« What Evil Lurks In The Hearts Of Men? | Main | Imperial Groans »
November 21, 2006
Superpower Self-Esteem
As Kevin Drum points out, the Iraqi people overwhelmingly want us to leave. They do not believe our presence stabilizes or protects and, as a result, they support attacks on our troops. All the better to get us the hell out.
The question, of course, is why we don't. What's the compelling national interest in occupying a country that deplores our presence? That murders our soldiers? That depletes our treasury? That shows no sign, hint, or hope of molding itself to our desires?
There is none. Instead, we remain in Iraq because the current Administration is afraid to put a loss on the board. We remain in Iraq to avoid a blow to our national self-esteem. So long as we've boots, guns, and grunts in their country, there's always the chance that a stretch of good weather and the tranquil vibes unleashed by the global orgasm for peace will calm the region down, and we'll be able to dart out in a moment of relative optimism and goodwill, reputation intact. To leave now, conversely, would be to admit defeat. And no one making the decisions -- not the elected officials protecting their legacy nor the colonels seeking promotion -- will be the one to codify our humiliation. That's understandable on an individual level, but in the aggregate, it means we're not merely asking men to die for a mistake, we're asking them to perish to protect our ego.
November 21, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
"We remain in Iraq to avoid a blow to our national self-esteem."
It's far worse than that.
We remain in Iraq to avoid a blow to the self-esteem and historical estimation of the current administration, not of our nation.
Just like LBJ didn't want to lose Vietnam on his watch. Just like Nixon & Ford didn't want to lose Vietnam on their watch (until Congress cut off funding...)
We'll still be in Iraq in January of 2009, because Bush wants the official accounting of the loss to fall on the next guy. And if the next guy is McCain, we may be in Iraq for far longer than most folks are currently imagining.
Posted by: Petey | Nov 21, 2006 10:41:02 AM
I don't know whether things will improve if we leave and anyone IMHO, anyone who says they do know, shouldn't be trusted, one way or the other.
Whats clear to me is that there is no way to change the situation on the ground. Thats good enough reason to leave.
Posted by: Adrock | Nov 21, 2006 11:14:18 AM
"Whats clear to me is that there is no way to change the situation on the ground. Thats good enough reason to leave."
Of course, that very same clarity as seen from the WH is exactly why we'll still be in Iraq in 2 years and 2 months...
Posted by: Petey | Nov 21, 2006 11:18:01 AM
What's the compelling national interest in occupying a country that deplores our presence? That murders our soldiers? That depletes our treasury? That shows no sign, hint, or hope of molding itself to our desires?
There is none. Instead, we remain in Iraq because the current Administration is afraid to put a loss on the board. We remain in Iraq to avoid a blow to our national self-esteem.
I can see people concluding we should leave, but refusing to even recognize the most obvious legitimate reason we don't shows that the war's supporters aren't the only ones refusing to deal in reality. There is a legitimate, very reasonable fear that if we leave, Iraq will descend far further into hell than they if we stay and help provide security, and that this won't only be bad for them but for the entire region. You may think that's bad analysis, but we should at least face up to it as a reason.
Whats clear to me is that there is no way to change the situation on the ground. Thats good enough reason to leave.
This doesn't follow, even if the questionable premise is true.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 21, 2006 11:25:07 AM
"we're asking them to perish to protect our ego."
Our ego. Such a small thing, huh
I have encountered or heard of very few people who renounced self-respect and did not need some minimal justification of their acts, their decency. Even Hitler and Stalin did believe they were evil, or so malignantly incompetent as to kill millions in waste.
I really doubt that Ezra is completely abandoning his self-esteem. It is Bush's fault, Republican's fault, the other guy's fault, that death and destruction and the catastrophe to come. Couldn't be helped. Shit.
Say it with me, Ezra and all, as we back out the door:
"I am evil, and my country is evil."
Say it loud and honestly. Then talk to me of frigging ego.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Nov 21, 2006 11:36:38 AM
We have lost almost 3k in Iraq. Iraq has lost at least 100k civilians (and god knows how many "non-civilians"). Beginning with the premise that their lives are as important as those of our troops, it seems to me then that the legitimacy of the continued occupation turns on the likelihood that our troops reduce the volume of Iraqi casualties.
I dont know. Can anyone think of a way to investigate these two questions:
1. Whether the bulk of Iraqi casualties currently arise from attacks by Shi'ite militias on young Sunni males?
2. Whether American troop presence tends to reduce such attacks?
Gut impression is that the answer to the first question is yes. I dont know about the answer to the second, but it strikes me that a lot more people would die if we guessed "no" and were wrong than would be spared if we guessed "yes" and were right. It seems to me that the best counter-argument, knowing far too little about the issue, centers around the capacity of a vigorous Iranian influence in the country to moderate Shi'ite militias. I don't think we can expect Iran to cooperate in this fashion until we draw down.
