A War that Must Be Won in the Name of Truth

by

by Eric Martin

Gregory Gause (a professor at the exceedingly awesome University of Vermont), has a guest post up at Marc Lynch’s place that is, as they say, well worth the read.  Gause describes some of the recent actions undertaken by Prime Minister Maliki and suggests that they form part of a larger strategy to consolidate power, solidifying Maliki’s role as some new military strong man (like Saddam, only Shiitier!).  In this respect, Gause’s post provides some additional evidence to bolster an argument that I have been making for the better part of the past four months (most recently here and here). 

Marc Lynch penned a follow up piece in which he offers some mild criticisms of Gause’s post (some valid, some perhaps a bit unfair).  On the unfair side of the ledger, Lynch claims that Gause focuses more on Maliki’s intentions while neglecting to discuss Maliki’s capacity to actually execute the plan.  But, contra Lynch’s critique, Gause’s piece is punctuated with the recurring question of whether or not Maliki is overreaching.  In other words, Gause remains more agnostic about Maliki’s abilities than Lynch gives him credit for.

That being said, Lynch is right to note that:

[Gause] could go further in considering the American role in empowering Maliki’s assertiveness, even when that goes against avowed U.S. preferences. […]

What’s hardly been discussed is whether it would serve U.S. interests if [Gause] turns out to be right.

True.  In my previous two posts on the subject, I tried to raise some of those issues.  First, I pointed out that one of the publicly stated rationales for the invasion of Iraq was the need to change the image of the United States as the patron of despotic regimes in the region.  While there is definitely truth to the notion that our continued support for anti-democratic, and often brutal, regimes has tarnished our image, and that al-Qaeda and other radicals draw inspiration from these policies (and utilze them via propaganda), there was a certain disconnect between that reality and the argument that we could remedy the situation by forcefully changing the regime of one of the few dictators that we didn’t support.  Invading Egypt or Saudi Arabia made more sense if that was the concern.

The bridge that was supposed to broach this gap in logic was the revamped domino theory: that if we could turn Iraq into a model democracy, democratic change would spread throughout the region like some form of highly infectious contagion (with the resulting elected governments having friendly relations with the US and Israel, naturally).  Belief in this re-tread of the Vietnam era formulation was so prevalent that in 2005, after a few minor election-related rumblings, many war boosters were quick to proclaim the arrival of an "Arab Spring" of democratic upheaval.  Hindsight reveals this enthusiasm to be as premature as it was naive.

Which brings us back to whether US interests will be served by Maliki’s emergence as an anti-democratic strongman who uses the military (and police forces) to violently crush dissent.  Certainly not if there is any legitimate hope that Iraq the Model could provide a catalyst for democratic reform in the region.  In addition, our active role in the process will set us back even further in terms of providing succor to al-Qaeda and other radicalizing agents.  My conclusion from a prior post stands:

Perhaps more troubling, though, is the additional propaganda boon given to al-Qaeda and other anti-American elements seeking to radicalize the region.  In short, the US will be portrayed (accurately in many respects) as assisting a Shiite-led, anti-democratic government in a bloody crackdown on Sunni factions – and other [non-Sunni] Iraqi factions that pose a threat to that government through the democratic process.  All for the promise of beneficial access to oil and permanent military bases. 

They will continue to hate us for our freedom.

The more cynical – or realistic depending on the level of jaundice in your eye – might argue that a relatively stable Iraq governed by a strongman who is on more-or-less friendly terms with the US (and open to some level of US troop presence and exploitation of the Iraqi oil industry) would be a decent outcome all things considered.  Besides, the cynics might argue, all that purple fingered democracy ballyhoo was more about marketing than actual, hard-nosed foreign policy objectives.

Perhaps that is so, but there will be real costs in terms of the radicalization of a new wave of terrorists.  To the extent that we take the "war on terror" seriously, our dubious role in Iraq should not be underestimated.  And someone should probably tell Sarah Palin that God doesn’t root for such callousness.

