Saturday, January 29, 2005
Death in War: Iraq and All the Rest
Whatever results Sunday brings, many will be forced once again to do their moral calculus. Was it worth it? This has been the question throughout human history. Sometimes it clearly was not. World War I with its terrible slaughter of young men on both sides did not advance any human cause very far. World War II and the Civil War, on the other hand, are more complicated.
The immediate answers depend on who you are and where, on your fate and that of those closest to you. Some people in Iraq would take any chance, give up everything, even their own lives to get back at Saddam for what he did to them or their families. Others feel the same about the Americans. But neither of these feelings make a war “worth it” unless there is a real improvement in the lives of those who come afterwards. President Bush tells the Iraqi people that a broad and wonderful future is opening in front of them. Some believe it, especially it appears those Iraqis who live outside the country. But that American soldier’s family in Iowa, does it believe it? Do they care that much that the Iraqis have a chance to build a freer society? Were they willing to sacrifice their son? Is not the President pursuing the goals of a grand plan over the bodies of ordinary people who have not been adequately consulted? How does America conduct foreign policy in a world in which sometimes people will be killed on both sides without adequate consultation?
The immediate answers depend on who you are and where, on your fate and that of those closest to you. Some people in Iraq would take any chance, give up everything, even their own lives to get back at Saddam for what he did to them or their families. Others feel the same about the Americans. But neither of these feelings make a war “worth it” unless there is a real improvement in the lives of those who come afterwards. President Bush tells the Iraqi people that a broad and wonderful future is opening in front of them. Some believe it, especially it appears those Iraqis who live outside the country. But that American soldier’s family in Iowa, does it believe it? Do they care that much that the Iraqis have a chance to build a freer society? Were they willing to sacrifice their son? Is not the President pursuing the goals of a grand plan over the bodies of ordinary people who have not been adequately consulted? How does America conduct foreign policy in a world in which sometimes people will be killed on both sides without adequate consultation?
Iraq Elections: Last Thoughts
Last night Juan Cole and another expert on the Lehrer news show suggested that the election would be a success if more than 40% of eligible voters participated (in the range of the “success” of the recent Palestinian vote). Considering the fact that at least half the Shiites and most of the Kurds are outside the violent areas, this suggestion seemed encouraging. The percentages that might be imagined are: 65% of Kurds (or 12% of total), 60% of half of the Shiites (or 20% of total) and 30% of half of Shiites (12% of total) and 10% of Sunni Arabs (or 2% of total). This should add up to a total vote of 46%. I expect that well less than a third of the potential “overseas vote” will actually come in. However, in my own calculations this doesn't mean much. There simply were too few polling places in most countries (5 in the United States for example). In spite of heroic efforts most people could not make this effort.
My hopes were raised when I noted that the areas of violence in Baghdad had greatly declined in Sadr City over previous months while holding the same in the rest of the city. However, by today’s paper we learn that al-Sadr’s lieutenants are telling their people not to vote (even though some of the Mahdi Army are on the lists). This strikes quite a blow at my confidence. So we will see. Generally these things turn out better than expected.
If the election is widely viewed as a failure, then there will be a demand on the American home front that we leave (the insurgents have this right).
My hopes were raised when I noted that the areas of violence in Baghdad had greatly declined in Sadr City over previous months while holding the same in the rest of the city. However, by today’s paper we learn that al-Sadr’s lieutenants are telling their people not to vote (even though some of the Mahdi Army are on the lists). This strikes quite a blow at my confidence. So we will see. Generally these things turn out better than expected.
If the election is widely viewed as a failure, then there will be a demand on the American home front that we leave (the insurgents have this right).
