A War I Never Lived Through
I'd hate to think that this blog is becoming a place to respond to the frontpagers on the mothership TPM site, but here we go again.
First, congrats on your son Josh! I hope you get a lot of sleep now because you'll need it.
Second this is a very interesting post that I suspect I have a lot easier time excepting than say, someone who is 20 years older than I am. I was born in late 1981. I only vaguely, VERY vaguely remember the "Godless Communist!" type propaganda of the early and middle 80s. My first strong political memories are the event that made me a Democrat forever, but my next are of the fall of the USSR and Yeltsin on that tank. I was 10 years old.
Anyhow, being a history buff I am reminded not so much of Vietnam-- which only scarred me because the GOP has been beating Dems over the head with it for more than 30 years--but, especially thanks to the Murdoch analogy of: Fordlandia! Henry Ford's attempt at vertical integration by creating a rubber plantation in South America. After the disaster of his first plantation he tried again upstream but by then it was too late and the market had passed hm by. He was forced to sell at a massive loss.
I think the key difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that in Vietnam there was an organized force that was going to take charge, and most of the people wanted it for various reasons. That's not going to happen in Iraq. What's going to happen when we pull out is everyone is going to realize that the only thing stand between them and annihilation is themselves. That's why when we pull out it will almost assuredly dissolve into Grand Old Super ClusterFuck from the current Super ClusterFuck. In Vietnam when we left the country eventually reorganized. Thanks to media and oil the entire planet is going to have a front row seat to some of the bloodiest chaos we've seen in 20 years... and everyone will know it's OUR fault.
Do I think we should pull out? Hell yes. If we had 400,000 more troops, if we actually had competent leadership, if we could actually be more concerned with getting people who speak Arabic rather than rooting out teh Gay, maybe we should stay. But that's not going to happen. None of those things are going to happen.
I disagree with Josh: when we pull out a lot of people are going to rightly blame us and the entire world will see the consequences of our fuck up and we will pay big time. Because every time horrific news makes it out of Iraq people are going to look at us and think "they did that." And we will pay for that, oh how we'll pay.
If we stay there will be trouble, if we go there will be double. Unfortunately if we stay the trouble will become double--it'll just take longer. As Kevin Drum said, things can get worse.
We could have a million troops and Iraq would still be a disaster. Non-Muslim occupiers will not be accepted in a Muslim country.
Tom
November 20, 2006 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you could say that about Americans in Germany after 1944 too.
There are (of course) many important differences. But one is that in Germany, the U.S. came out as being much, much better for the occupied nation than expected - in Iraq, it's unfortunately the other way around.
America and The Western World really had a chance. I am convinced we had. Iraq was the best possible place to experiment with democratization of an Arabic and/or Muslim country. The neocons were certainly right on that. But we blew it.
We'll have to pay a high price for that. All of us. Not only America.
But it's only in America where the reasons for this failure can be investigated.
And I'm pretty optimistic. Just like the Red Army improved after the disastrous Winter War, so will America improve its capacity for imperial governance.
...and with regard to what to do now, there is still chances to calm down the situation. But they will cost both in money, prestige and real hard diplomatic concessions. The big issue is if the alternative is more or less expensive.
/Tuomas
November 22, 2006 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there are any chances for the US military to calm the situation down. We are perceived as an occupier. Some force perceived as neutral would be the only one that might have a chance to calm the situation down.
Tom
November 22, 2006 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, the U.S. army can not do much at the moment, except try to stop other countries taking part in a carving up of Iraq. But America as a nation can surely do a great deal. The question is if it has stamina for it. Do we have to look at the Republicans for that kind of courage???
/Tuomas
November 23, 2006 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we stay there will be trouble, if we go there will be double. Unfortunately if we stay the trouble will become double--it'll just take longer.
No good options.
And now, "we're not talking about just a full-scale civil war," but possibly a regional war over the "dead body" of Iraq.
Gah.
November 22, 2006 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink