Iraq isn't a partisan issue; it's a national security issue
We can’t “stay the course” in Iraq unless we know what the course is. This is the point that links a number of seemingly disparate reactions that I have to the debate about what we should do in Iraq. Swopa linked to a New York Times Memorial Day article that said U.S. veterans would not fight today in Iraq nor tell their sons to because it is simply not clear “what we are doing over there,” e.g. what we are actually fighting for. If, deep down, our troops don't know and believe in what they are fighting for, how can they train and motivate Iraqis? And why should anyone else believe us?
We need a plan, yes, but not just as a tool in partisan politics (which many of our readers seem to care more about than the actual future of Iraq). We need it because what happens in Iraq is vitally important to U.S. security no matter who’s in charge. So if we have a plan we should be trying to sell it to the Bushies as much as to Dem leaders and aspiring presidential candidates.
We need a plan, yes, but not just as a tool in partisan politics (which many of our readers seem to care more about than the actual future of Iraq). We need it because what happens in Iraq is vitally important to U.S. security no matter who’s in charge. So if we have a plan we should be trying to sell it to the Bushies as much as to Dem leaders and aspiring presidential candidates.
But a plan itself isn’t enough. That plan must fit into a larger vision, a set of purposes driving and justifying the use of American power. The best-selling book in the country is A Purpose-Driven Life; we need a purpose-driven foreign policy. Those purposes have to be clear and compelling not only to Americans, but to people around the world. Without that vision, even if we do somehow manage to avoid catastrophe in Iraq, our veterans and everyone else still won’t understand what we are doing over there and will be free to attribute to us whatever nefarious motives they like. That is the precisely the problem with the disastrous way the Administration got us into the war – by changing justifications every five minutes they fed the worst suspicions of our enemies and many of our friends.
So now to specifics, for both the plan and the vision.
So now to specifics, for both the plan and the vision.
As for the plan, I think electroniceric basically has it right. He suggests:
· real oversight of contracting, procurement and general planning there.
· Involve the Europeans by way of their development agencies rather than their militaries (hit those liberals where it hurts - make em turn down humanitarian causes).
· as much transparency as possible in the intelligence process and certainly in our handling of prisoners and interrogations
· lay whatever groundwork is possible for the entry of UN peacekeeping troops.
· get the Turks, Iranians and Israelis, and Syrians to formally and publicly agree to keep their hands off Iraq
· Push transparency, openness, and democracy in Egypt, Libya, Palestine, and other "middle-of-the-road"regimes to help get a good governance quorum in the Middle East
That is actually what the Administration is going to be trying to sell at a conference on Iraq in Brussels at the end of the months. Our biggest mistake in Iraq was not waiting at least three more weeks to get a UN resolution backing the invasion, as Tony Blair wanted. Our second biggest mistake was not sending enough troops and completely failing to plan for post-conflict stabilization. Our third biggest mistake was not going back to the UN immediately, swallowing our pique at France and Germany, and bringing in as many countries as possible in the rebuilding effort – even if it meant, god forbid, giving some French and German companies some post-war contracts.
We can’t fix the first two mistakes, but we can get really serious about internationalizing the current struggle in Iraq; making it clear that whatever our mistakes to date (it would help enormously if we were actually prepared to admit that we have made mistakes to the rest of the world, but I’ve given up hoping that Bush will ever deviate from his doctrine of personal infallibility), this is now the world’s problem as much as ours, and we need help. (I’ll be glad to spell out in a subsequent post exactly why it’s the world’s problem as much as ours, but for now, stay with me.)
· real oversight of contracting, procurement and general planning there.
· Involve the Europeans by way of their development agencies rather than their militaries (hit those liberals where it hurts - make em turn down humanitarian causes).
· as much transparency as possible in the intelligence process and certainly in our handling of prisoners and interrogations
· lay whatever groundwork is possible for the entry of UN peacekeeping troops.
· get the Turks, Iranians and Israelis, and Syrians to formally and publicly agree to keep their hands off Iraq
· Push transparency, openness, and democracy in Egypt, Libya, Palestine, and other "middle-of-the-road"regimes to help get a good governance quorum in the Middle East
That is actually what the Administration is going to be trying to sell at a conference on Iraq in Brussels at the end of the months. Our biggest mistake in Iraq was not waiting at least three more weeks to get a UN resolution backing the invasion, as Tony Blair wanted. Our second biggest mistake was not sending enough troops and completely failing to plan for post-conflict stabilization. Our third biggest mistake was not going back to the UN immediately, swallowing our pique at France and Germany, and bringing in as many countries as possible in the rebuilding effort – even if it meant, god forbid, giving some French and German companies some post-war contracts.
We can’t fix the first two mistakes, but we can get really serious about internationalizing the current struggle in Iraq; making it clear that whatever our mistakes to date (it would help enormously if we were actually prepared to admit that we have made mistakes to the rest of the world, but I’ve given up hoping that Bush will ever deviate from his doctrine of personal infallibility), this is now the world’s problem as much as ours, and we need help. (I’ll be glad to spell out in a subsequent post exactly why it’s the world’s problem as much as ours, but for now, stay with me.)