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
DoD Intelligence Corps
The Department of Defense has let it be known that for some time it has been taking a direct role in the gathering of intelligence in front line situations such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The newspapers point out that this is part of a long-running turf battle between the CIA and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). It seems to me that what Defense is doing makes sense. If we have troops in an area, then the intelligence service most closely related to those troops should be the one that has responsibility for intelligence gathering for those troops. Ideally, each part of our defensive establishment, whether it be special forces or homeland security, whatever unit is meant to act offensively or defensively should be directly connected to an intelligence capability. The situation is quite different for strategic intelligence. Here the CIA and the Department of State’s intelligence bureau should be the main sources of intelligence. For in this case the intelligence gathered should go to the top and then back down to the action agencies.
The Bush Doctrine: Problems and Prospects
The Bush doctrine as developed in his Inaugural Address on January 20 was a remarkable statement of his approach to the world. In many ways it mirrored long held beliefs of Americans. But it some ways it fell short of outlining the path to a free and peaceful world that he believed he was describing.
The first problem is that he does not go beyond the false assumption behind his policy and the thinking of many commentators that America is hated and attacked because the attackers live in tyrannies. As has been discussed here frequently, writers such as “Anonymous” and Clarke argue convincingly that it is because of American policy, particularly in regard to Israel and Saudi Arabia, that we were attacked. There is little suggestion in the speech that we are going to change our policies in these regards.
Another problem with the Bush doctrine is that it defines “freedom” primarily as democracy. It is true that “self-government” is mentioned, but this generally seems to be interpreted as the development of a democratic system for established states. The reason to make this point is that the Wilson doctrine which Bush has echoed concentrated on “self-determination for all”. This led to the breaking up of states, particularly in Europe. Wilson felt that all peoples should be able to govern themselves. He evidently also believed that peoples given this right would inevitably develop democracy, which unfortunately many did not (or their democracies soon collapsed). There is no hint in Bush’s statement or in the conduct of our foreign policy during his administration that we are going to stand up for the many peoples around the world that are struggling for self-government, whether or not this means democracy. This includes the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Chechens, the Kurds, the people of West Irian and the Acheh in northern Sumatra or the people of Darfur. It includes many peoples scattered across Africa that never asked to be put into the states they now find themselves in. One doubts that Bush will move to “free” these peoples.
Confining himself to existing states, then, does Bush really mean that he is going to tell the leaders of the Gulf Sheikhdoms, of Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, and so many other states with which we and or allies have developed a modus vivendi that they must change into democracies? No, he does not mean this. He means to say that we cannot have good relations with any state that does not treat its people “decently”. This is a good human rights standard with which few can quarrel.
Words have consequences, especially when they are American words. An expert on Iran argued that the reason the Shah caved into the opposition in the late 1970s, a retreat that led directly to Khomeini, was that the Iranians had listened President Carter’s affirmation of human rights, a affirmation that led the opposition (originally liberals) to believe they could test the regime as they had never before. If the same thing were to happen in Pakistan or China or Saudi Arabia, the outcome might not be what we would like. It also might not support the expansion of freedom in the long run.
My conclusion is that the speech was a surprisingly good statement of ideals. But using the forum that he did, it was perhaps too blunt, too likely to be misinterpreted. Once given, we must step back a little and tread lightly into the free new world.
The first problem is that he does not go beyond the false assumption behind his policy and the thinking of many commentators that America is hated and attacked because the attackers live in tyrannies. As has been discussed here frequently, writers such as “Anonymous” and Clarke argue convincingly that it is because of American policy, particularly in regard to Israel and Saudi Arabia, that we were attacked. There is little suggestion in the speech that we are going to change our policies in these regards.