16 thoughts on “A War that Must Be Won in the Name of Truth”

  3. After 20-something Palin threads, I feel obliged to comment here. Even if it is just to say – nah, you’re wrong. 😉

  6. My guess is that all of this stays on low heat until after November. Which means that we’re in for a few more months of McCain declaring victory and Obama tiptoeing around whatever position it is he has about the surge.
    It’s a shame, because having spent all of this blood and treasure to establish yet another authoritarian regime (pretty much the inevitable endgame now, I think) has been such a total disaster, and yet it’s basically taboo to say so on the political stage.

  7. Heh
    links to insty, observing that “WITH VIOLENCE, AND AN IRRETRIEVABLY CORRUPT POLITICAL LEADERSHIP, I think we should just pull out of Chicago: “Nearly 125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer. Total Is About Double The Death Toll In Iraq.””
    Only, Insty forgot about the Iraqi armed forces and civilians- guess they don’t count. (Of course, Im surprised that he counts ghetto blacks, but anything for the cause, however painful it might be).

  8. “Only, Insty forgot about the Iraqi armed forces and civilians- guess they don’t count”
    They never do. It’s always only about Americans.
    Meanwhile, what Bob Woodward is reported to report here isn’t in the least surprising, but it’s nice to see the prominent story:

    The Bush administration has conducted an extensive spying operation on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, his staff and others in the Iraqi government, according to a new book by Bob Woodward.
    “We know everything he says,” according to one of multiple sources Woodward, a Washington Post assistant managing editor, cites about the practice in “The War Within: A Secret White House History, 2006-2008,” scheduled for release Monday.
    The book also says that the U.S. troop “surge” of 2007, in which President Bush sent nearly 30,000 additional U.S. combat forces and support troops to Iraq, was not the primary factor behind the steep drop in violence there during the past 16 months.

    Also interesting:

    […] The discord between Bush and Casey is one manifestation of an often-debilitating rift that Woodward portrays between the U.S. military and its civilian leadership. The book describes a “near revolt” in late 2006 by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who felt that their advice was not reaching the president. Adm. Michael Mullen, then chief of naval operations, expressed fear that the military would “take the fall” for a failure in Iraq. According to the book, Casey and Abizaid resolutely opposed the large surge that the president ultimately ordered, as did Rumsfeld. Casey went so far as to refer to Baghdad as a “troop sump.”

    And:

    […] Bush chose Rumsfeld’s replacement, Robert M. Gates, without consulting Vice President Cheney, Rumsfeld’s chief patron, the book reports.

  9. I have to disagree with Drew. I don’t actually find tired puns on the similarity between the word Shi’ite and the word shit very funny. Maybe you can make some really funny jokes about someone named Gopu next. Those always bring down the house.
    Also, if you’d skipped that little witticism, I might have actually read past that point. My loss, I’m sure.

  10. Bush chose Rumsfeld’s replacement, Robert M. Gates, without consulting Vice President Cheney, Rumsfeld’s chief patron, the book reports.
    You coulda knocked me over with a feather.

  11. Wait, does Chicago have a population of 25 million? I know that Insty and many other Republicans are functionally innumerate, but this is stupid even for them.

  12. Also, if you’d skipped that little witticism, I might have actually read past that point. My loss, I’m sure.
    No Charles, the loss is all mine. Or should I say, “ours.” Certainly you would have been a very productive, insightful and witty contributor to the discussion here. But that one pun I threw in ruined it. For all of us.
    To the greater ObWi community, I apologize.

  13. Only, Insty forgot about the Iraqi armed forces and civilians- guess they don’t count
    Here’s the thing: they didn’t even count all the American combat deaths.
    90 US soldiers were killed in Iraq in June, July and August. The Insty article lists 125 Chicago fatalaties. How is that “About Double The Death Toll In Iraq”?
    Further, the Insty article started tracking fatalaties from late May, so it’s likely that the 90 death toll for the same period is actually higher than 90.
    And 2 coalition soldiers were killed during that span.
    If anyone’s wondering, there were approximately 1,200 Iraqi civilian and security forces fatalaties during that span.
    Safer than Chicago!!!!

  14. I meant to say:
    “Further, the Insty article started tracking fatalaties from late May, so it’s likely that the US death toll for the same period is actually higher than 90”

  15. Excuse me, but doesn’t the refusal of the current Iraqi government to negotiate any agreement, other than an agreement for a withdrawal of US troops, render a lot of this irrelevant?

Comments are closed.