The vision should be straightforward. We seek to strengthen and spread liberal democracy around the world. Not just democracy – elections – but liberal democracy – human rights, the rule of law, minority protections. That has been the vision of Carter, Reagan, and Clinton – not to mention Wilson, FDR, etc. Bush has the rhetoric, at least lately, but he doesn’t have the tools. Or rather, he has one big tool, the military, which is weakening by the day as it becomes ever more stretched. I’m with the Truman Democrats that force is one tool, but it can never be the only tool or the most frequent tool. We need an entire strategy for promoting liberal democracy through non-military means, and we need as many countries as with us as possible, beginning with the most successful community of liberal democracies ever built, the EU.
That is precisely the liberal order that John is talking about. If we want to persuade Iraqis, Lebanese, reform-minded Saudis and Egyptians, Ukrainians, Georgians, Zimbabweans, and our own people that we are really serious about living up to our rhetoric, we have to institutionalize our commitments. We have to make it clear that our commitments do not just depend on poll results or the whim of particular administrations, but rather that we have locked ourselves into a long-term strategy. We do that by investing our credibility and our resources in regional and global institutions that will outlive any particular administration, that can commit to a people and fledgling governments to stay the course, and that are prepared to have local and international non-governmental organizations hold them to those commitments.
What should those institutions look like? That’s for another post. I’ve also got more to say on the very interesting American exceptionalism debate – the comments were terrific. And I want to come back to Greg Priddy's claim that all this promoting liberal democracy stuff won't play off the East Coast. I disagree, but that is certainly a key question for all dems.
Advertisement
Excellent elaboration on "let's talk about Iraq." You have a great point that, prior to discussing military strategy, we need to identify the political strategy. Increasing the internationalization of the effort in economic and political areas in addition to military support is an absolute must.
June 16, 2005 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right that we should have internationalized the conflict before starting it. We also should have "Iraqi-ized" the conflict by building allies within Iraq before invading--if we had Iraqi allies on the ground when we invaded (not exiles like Chalibi, but people who were actually living there), we would have had someone to legitimately hand power to.
At this point in time, though, I do not have great faith that the conflict can be internationalized for several reasons:
1. The war is highly unpopular around the world and the security situation in Iraq is absurdly bad. Most world leaders aren't going to take the political risk of getting involved, when such involvement will be very unpopular with their population, particularly if nationals end up getting killed.
2. There is lots of distrust and plain old resentment of the Bush administration. Even Tony Blair isn't getting the quid pro quos he had hoped for (Palestine, climate change, Africa--on all these issues Bush has given very little). France and Germany? I don't see it. Bush blew everyone off and now everyone will blow him off.
3. Other countries have a strategic reason to stay out of Iraq. America under Bush has shown a penchant for aggressive unilateralism, often relying on military might or the threat of it to get its way. As long as America is bound up in Iraq, however, America's hands are tied and so it cannot be as aggressive militarily elsewhere or act so unilaterally. With our teeth firmly buried in Iraq, we become conveniently toothless everywhere else! Plus the cost of Iraq (in cash and loss of soldiers) is weakening the unilateral beast. No leader of any country will admit this, of course, but they all probably feel much more comfortable watching the hyperpower struggle in Iraq. It keeps the hyperpower wolf away from their door. China, in particular, must be delighted.
For all these reasons, I just don't think internationalizinig the conflict is going to work. Maybe if Bush were to go . . . but that's not gonna happen for a few years.
June 16, 2005 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good, thoughtful post by Ms. Slaughter. This is exactly where we need to go, to lay out a positive vision of what needs to happen. I only worry that it does not address the bleeding concern on the ground of inadepquate security. Without basic security for the Iraqis, there can be no reconstruction and development. The natural response by Friedman et al of doubling the number of boots on the ground is unfortunately very problematic as well, as there simply aren't extra qualified (and unqualified) US forces available, nor has the administration been politically inclined to suck it up politically to make those forces available. NATO and other countries are reluctant to send their military into harm's way, after the US has made such a mess with the inadequate planning.
To steal a stolen line from another posting, there are a lot of dems very leery of "grabbing the coattails of history" as they're not sure where that horse will drag them. I think that in returning to Ms. Slaughter's ideas, the immediate tactical purpose of a new approach has to be to get those desparately needed security forces on the ground. Ergo we have to internationalize the operation to the greatest extent possible through UN mandate and shared command, so that we can attract other countries to do the heavy lifting. Kerry spoke repeatedly during the campaign about bringing in the Egyptian military to help. Someone needs to engage them and see what it would take...
Poilu
June 16, 2005 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is like invading Texas with the cast of the movie "Slacker".
These discussions are taking place in some kind of vacuum. Most people in the world aren't liberals. Most people in the USA aren't liberals. The people who have the most guns, in the USA and Iraq, are not liberals. Maybe nobody has noticed, but these people happen to be running the show right now.
June 16, 2005 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is, your (eminently reasonable) prescriptions for Iraq require that the Administration change course, and the Administration has adopted "we don't change course" as a partisan strategy. And, fairly, one that has worked, in that elections in 2002 and 2004 were won (at least in part) through attacking "flip-floppers" and emphasizing "strength and determination."
For this reason, any debate over alternative plans for Iraq will be immediately labeled partisan unless and until Republican moderates and mavericks (which are different) assert that debating alternative plans for Iraq is not a partisan exercise, even if it calls into question the Administration's infallibility.
Ironically, this means that the Administration has created a situation in which it is stifling the development of alternative plans for Iraq that might actually help it navigate the national security issues posed by Iraq (and thus win future elections), because of the political paradigm it created for the partisan reason of winning prior elections.