Another problem with the Bush doctrine is that it defines “freedom” primarily as democracy. It is true that “self-government” is mentioned, but this generally seems to be interpreted as the development of a democratic system for established states. The reason to make this point is that the Wilson doctrine which Bush has echoed concentrated on “self-determination for all”. This led to the breaking up of states, particularly in Europe. Wilson felt that all peoples should be able to govern themselves. He evidently also believed that peoples given this right would inevitably develop democracy, which unfortunately many did not (or their democracies soon collapsed). There is no hint in Bush’s statement or in the conduct of our foreign policy during his administration that we are going to stand up for the many peoples around the world that are struggling for self-government, whether or not this means democracy. This includes the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Chechens, the Kurds, the people of West Irian and the Acheh in northern Sumatra or the people of Darfur. It includes many peoples scattered across Africa that never asked to be put into the states they now find themselves in. One doubts that Bush will move to “free” these peoples.
Confining himself to existing states, then, does Bush really mean that he is going to tell the leaders of the Gulf Sheikhdoms, of Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, and so many other states with which we and or allies have developed a modus vivendi that they must change into democracies? No, he does not mean this. He means to say that we cannot have good relations with any state that does not treat its people “decently”. This is a good human rights standard with which few can quarrel.
Words have consequences, especially when they are American words. An expert on Iran argued that the reason the Shah caved into the opposition in the late 1970s, a retreat that led directly to Khomeini, was that the Iranians had listened President Carter’s affirmation of human rights, a affirmation that led the opposition (originally liberals) to believe they could test the regime as they had never before. If the same thing were to happen in Pakistan or China or Saudi Arabia, the outcome might not be what we would like. It also might not support the expansion of freedom in the long run.
My conclusion is that the speech was a surprisingly good statement of ideals. But using the forum that he did, it was perhaps too blunt, too likely to be misinterpreted. Once given, we must step back a little and tread lightly into the free new world.
The Bush Doctrine: Problems and Prospects
The Bush doctrine as developed in his Inaugural Address on January 20 was a remarkable statement of his approach to the world. In many ways it mirrored long held beliefs of Americans. But it some ways it fell short of outlining the path to a free and peaceful world that he believed he was describing.
The first problem is that he does not go beyond the false assumption behind his policy and the thinking of many commentators that America is hated and attacked because the attackers live in tyrannies. As has been discussed here frequently, writers such as “Anonymous” and Clarke argue convincingly that it is because of American policy, particularly in regard to Israel and Saudi Arabia, that we were attacked. There is little suggestion in the speech that we are going to change our policies in these regards.
Another problem with the Bush doctrine is that it defines “freedom” primarily as democracy. It is true that “self-government” is mentioned, but this generally seems to be interpreted as the development of a democratic system for established states. The reason to make this point is that the Wilson doctrine which Bush has echoed concentrated on “self-determination for all”. This led to the breaking up of states, particularly in Europe. Wilson felt that all peoples should be able to govern themselves. He evidently also believed that peoples given this right would inevitably develop democracy, which unfortunately many did not (or their democracies soon collapsed). There is no hint in Bush’s statement or in the conduct of our foreign policy during his administration that we are going to stand up for the many peoples around the world that are struggling for self-government, whether or not this means democracy. This includes the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Chechens, the Kurds, the people of West Irian and the Acheh in northern Sumatra or the people of Darfur. It includes many peoples scattered across Africa that never asked to be put into the states they now find themselves in. One doubts that Bush will move to “free” these peoples.
Confining himself to existing states, then, does Bush really mean that he is going to tell the leaders of the Gulf Sheikhdoms, of Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, and so many other states with which we and or allies have developed a modus vivendi that they must change into democracies? No, he does not mean this. He means to say that we cannot have good relations with any state that does not treat its people “decently”. This is a good human rights standard with which few can quarrel.
Words have consequences, especially when they are American words. An expert on Iran argued that the reason the Shah caved into the opposition in the late 1970s, a retreat that led directly to Khomeini, was that the Iranians had listened President Carter’s affirmation of human rights, a affirmation that led the opposition (originally liberals) to believe they could test the regime as they had never before. If the same thing were to happen in Pakistan or China or Saudi Arabia, the outcome might not be what we would like. It also might not support the expansion of freedom in the long run.
