"the wallets."
The Bush-bashing, both down there and up here,
has so far lost touch with reality, as to raise questions about the bashers'
state of mind.
Consult any authoritative source on how
government works in the United States and you will learn that the
U.S.federal government's legal, constitutional, and institutional
responsibility for first response to Katrina, as to any natural disaster,
was zero.
Notwithstanding, President Bush took the
prescient step of declaring a disaster, in order to begin deploying FEMA and
other federal assets, two full days in advance of the storm fall. In the
little time since, he has managed to coordinate an immense recovery
operation -- the largest in human history -- without invoking martial
powers. He has been sufficiently presidential to respond, not even once, to
the extraordinarily mendacious and childish blame-throwing.
One thinks of Kipling's poem If, which I
learned to recite as a lad, and mention now in the full knowledge that it
drives postmodern leftoids and gliberals to apoplexy -- as anything that is
good, beautiful, or true:
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt
you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise.
Unlike his critics, Bush is a man, in the full
sense presented by these verses.
=======================
Harry Erwin's Letter from
England
Subject: Letter from England
Things remain quiet as the parties hold their fall
meetings. The Tories are looking for new leadership (again).
Mother's care is best for young children: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
uk/4304528.stm> . Not surprising.
Looks like Turkey may be joining the EU: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/
world/europe/4305500.stm>
Having children who used laptops in college, this
looks to me like it may be buying into a lot of hassle: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2005/10/03/bookless_school/>
If things get hot later in the week, I'll follow up,
but right now that looks unlikely.
-- Harry Erwin, PhD "Those who would give up essential
Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor
Safety." (Benjamin Franklin, 1755)
w
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Monday |