Democrats proposed and/or championed ideas in 2001 and 2002 (e.g. Sarbanes-Oxley, the Department of Homeland Security) that the Administration adopted, and then attacked Democrats' convinctions and patriotism for partisan reasons.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that Democrats must continue to debate a plan for Iraq, because it is the right thing to do. But Democrats are rightly mindful of the current political landscape.
June 16, 2005 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree that we need a plan in Iraq. I don't disagree that Iraq policy is important independent of US electoral effect, and is more important that partisan politics. You are much, much better positioned than any of us to build a plan, so I trust your plan on its face.
But I wonder how " [w]e need it because what happens in Iraq is vitally important to U.S. security no matter who’s in charge" is justified? Is this purely a concern about oil production? Is it a belief that angry Iraqis in a civil war will set up madrassas and, twenty years hence, the kids will attack us? Why is Iraq and its future vitally important to US security.
June 16, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand. Are you a for getting additional boots on the ground ("desperately needed security forces") or against ("problematic")?
June 16, 2005 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
We seem to confuse process (our brave soldiers on the ground) with product. The original war aims were achieved several years ago, read the authorization language, which was almost entirely about Saddam (gone) and WMD (never there).
We are still there because we felt an additional obligation to help the Iraqis re-build their nation, which is a poor re-statement of Colin Powell's famous remark. This morphed into building the nation for them, in our own image.
I say really help them, by drawing down the troops and giving them... money! You don't make friends by shooting and bombing people, no matter how well-intentioned. You do make friends by being generous. If we'd spend 20% of the 200+ billion on Iraq, as opposed to on our contractors and soldiers, the rebuilding would be well underway.
June 16, 2005 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the general sentiment but I would go futher, in two specific respects:
1. Force needs to be used not only in conjunction with other foreign policy "tools" but, in particular, it needs to be used as a last resort. We need to restore meaning to those words, which Bush (and, I'm afraid, Blair as well) have cheapened by undertaking what was (it is now clear) a purely elective war. This is a "mistake" you didn't mention, but that was, in my book, the biggest one of all.
2. As a corollary: While it may become necessary to use force in specific cases (e.g., Kosovo, Afghanistan), I don't think we should tempt ourselves with the thought that force is ever a tool for implementing grand visions, such as promoting liberal democratic order. Force is a special kind of tool fitted to special, highly circumscribed purposes -- self-defense against real, imminent threats, prevention of human rights catastrophes in the making.
Force is not a tool fitted for "promoting" anything, and I don't think this is an ideological stance, I think it is the truth about the nature of force in human affairs. Force can defend order, by destroying an opposing force that threatens that order (and, to say it again, such destruction can become necessary, i.e. a last resort, in particular cases), but it cannot create order -- liberal democratic, or otherwise.
So if we want to entertain a vision of liberal-democracy promotion, fine. But please, let's remember at least this much humility from what happened the last time liberals pronounced themselves eager to "pay any price, bear any burden" to promote liberal democracy around the world.
June 16, 2005 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Our biggest mistake in Iraq was not waiting at least three more weeks to get a UN resolution backing the invasion, as Tony Blair wanted."
Our biggest mistake in Iraq was--wait for it--INVADING IRAQ. I simply can't grant any credence to the foreign policy recommendations of somebody who won't acknowledge at this late stage that this war has been a mistake.
June 16, 2005 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I few questions. As Henry Hyde is trying to defund the UN how is the UN going to supply peacekeepers? If the UN has the money won't the peackeepers be American soldiers with blue rather than black berets.
How will the Turks, Syrias and Iranians keep their hands off Iraq unless there is a credible force to make them do it?
Lastly, without a sense of safety how will Iraqi's feel their lives can be better? What force will provide that sense of safety?
Bush has so lied about Iraq it is hard to start a serious discussion about it.
June 16, 2005 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are in Iraq. End of story. Whether right or wrong, we are in Iraq. Our soldiers are dying. But we can't just leave and make the place a huge mess.
Democratic Iraq is in our interests. Islamists don't like democracy in any Muslim country.
Human Rights Watch issued a report about AIDS in China. Informative. A must read. Link provided
http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog
June 16, 2005 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lets face it. The world community will not help any government headed by GW Bush. His reckless unilateralist foriegn policy has precluded that. While Iraq is a problem for the whole world, it is not as much of a problem that Bush would be, if he were freed to use his military elsewhere.
June 16, 2005 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The plan laid here sounds great. But when is this all going to happen?
Now? Soon? 2006 *if* Democrats win seats in Congress? 2008 *if* a Democrat wins for President? If you're waiting for George Bush and his merry band of liars to "change course," you're going to be waiting a long time.
So, for you to dismiss the "partisan politics" of many of the readers here is just plain wrong. This is all ABOUT politics.
Cause without Dems in office, this whole post is just a pipe dream.
We will never get international support with George Bush in office. Never.
So let's stop using "partisan politics" as a dirty word.
June 16, 2005 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt is absolutely right. We will have to get ourselves out of Iraq the same way we got into it. We will have to vote ourselves out. The electorate will have to correct the mistake it made in 2000 and the even bigger mistake it made in 2004. Once the electorate votes for us to get out, it will happen very quickly. Latest polls show a trend in that direction, but the next election is still a year and a half away.
June 16, 2005 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
<p>When Iraq was invaded, I said Bush had openned Pandora's box. Seems that what was let loose upon the world is far worst than if the box had never been openned. But I'm crying over spilled milk.</p><p>I agree that the key to resolving the Iraq issue is engaging the EU and other Nations. However, as you so stated, that avenue was attempted and abandoned.</p><p>Notice that the EU and those other Nations, while they give us sympathy for our misfortunes in Iraq, they leave no doubt that it is "our" problem. It doesn't take too much intelligence to see that they are holding back support. If we want their help, we're going to have to ask for it. And if we do, we'll have to take a serious dressing down for our foolishness.</p><p>All it will take is Bush to publically admit his mistake in invading Iraq and ask the EU and other Nations to help secure the new government.</p><p>This may mean our military forces in Iraq will come under the command of some other EU military commanders, but it will be necessary for the US to step back into the shadows and let the EU run the show. Once we are no long the punching bag on center stage, things may settle down and the new Iraq government might get a much needed kick-start in the right direction.</p><p>Our military is the best in the world, but against determined individuals with high-explosives strapped to their bodies, our soldiers are the ducks in the shooting gallery. It should be obvious to the most casual observer we started a game of football and the opposing team is playing rugby; similiar ball but vastly different rules.</p><p> </p><p> </p><em />
June 16, 2005 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
as has been stated above, was invading at all. All the other blunders were included in the original crime.
From my perspective, well outside your US-centric discussion, the whole thing sounds pretty surreal. Forget about "internationalising" your mess. Why would any sane government want to get involved in this fiasco? Even the ones who were in on the attack from the start, who should have known better, want to get out.
As a taxpayer, I would not want a single Euro expended on Iraq until the occupation was ended, the USA had payed major war reparations, and the responsible parties (including war enablers in the media) had been called to account. Yes, and a complete audit of all the Iraqi moneys and goods squandered, including Museum exhibits, houses, etc., had been established, so that the "Coallition" could account for and repay every missing cent.
Apart from everything else, helping you people out in Iraq would make it easier for you to attack some other harmless country and kill and bomb its citizens. It would be extremely stupid to do for that reason alone, as one of your more intelligent contributors has already pointed out.
You desperately wanted this war, against all sane advice, now deal with it. Personally, I am cheering for the Iraqi Resistance.
June 16, 2005 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think giving money to the insurgents and withdrawing will cause them to lay down their arms?
June 16, 2005 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anne-Marie Slaughter writes that we need a plan that “must fit into a larger vision, a set of purposes driving and justifying the use of American power.”
I agree we need a plan but disagree that it must fit into a larger vision. The time is long gone when such a plan must fit into a larger vision – now we need a plan to survive if not succeed. A climber stuck in a storm high on Mount Everest does not need a vision she needs a plan – and that is where we are in Iraq.
The most important thing we must do in Iraq is break the current cycle of stumbling from one goal to the next. We can do this by replacing the failed American leadership of the conflict and improving the Iraqi leadership. American leaders, in particular, need to regain credibility by being far more honest than they have been about the situation in Iraq. Any plan for Iraq must focus on improved leadership in the conflict.
We need vastly improved leadership in America. President Bush has been re-elected but we should no longer tolerate the failed leadership of Donald Rumsfeld. He has made too many mistakes and too many people have died in his counter-experiment to the Powell doctrine. The American dead deserve someone to be held accountable for their death. The Iraqi people deserve someone to be held accountable for their continued suffering. That someone should be Donald Rumsfeld. Many companies have found that merely changing the leader of a failed project can dramatically improve the chances of success. However, we should not absolve the military leadership of their responsibility either – far too many of them appeared to put loyalty to their careers above loyalty to their men. Democrats and (patriotic) Republicans should start pushing for an accountability moment for Donald Rumsfeld.
We need vastly improved leadership in Iraq. Along with the permanent members of the UN Security Council we should sponsor a month-long conference outside Iraq for the top Iraqi politicians with the goal of educating them and allowing them to develop relations without risk of getting their brains blown out. We should do the same with the political leaders in the larger cities because we need good government at all levels in Iraq.
I fear that none of the above will happen. Some people have suggested that Iraq was a flytrap for terrorists but, in fact, it is America that is trapped. Unless we have new leaders with new ideas we will be trapped with both not enough and too few soldiers to affect a successful plan. And a plan is what we need – the vision will have to await other days and other conflicts.
June 16, 2005 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make it sound as if we're still there, because we're good-hearted altruists.
We're still there because the Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations require us to stay until the country is stable and peaceful and there's a government in place with the means to keep it that way.
June 16, 2005 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the real end of our military participation will come on the eve of next year's mid-term elections. As calls are already coming from some Republicans in Congress to establish a time table by October 2006 for military withdrawl, it is clear the pressure will mount on any Republican that wants to return to office. Republicans are bright enough to read public opinion polls and soon the poll numbers will drop to such terrible lows on the issue of Iraq, that all bets are off for the Republicans' blind faith loyality to the guy who put us in Iraq will remain.
Does this mean we will put into place a reasonable plath-forward for Iraq? Possibly. As soon as the Republican politicians appear to be bailing on Iraq, conservative think tanks will begin developing a rational (and a rationale for) exit strategy to appease the American public.
In the end, I suspect we are less than a year from having a time table in place for withdrawl. The Republicans are simply not going to be able to stand up to the growing distaste for the war, the ongoing struggles of an over-stretched military and a host of issues that are distracting the American public from the domestic agenda they are attempting to put into place before the 2006 mid-terms.
June 16, 2005 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Half Fast Skier,
as one of those "old Europeans" I wished there was such an easy option to internationalize the Iraq mess.
Unfortunately, even if the Bush administration was to ask the EU for help I doubt he get it - in part because it is Bush doing the asking and in part because the EU is not ready to take on such a gigantic problem.
There was a slime chance to truly internationalize the conflict with Kerry as president. At this stage it is to late and wells are still to poisoned.
The EU is comfortable to simply observe how the struggle pans out and to take it from there.=
My prediction is that the US will be forced to withdraw eventually, a civil war in Iraq will follow. In the end the country will split into a Shiite south, a Sunni middle and Kurdistan in the north. The latter will then probably have to deal with an invading Turkey.
Once the dust is settled the EU will be happy to return to business with whomever will end up in power.
June 16, 2005 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
test limits
June 16, 2005 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2005 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
quax,
I agree with you that internationalzing the war in Iraq is a pipe dream. The wells are poisoned and surrounded with mines to boot too. At worst, I believe the EU would assist the US as they withdraw. But letting Iraq sink into chaos I don't believe is in the EU's best interest either.
If the Middle East falls into chaos, the world's oil supply may be choked off not just to the US, but the EU as well. That's not in your interest, so you do have something invested in a successful Iraqi solution too. But you do hold a handful of trump cards.
The question is...how do you disarm a bully? Especially if that bully has the capability to do you harm? Diplomacy. That's why the EU will assist the US in Iraq. The Bush Admin is working themselves into a tight spot..between a rock and a hardplace..so it may be very easy to win concessions. Especially if the American public is clammoring for action by the Bush Admin to resolve the Iraqi issue.
June 16, 2005 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would be a first. Bush doing something because the Geneva Conventions require it!
June 16, 2005 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you really think such a resolution would be forth coming? No. The sanctions were eroding and more likely there would have been overwhelming pressure to lift the sanctions and welcome Saddam back into the family of nations.
“Our second biggest mistake was not sending enough troops and completely failing to plan for post-conflict stabilization”
Given that the post war occupation was going to be opposed by a few (ten’s of thousands?) fanatic insurgents, do you really think that more troops would have made any difference, assuming we did not want to use ruthless violence and needed take into consideration the moderate population?
“Our third biggest mistake was not going back to the UN immediately, swallowing our pique at France and Germany, and bringing in as many countries as possible in the rebuilding effort”
Do you really think genuflecting before the UN would mollify the insurgents? If not, who will agree to a rebuilding effort. I expect that if the insurgents would lay down their arms, other countries would happily participate.
June 16, 2005 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You desperately wanted this war, against all sane advice, now deal with it. Personally, I am cheering for the Iraqi Resistance."
I suspect many Democrats secretly share this sentiment
June 16, 2005 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do think democracy promotion needs to be a major part of Democrats' foreign policy agenda going into the next election cycle (though I would probably give it a less central position) but we need to make very clear that we're not endorsing the Bush version of democracy-by-force.
I just think that 1) democracy promotion, alone, should not be a justification for war, and 2) we need to realize that many people, particularly in the Arab world, have values very different from ours, and that their version of democracy isn't going to look very much like ours. I find it unfortunate that, among both progressives and neoconservatives, there is so much naivite on the latter point. Most of the people arguing the other side of this are generalists, who don't have experience living in the Arab world or interacting with people there. (And no, the fact that one may have spoken to some liberal Arab intellectuals at a conference somewhere doesn't count, I mean actually being on the ground over there, in the coffeehouses, with the common folk.) There isn't -- to be very blunt about it -- very much interest in the Arab world in having Americans liberate them and show them how to govern themselves, and the vast majority of Arabs see the Iraq war as a foreign encroachment and humiliation, not something which would give them hope for the future.
Political change is coming in the region, regardless of American policy, but it's being driven largely by the fact that authoritarian governments no longer control communications. People are watching lively political talk shows on al-Jazeera, organizing demonstrations via cellphone text messaging, writing blogs on political issues, etc. But it's useful to keep in mind the realities of the situation. The Kifaya movement in Egypt -- which some progressives are mistakenly attributing as a positive effect of the "liberation" of Iraq -- actually had a lot more to do with Egyptians' anger about the war and subsequent occupation.
Our main mistake in Iraq wasn't the lack of another Security Council resolution (though I strongly agree with you, in general, that international law and legitimacy should be taken seriously by the U.S., not bypassed) -- it was failing to let the inspections play out fully. The only good reason to invade Iraq was if we really thought there was a nuclear threat -- in that case, it would have been worth all of the awfulness which has ensued. The "moral case for war" was largely driven by the idea that we could set in motion a wave of change in the region, and as I said in an earlier post, I think part of the reason for the rush to war was that the neoconservatives really believed their own rhetoric. Other more realistic observers had the wisdom to see through this.
As for public opinion outside the elites, I'd just refer you to the polls cited by Ivo Daalder and others -- a substantial majority of Americans don't think Iraq was "worth it", don't think it has contributed to American national security, and if Democrats go into the 2008 election cycle campaigning on staying in Iraq (because, as I think you would admit, building a truly "liberal" democracy in Iraq would require a much longer presence) and a "muscular" policy aimed at spreading American values in places where they're not welcome (remember when we were going to have a "secular" constitution in Iraq?), the public just isn't going to buy into it. The public seems to be grasping the fact we aren't welcome there (with nearly half of the population backing insurgent attacks), even if some in the foreign policy elites are still trying to fit the Iraq intervention into a broader intellectual construct -- as you are here.
I'm glad this debate has begun, though -- the Democractic party needs it. I don't think Neocon-Lite is where the majority of us will end up.
June 16, 2005 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms Slaughter, Iraq has never been a national security issue for this country. Contrary to your comment: "We need a plan, yes, but not just as a tool in partisan politics (which many of our readers seem to care more about than the actual future of Iraq). We need it because what happens in Iraq is vitally important to U.S. security no matter who's in charge." Iraq is a problem for this country because we invaded it.
Iraq doesn't have the means of being a threat to America and never has had that means. Our irreversible mistake was invading Iraq, with or without international approval. No sane government of any other country is going to help us save face there, and why should they?
The decision to be made now is when to withdraw our military and our contractors. And, that affects only the number of people who will die in Iraq, both Americans and Iraqis. So, that is what should be debated.
June 16, 2005 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anne-Marie's post speaks to the irresistible appeal of naive wishful thinking. Note that she approves of the invasion (the biggest mistake was not to wait for a few weeks so we could invade with a baton-twirling cheerleading team behind us). And she doesn't seem to understand that most of the world wants the US to fail. That the world is fed up with our bulllying, and that Iraq is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for the world to see the US cut down to size.
Internationalizing the conflict? Yeah, sure.
June 16, 2005 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
What happens in Iraq is not and never was a security issue for the US - unless resource-hogging is a security issue.
If resource-hogging is a security issue, then it's an issue for the farmyard and the hogs are the problem.
June 17, 2005 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wahh booga booga. Yes, those dirty anti-war librul Dems are responsible for the impending train wreck. Our plan was just dandy and they screwed it up.
Um, what was your plan again? The Friedman plan? The Cheney plan? The Wolfowitz plan? The "lie us into an unnecessary war in a powderkeg region and then try to figure out wtf to do" plan? Answer, none of the above. Apparently it was the "Drive us straight off that cliff over there and then blame the anti-war libruls for Wanting Us To Fail as we go merrily down to smash to bits on the rocks and crashing surf plan."
In plain fact, I DONT want us to fail and I HAD a plan for how not to--the only one with any chance of success. Want to hear it? Here goes.
My Plan for How to Get Out of Iraq with US Moral Credibility and Military Standing Still Intact: Dont go in.
Oops.
June 17, 2005 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh ha. HA ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh dear that is funny. "Leave and make the place a huge mess." Right. Can't do that. Oh my god. I just had a surgical tooth extraction and laughter is exceedingly painful. But my god that is hilarious.
"http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog" Satire indeed. You have a gift.
June 17, 2005 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And now that we are there, you would love to see a humiliating defeat so you can say "I told you so", right?
June 17, 2005 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Half Fast Skier,
no doubt the EU does not want to see chaos engulf the middle East and affect the oil supply – yet, I believe it is reasonable to assume that a civil war in Iraq will play out pretty quickly. The Shiites will have Iran’s support, with that there is no doubt that the Sunnis won't face much of a chance.
My bet is that once the US troops are gone Iraq will see a short bloody civil war. Afterwards Iran will be closely aligned with a Shiite dominated Iraq (possibly minus Kurdistan - if the Sunni's get their own Bantustan doesn't really matter - they will have no oil).
Iran will be dominating the region. While this is not an outcome that the EU will relish - it is one that we can live with.
Of course this result will be contrary to everything that the Bush administration has been aiming for - that's what you get if you have complete foreign policy idiots in charge.
June 17, 2005 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot: firing the entire Iraqi army and letting them take their guns home with them; failing to secure Saddam's massive military stores against the insurgents; ignoring the rules of a tribal society, in which harming one member of the tribe requires all the rest to obtain revenge; delaying handover of power until pro-corporate laws could be written; tons of others. After all this time, failing to secure the road to the airport!
We will not be adding more troops in Iraq. The reason is simple: we do not have more troops to add, and Americans will reject a draft.
Talk that leaving Iraq will create a disaster ignores the fact that Iraq is already a disaster.
Trying to bully the "Turks, Iranians and Israelis, and Syrians" into staying out of Iraq? You expect countries to ignore their national interest? It's half way around the world from us, but on their borders, or nearby. Why should they do that? And you left out a country: Saudi Arabia, which is evidently the source of most of the suicide bombers. Negotiating a "stay out" deal could conceivably work if the US also agreed to stay out, as in agreeing to a witdrawal plan, giving up the idea of permanent bases in Iraq. In your view, is power to meddle in other countries reserved to the United States alone? Why?
What Bush has succeeded in doing is discrediting American power. Other countries that might be hostile used to fear us; now they do not. We are bogged down in Iraq, so we are unable to respond if someone else acts up. The US's negotiating power is greatly weakened.
If anything, for the US to announce its intent to leave, and to then enter negotiations as to terms, is probably the best hope. The Kurds and the Shiite faction that form the government will have to cease their squabbling so they don't all get killed. Neighboring countries would have an increased interest in doing what they can to promote stability.