My conclusion is that the speech was a surprisingly good statement of ideals. But using the forum that he did, it was perhaps too blunt, too likely to be misinterpreted. Once given, we must step back a little and tread lightly into the free new world.
The first problem is that he does not go beyond the false assumption behind his policy and the thinking of many commentators that America is hated and attacked because the attackers live in tyrannies. As has been discussed here frequently, writers such as “Anonymous” and Clarke argue convincingly that it is because of American policy, particularly in regard to Israel and Saudi Arabia, that we were attacked. There is little suggestion in the speech that we are going to change our policies in these regards.
Another problem with the Bush doctrine is that it defines “freedom” primarily as democracy. It is true that “self-government” is mentioned, but this generally seems to be interpreted as the development of a democratic system for established states. The reason to make this point is that the Wilson doctrine which Bush has echoed concentrated on “self-determination for all”. This led to the breaking up of states, particularly in Europe. Wilson felt that all peoples should be able to govern themselves. He evidently also believed that peoples given this right would inevitably develop democracy, which unfortunately many did not (or their democracies soon collapsed). There is no hint in Bush’s statement or in the conduct of our foreign policy during his administration that we are going to stand up for the many peoples around the world that are struggling for self-government, whether or not this means democracy. This includes the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Chechens, the Kurds, the people of West Irian and the Acheh in northern Sumatra or the people of Darfur. It includes many peoples scattered across Africa that never asked to be put into the states they now find themselves in. One doubts that Bush will move to “free” these peoples.
Confining himself to existing states, then, does Bush really mean that he is going to tell the leaders of the Gulf Sheikhdoms, of Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, and so many other states with which we and or allies have developed a modus vivendi that they must change into democracies? No, he does not mean this. He means to say that we cannot have good relations with any state that does not treat its people “decently”. This is a good human rights standard with which few can quarrel.
Words have consequences, especially when they are American words. An expert on Iran argued that the reason the Shah caved into the opposition in the late 1970s, a retreat that led directly to Khomeini, was that the Iranians had listened President Carter’s affirmation of human rights, a affirmation that led the opposition (originally liberals) to believe they could test the regime as they had never before. If the same thing were to happen in Pakistan or China or Saudi Arabia, the outcome might not be what we would like. It also might not support the expansion of freedom in the long run.
My conclusion is that the speech was a surprisingly good statement of ideals. But using the forum that he did, it was perhaps too blunt, too likely to be misinterpreted. Once given, we must step back a little and tread lightly into the free new world.
A Regional Plan for Post-War Iraq
With the possibility of an amicable development of relations among the major groups in Iraq it seems to me that thought should be given to developing a federal system. As readers will remember, I have always insisted that the Kurds should be allowed to have a state of their own. But without American support this seems unlikely.
A fallback position has always been strong autonomy for the Kurds within the new Iraq. Curiously, the interim constitution states that if any three provinces do not accept the constitution (meaning the amount of autonomy granted to the three) then the new constitution will be invalid. This clause was put into the constitution to satisfy the Kurds with their three provinces. But now it appears that the Sunni Arabs have noted that they dominate another three provinces, and that this clause also gives them a veto.
I would think that a good solution would be to have four regional governments, each with considerable autonomy. These would be the Sunni Arab provinces north and west of Baghdad, the Kurdish provinces in the Northeast, Baghdad itself, and the rest in a large Shi’a province in the center or south. (They may want more, so why not.) Regional governments are always in danger of being crushed by the center or flying off into independent states. So it is how to know how this would play out in the end. But there is a lot of inter-group hostility in the country and this might be a way to assuage it. The hardest problem would be to figure out what to do with the Peshmurga, the very strong militia that the Kurds count on to defend their interests. The Kurds would feel mighty exposed without it. But how would this fit into the new scheme of things?
A fallback position has always been strong autonomy for the Kurds within the new Iraq. Curiously, the interim constitution states that if any three provinces do not accept the constitution (meaning the amount of autonomy granted to the three) then the new constitution will be invalid. This clause was put into the constitution to satisfy the Kurds with their three provinces. But now it appears that the Sunni Arabs have noted that they dominate another three provinces, and that this clause also gives them a veto.
I would think that a good solution would be to have four regional governments, each with considerable autonomy. These would be the Sunni Arab provinces north and west of Baghdad, the Kurdish provinces in the Northeast, Baghdad itself, and the rest in a large Shi’a province in the center or south. (They may want more, so why not.) Regional governments are always in danger of being crushed by the center or flying off into independent states. So it is how to know how this would play out in the end. But there is a lot of inter-group hostility in the country and this might be a way to assuage it. The hardest problem would be to figure out what to do with the Peshmurga, the very strong militia that the Kurds count on to defend their interests. The Kurds would feel mighty exposed without it. But how would this fit into the new scheme of things?
Iraq’s Election: The Pieces are Falling into Place
As hard as it may be for the many doubters of President Bush’s poorly planned adventure in Iraq to believe it, it appears now as though the election may come off reasonably well and that the aftermath will not be a disaster.
This last week apparently attacks tapered off. This is not much help to those still being killed, but it is a good sign. I assume violence will intensify again, with a crescendo on the actual voting days.
While all this takes place, Iraqi politicians are moving in surprisingly positive directions. The leaders of the top Shi’a parties have announced that if they win, they do not intend to set up a religious government of any kind. There will be no “turbans” in government positions. They intend to establish a secular state because that is what they feel the people of Iraq really want. This state will not require women to cover up as is the case in so many other Islamic states. These statements go considerably beyond what Sistani has suggested before. They seem aimed at pleasing the Sunni Arabs (who partly for nationalist reasons fear an Iranian state), the Kurds who have developed a quite secular way of life in their enclave and do not want to lose that, and of course the Americans who have all along feared the Ayatollahs taking over a la Iran (in spite of the assurances by such as Juan Cole that this is not what the Shi’as want). Now we should be careful. It almost seems too good to be true. We must remember that Khomeini was believed at first to want such a relatively secular state too. His first Prime Minister was a member of the old liberal opposition to the Shah. But this did not last long. Just a thought.
In the Sunni Arab community, some leaders are continuing to stand for election while others say their followers will not vote. However, most of them say that they will in any event have a hand in writing the Constitution. In other words, they are not rejecting the process of movement toward a new state that is to occupy 2005. How they will participate, and whether they will be satisfied with their part is another question.
This last week apparently attacks tapered off. This is not much help to those still being killed, but it is a good sign. I assume violence will intensify again, with a crescendo on the actual voting days.
While all this takes place, Iraqi politicians are moving in surprisingly positive directions. The leaders of the top Shi’a parties have announced that if they win, they do not intend to set up a religious government of any kind. There will be no “turbans” in government positions. They intend to establish a secular state because that is what they feel the people of Iraq really want. This state will not require women to cover up as is the case in so many other Islamic states. These statements go considerably beyond what Sistani has suggested before. They seem aimed at pleasing the Sunni Arabs (who partly for nationalist reasons fear an Iranian state), the Kurds who have developed a quite secular way of life in their enclave and do not want to lose that, and of course the Americans who have all along feared the Ayatollahs taking over a la Iran (in spite of the assurances by such as Juan Cole that this is not what the Shi’as want). Now we should be careful. It almost seems too good to be true. We must remember that Khomeini was believed at first to want such a relatively secular state too. His first Prime Minister was a member of the old liberal opposition to the Shah. But this did not last long. Just a thought.
In the Sunni Arab community, some leaders are continuing to stand for election while others say their followers will not vote. However, most of them say that they will in any event have a hand in writing the Constitution. In other words, they are not rejecting the process of movement toward a new state that is to occupy 2005. How they will participate, and whether they will be satisfied with their part is another question.