Thoughts?
Posted by: RW | Nov 21, 2006 12:10:45 PM
RW, I think there are plenty of Shiites being killed by Sunnis too. I doubt Iran could settle things in Iraq, but they could be helpful.
I dont know about the answer to the second [whether the US troops tend to reduce the killings], but it strikes me that a lot more people would die if we guessed "no" and were wrong than would be spared if we guessed "yes" and were right.
It seems very likely that the troops are keeping things from being far worse, but if one isn't sure, your point is a good one. I think the main counter has been that the American presence actually incites the violence and keeps the Iraqis from being forced to reach necessary compromises. There is something to each of those, but I don't think they overcome what appears to be the basic fact that things could and probably would be far worse without American forces.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 21, 2006 3:52:54 PM
There is another reason to stay, even if we don't think that we can do any good. We have obligations to try.
The question that was asked, was what should the Iraqi government do, as far as asking us to stay or not. I would certainly support us leaving if the Iraqi government asked us to, but so far they haven't, indeed the opposite.
In addition, we have a responsobility under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511 and reafirmed under resolution 1546 to assist in the transition to a stable Iraq.
I suppose that their could be some dispute over how valuable it is for us to keep our word, even in the face of great difficulty, but it seems to me to completely write off this as a reason to stay is pretty feckless.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Nov 21, 2006 5:46:07 PM
Dave
There is no moral obligation to a country, at least none that overrides a moral obligation to a human being. Supposing my gut is wrong and leaving results in fewer deaths than staying. What of the policy-maker's moral responsibility to the number of people who died unnecessarily to "keep our word", whoever "we" is? How many such people is your visiion of the honesty of the nation worth?
I suspect Sanpete is right, but am not really sure how to investigate the claim. Here are some possible reasons he might be wrong:
1. The compromise argument. Both sides of the civil war are motivated by a desire to capture the Iraqi state -- US forces prevent power sharing that would end the violence because ... (Shi'ites believe they will control the government as long as the US stays, irrespective of Sunni participation? Both sides know that the government cannot collapse even if the other side withdraws?)
2. The Iran argument. Iran is capable of moderating Shi'ite militias, but will not agree to do so without US concessions, chief among them troop reductions.
3. The moderation bad argument. A US withdrawal would cause Shi'ite militias to crush Sunni opposition more quickly, whereas the occupation provides Sunnis some hope of participation and something to fight for, prolonging and deepening the violence.
4. The kiss of death argument. A Shi'ite led government would have more capacity to moderate Shi'ite militias if it were not tainted by its association with the US.
5. The kiss of death argument II. The US is hated by Sunni militants, and its support for a Shi'ite led government provokes Sunni attacks.
All very interesting, but is there any reason to believe that they are true?
Posted by: RW | Nov 21, 2006 6:24:51 PM
Dave Justus: "In addition, we have a responsobility under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1511 and reafirmed under resolution 1546 to assist in the transition to a stable Iraq."
If I were a teacher, and had some students in my 'responsibility', and had done as well as Bush has done, I'd be f*cking high-tailing it to the Mexican border. Becaue when the police and parents found the dead students, and the raped students, and the 'merely' tortured students, my life wouldn't be worth squat in the USA.
Dave, have you even noticed how this administration has fulfilled its 'responsibility' in Iraq?
Posted by: Barry | Nov 21, 2006 7:04:03 PM
"We" stay in Iraq because government contractors make big no-bid contract money and big oil supresses the flow of oil from Iraqi oil fields drivi ng up the price of the remaining market prices. Evidence? BIGGEST profits in history for every oil company, Halliburton, Bectel, Caci, etc. When we pass a "no war profittering" law and recoup every penny from those companies, then we'll be out of Iraq in 15 minutes.
Posted by: bones | Nov 21, 2006 7:09:22 PM
There is a legitimate, very reasonable fear that if we leave, Iraq will descend far further into hell than they if we stay and help provide security, and that this won't only be bad for them but for the entire region.
Let us take that as correct - that US forces are suppressing a meltdown of Iraq. Treating the symptoms, if you will.
We therefore must ask "Is the underlying condition getting better or worse while suppressed?"
The answer seems to be that it is getting worse.
This leaves three options:
i, Get out now, and watch a meltdown.
ii, Get out later and watch a worse meltdown.
iii, Stay in, potentially forever, in the hopes a miracle happens.
Which do you recommend?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Nov 21, 2006 7:11:40 PM
It's a fair question, Phoenecian, to which I don't have as solid an answer as I'd like. According to current reports, the Iraqi army and police forces are improving but still require a great deal more training and experience, as well as pruning of bad members. That is an area in which there can continue to be improvement, which might affect the long term outcome. Unlike some, whose views make sense to me but just seem less likely, I also think there is a better chance of the main political factions reaching agreement while we're there keeping things from complete collapse. So more time for that might also help. These are things that, if they can happen, would happen in a matter of months or a few years.
Forever is obviously too long to face, but (and no politician could ever say this) even a long stay would probably be better than total collapse.
RW, treaties and other obligations between countries can be understood as obligations to the people of the countries involved, of you prefer to see it that way. The possibilities you raise show some of the complexities of the situation, but I return to your point about which course carries the greater risk if we're wrong about it.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 21, 2006 7:34:30 PM
Phoenician
Worse, but how much worse, and is there a limit to how bad the situation can get in the absence of withdrawal? Its not at all clear to me that delaying or slowing down the "melt-down" necessarily makes it worse. Is there reason to believe that there is something -- like, I dont know (really, I dont), nationwide military recruitment by paramilitary non-state actors -- that will never happen while the US is present, but that might happen if its not? If Rwanda had happended more slowly, isnt it arguable that it would have occurred on a more limited scale? Is anybody in Iraq being restrained by US presence?
Posted by: RW | Nov 21, 2006 7:45:58 PM
Almost forgot what might be the best argument that US presence increases Iraqi casualties:
6. Suharto Redux -- Our weapons (and organizational assistance) are being diverted (or possibly not so much "diverted" as "given") to persons aligned with Shi'ite militias who are using them to perform massacres.
Clearly, some of the "police" we have armed and organized are engaged in (attempted) genocide. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001323_pf.html ("Seventy percent of the Iraqi police force has been infiltrated by militias, primarily the Mahdi Army, according to Shaw and other military police trainers.") I still question what the marginal increase is as a consequence of US assistance.
Just dont know
Posted by: RW | Nov 21, 2006 7:59:20 PM
RW, there is no lack of weapons in Iraq. Everyone who wants them has them already. The point about infiltration of the police by militias is one that surely won't be improved by our leaving, of course. There is a legitimate question whether it can be improved by our staying. That will depend in large part on whether a political compromise can be reached.
Posted by: Sanpete | Nov 21, 2006 8:31:44 PM
Because to have this massive failure on his head is not the way he wanted to cap off his fabulous career. Afterall, he's had such a glorious career and magnificant success at everything he did in life...
Actually, he has spent his life not finding and doing his own thing but, to follow his dad's and then try to do it better. But, everything he touched was a failure and his dad had to rescue him time and again.
But, this time he really outdid himself and left daddy a doozie to try to clean up.
Posted by: vwcat | Nov 21, 2006 10:30:32 PM
'There is none. Instead, we remain in Iraq because the current Administration is afraid to put a loss on the board.'
This cant be ALL of it. If it were the logical thing to do from a p.r. standpoint would be do limit casualties. You would limit casualties, then leave at the point it appears that 'calm' had been achieved as evidenced by no new casualties.
To do this we would bunker down. We would fall back to the green zone in Baghdad, and pull forces back to the other bases we've fortified throughout the country. Sitting there, only large groups could hope to threaten us, which are the ones that we can defeat the easiest.
Instead we continue to have a policy of being active over there. Ineffective but active. We continue to fund contractors and building projects.
At the same time our soldiers continue to 'patrol' to give the appearance of security. Although the only real consequence is having a bunch of armored targets rolling around waiting to be hit by a mine.
Very little is being built to completion, but unbid contracts continue to go out. Look at the pipelines, and electrical grid. Billions have been pored in, but little improvement has been made.
It seems to me from the evidence that a different conclusion has to be reached.
Bush as commmander in chief, is an idiot. The military goal has long since passed, yet the military presence continues. He continues to believe that an Iraqi nirvana is only 1 insurgant arrest away.
Without someone in the WH that is honest with the people and has an educated view of foreign policy we cant find our way out successfully.
Posted by: david b | Nov 22, 2006 7:39:57 AM
Phoenician - Worse, but how much worse, and is there a limit to how bad the situation can get in the absence of withdrawal? Its not at all clear to me that delaying or slowing down the "melt-down" necessarily makes it worse.
Alas, the people actually suffering disagree.
"By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they’re preventing — and that day-to-day security would improve if we left."
Nut, of course, what would they know?
Posted by: Phoenician in a time of Romans | Nov 22, 2006 1:22:01 PM