June 17, 2005 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"<span class="Apple-style-span">We can’t 'stay the course' in Iraq unless we know what the course is."</span><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">With such a beginning, why would we want to 'stay the course'—or continue reading?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span">We need to *change* course.</span></div>
June 17, 2005 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
We also need a solution to this formatting mess.
June 17, 2005 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have already suffered that humiliating defeat, so if any of us was hoping for that, we got our wish. Incidentally, this isn't a college football game, where the home team can win if we all just cheer loud enough and really, really want to win. Also, unless someone wants to define "victory" as applied to the invasion of Iraq, I don't see how it could ever be possible to even know if such a "victory" was near. I suggest we direct our cheering and really, really hoping for a victory to our local football teams. Meanwhile, we need to bring our military home before we lost a few thousand more to no purpose.
June 17, 2005 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And now that we are clearly suffering a humiliating defeat, as any imbecile should have known was inevitable from the get-go, instead of facing and admitting what a completely misguided idea it was that you've been supporting, you want to point the finger at someone else for "wanting us to fail."
June 18, 2005 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
You hit that nail on the head, Matt. The big mistake was pretty obviously the decision to go to war in the first place.
Anne-Marie's point that we should be thinking about a plan for Iraq that fits into a larger framework of liberal internationalism seems right to me. But there's a certain naivete about whether any such plan could ever be implemented. And it's frustrating, because this isn't the first time we've seen that kind of naivete from (some) left-leaning hawks.
What Anne-Marie thinks are the biggest mistakes about the war were things that had to be the way they were. Given the players invloved--Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith--there was no way for those mistakes not to be made. Would the PNAC guys have allowed the US to be stalled up in its plans, even for a few weeks, while Blair made nice with the UN on their behalf? Of course not. The very idea of needing international saction for the extra-terretorial use of force flies in the face of those guys' fundemental view of America's place in the world. Would Rumsfeld have allowed himself to be talked into sending the number of troops needed to keep the peace? Of course not. This was supposed to be the the big debut of Rumsfeld's "transformed" leaner, faster, cheaper military.
The point is just that there never was any real possibility of convincing the main actors not to make the mistakes that Anne-Marie mentions. Given those actors, and given their objectives, there never was any possibility of going to war the right way.
And not for nothing, the fact that going to war the right way was never a real possibility is exactly why it was a mistake to go to war at all. It's why even someone like me, who considers himself something of a liberal hawk, was opposed from the very beginning to this particular war. But that's another story.
The worry here is that Anne-Marie still thinks it's a possibility to sell a plan to the Bushies. This is just what liberal and realist supporters of the war hoped for before it started. It's what Tony Blair and Colin Powell hoped for. But really, in the end, what influence did Blair and Powell exert? Obviously, not enough.
Pretty clearly the world looks a lot different now than it did in 2003. But still, if Blair and Powell couldn't stop the Bush administration from making mistakes in 2003, why should we think Dem leaders and liberal foreign policy hands could set them straight now? What real possibility is there for getting the Bush administration to take any steps in the right direction? And if that isn't a real possibility, what does that mean for what Dems and progressives should be advocating?
June 18, 2005 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad mure "voice" is being given here for this view - that it was all in error. Apologies to Ann Marie but so many words and professed plans are being directed at an error. It becomes like fudging the math when the original formula is wrong.
(except of course the coup that has gotten a bear claw on virtually every tax dollar and funneled to specific corporate interest - that was the only thing that worked as outlined)
This occupation will end with a sane person looking at their watch, counting the minutes, and then claiming "it's over". There will be no higher purpose or policy than this. It will end as sadly as the chopper lift from Saigon.
And, if you can believe it, a few years from now we will have in Iraq an occupying, repressive, militaristic tyrant of sorts who will be trying to subdue warring factions and will have a name different that Saddam. That's all.
There is nothing fancy to admitting an error early in the formula. The entire process that follows is an error, esp. the concocted justifications for continuing along.
June 19, 2005 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our biggest mistake in Iraq was not waiting at least three more weeks to get a UN resolution backing the invasion, as Tony Blair wanted....We can’t fix the first two mistakes
While I agree in the main with Dean Slaughter's analysis and the framework for solution, nonetheless, we must accept the fact, on a fundamental level, that the program she outlines will never see the light of day or debate, unless we embrace the truth that this is a partisan issue of the highest order.
We can remedy the first and second problems. Indeed, that is the objective of her recommendations. Lies have consequences. We cannot hope to clean up the mess without forthrighly facing up to the causes.
Plainly, George Bush will do nothing, can do nothing but "stay the course" without admitting his grevious malfeasance.
That fact makes this as partisan a national security issue as you can imagine.
I would certainly welcome Dean Slaughter's perspective as an international lawyer on this from Juan Cole today
US & UK Bombing raids on Iraq in summer 2002 were illegal
Michael Smith of the London Sunday Times continues his reporting on leaked British memos from 2002 that shed light on the decision-making process that led to the Iraq war. Today he explores the implication of the US/UK bombing campaigns against Iraq, which Gen. Tommy Franks called "spikes of activity." The US and British governments intended the bombing of Iraq to produce two desirable outcomes. First, they hoped that Saddam would retaliate, a retaliation that the Western Powers would be able easily to paint as an act of naked agression against the US and the UK, thus providing a pretext for war against Iraq.
The British government had legal advice that the bombing raids were illegal under the United Nations Charter. (The Charter forbids aggressive war, which is how the bombing was interpreted by the lawyers).
Arguments over the meaning of the UN Charter in the UK come as a surprise to an American, since our government-- the Bush Administration-- not only disgregards the UN charter as "quaint" but also is actively seeking to destroy the international organization.
Smith points out that Bush's bombing of Iraq in summer of 2002 was also unconstitutional if it aimed at provoking war (which it did, as the memos demonstrate). The US Constitution invests the power to declare War in the Congress.
In the US, however, political and legal discourse is so debased that George W. Bush can get away with declaring that we went to war in Iraq "because we were attacked" on September 11. Bush has never produced any documentary evidence to support his allegation of a Saddam- al-Qaeda link, which most professional intelligence analysts and Middle East experts consider impossible.
posted by Juan @ 6/19/2005 06:35:00 AM
June 19, 2005 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks be we rid the world of the Brutal Dictator who killed fewer of his own people than his Vanquisher.
Any reason BOTH shouldn't be in the dock?
Iraqi Tactics Evoke the Hussein Era
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Asmaa Waguih
Many detainees face beatings -- and some death. U.S. officials are troubled by the reports. (LAT)
Bush says US is in Iraq because of attacks on US
Are about Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Iraqi Beatings?
June 19, 2005 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The third is the growing gap between the Bush administration and the American people. For the first time, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll, more than half of Americans don't feel that the Iraq war has made them safer. The truth is that the Iraq war has made them decidedly less safe, distracting us from the real war on Islamic extremism and creating a magnet for Jihadi fanatics. According to a Gallup poll, 57 percent now say Iraq was not worth invading.
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" align="center" border="0"><tr align="left"><td>Facing Facts in Iraq </td></tr><tr align="left"><td>by H.D.S. Greenway</td></tr></table>
June 19, 2005 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is the Gene McCarthy of this generation....politics abors a vacuum....
A politics of war, a politics of upheaval, lie just ahead.
So says Pat Buchanan , for those too blessedly young to recall
here
June 20, 2005 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is the Gene McCarthy of this generation?
June 20, 2005 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXCELLENT!
June 20, 2005 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Piple dreams and Bush assurances notwithstanding, Bush doesn't intend to leave Iraq...
The Green Republic via Kevin Drum
Bardach, A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis
The Eightfold Path
1. Define the problem (1)
Political, lies have consequences
Right Dean Slaughter?
June 21, 2005 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course ylu are absolutely right. I am also infuriated by anyone who says Iraq isnot a partisan issue but a national security issue. Since when did I get invited to the debate? Wasn't the war jused as a partisan issue in 2002 and again in 2004. So why wasn't it a partisan issue then. NOW with public opinion turnign against the war its partisan nature is off the table, not for discussion. Iraq is a problem we all share. And we need the foreign policy, national security experts (invisible in 2002 and 2004) to guid us now. Over my dead body.
June 22, 2005 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we "obligated". Who is this "we". Is it Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, or will Mr.Brown lead his own forces? Look, I have NOTHING in common with the Bush plans for a puppet state in Iraq with fortified bases from which America can dominate the Middle East. I have NOTHING in common with his ideas of "democracy". I do not recognize the American paradigm here . That was in the past. Before 9/11, before Abu Ghraib, before the crazy right-wing takeover. The sooner the troops are brought home, the better for them, for us, and for the Iraqis. The longer we linger to get it right (according to Bush's plans), the more harm we do. Don't talk about getting it right. You have NO power. Your ideas are not Bush's.
June 22, 2005 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly Dean Slaughter supported the war although SHE does not say why nor does she say what she wanted it to accomplish. We know it was not WMD's for if that were our goal then our biggest mistake was to not get this right and to not "fix" intelligence. It is a little hard to discuss with someone who isn't saying honestly why the war itself was not the biggest mistake. She is a bit like Bush, playing very close to the vest, keeping us all in the dark as she rearranges the map of the world for purposes we can only guess at. All we are supposed to do, is fight and die and pay and accept the consequences. I think I'll take a big pass.
June 22, 2005 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then there's the "at-worst" part
The president and his partner are more concerned with going to war with half the country than they are with war against the country's enemies abroad. Until the president thinks differently on that key point there's simply no point in dealing with him on anything. Josh Marshall
June 23, 2005 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just wanted to say: keep on keeping on.
Don't let the naysayer comments on this thread get you down.
Your essay resounded with me and I think it will resound with others. The kind of things you are saying need to be said as never before.
June 25, 2005 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I wonder if retrenching - keeping our mouths shut on issues that the Bush Administration and his Lemming Party have dug their own grave on - would be the best strategy.
We have a few more years to allow this debacle to continue. So why not let it continue, so that as it gets closer to the next Presidential election, it'll still be fresh in voters minds?
I really think we should let the Lemmings dig their own grave on this issue. Perhaps on other issues as well.
June 26, 2005 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is really chilling about all this...
Peace and Security are now more coveted values for our society than Freedom and Liberty. We headed down a path where we will welcome UN troops into our streets to keep our neighborhoods secure. The new definition of "freedom" is "security". This is not what the founding fathers of this country had in mind. In this, the terrorists have succeeded.
June 27, 2005 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink