« Yes, I Can | Main | Don't Fear the Blogs »
September 14, 2005
No Good Options
A suicide bomber detonated himself in a crowd of Shiites today, shredding more 80 people and wounding 150 others. Elsewhere, gunmen dragged 17 people out of their homes in Taji, killing them on their stoops. All this on top a few mortar blasts, some shootings, carjackings ending in gunshot deaths, and all the rest of the Hobbesian chaos "freedom" has brought.
We can't win if we can't stop this. And we can't, it seems, stop this. So long as our forces fail to secure the country, we will be failed occupiers, not heralds of civic utopia. And so long as we can't secure this country, the men and woman within it will want us out, if for no other reason than because a change might, might calm the random killings. And even if our absence didn't bring peace in its vacuum, the shiites, freed from our direction, could launch war against the Sunnis, a response that'd at least erase the feeling of powerlessness in the face of constant assaults. And so President Talabani, while grinning and promising he'd never accept a timetable, widens his grin and happily says the US can withdraw 40,000 or 50,000 troops by the end of the year. It's time for you to go. We have to deal with this.
Iraq's in a bad way now. And I don't know what to do about it. I don't believe our presence there is making anything better. Indeed, I think we're making it worse. But I don't believe withdrawal will sprinkle fairy dust on Baghdad and turn the place into an Arab "It's a Small World" either. We've fucked up, we've fucked this country up, and while we can slowly tiptoe away, they can't.
September 14, 2005 in Iraq | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8348c66c569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Good Options:
Comments
"We've fucked up, we've fucked this country up, and while we can slowly tiptoe away, they can't."
Fucked up implies making something worse. Regardless of whether we have done everything we should, or if we could have done better, do you think that Iraq is a worse place now, and with less prosects in the future than it was before 2003?
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 14, 2005 3:05:56 PM
Insofar as security for its inhabitants goes? Absolutely. Saddam was a horrid monster, but, in true Hobbesian manner, he kept things stable.
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 14, 2005 3:19:06 PM
Dave Justus,
I don't think that's the implicit comparison that's being made.
I think the comparison is: how it is vs. how it could have been, and not:how it is vs. how it was.
Posted by: TJ | Sep 14, 2005 3:19:40 PM
Okay, maybe it was the former!
Posted by: TJ | Sep 14, 2005 3:28:14 PM
We *could* secure this country. We *can* stop the violence, make no mistake. The means and the methods are out there. The enemy is not constrained by a liberal faction nor do they have any moral problems with utilizing all available techniques.
I am not saying that it is what we should do. What I would like to point out is that the ones who would object to these methods are the same people that see no problem with the insurgents' use of them. They never mention how terrible and amoral the insurgents are for using these while claiming religious motivation. They present it as 'business as usual' for the terrorists. However, if *WE* tried every method at our disposal to win.....
I wonder if we could have won WW II with these same constraints coming from the liberal left.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 14, 2005 3:50:08 PM
How important is stability? Is a long term lack of freedom better or worse than instability?
For an even more extreme case, North Korea is 'stable' but absolutely monsterous. I don't advocate invasion there, on the grounds of the damage that would be done to South Korea in particular, but I would veiw pretty much any ammount of chaos and instability in North Korea as better than what currently exists.
I am not asking these questions to 'trap' anyone. I think it an important concept of just war that there be at least a reasonable expectation that any war that humanitarian reasoning is a part of that the situation will be better after the war than before. Evalating the merits of liberty vs. stability would be a part of this equation.
I think in pretty obvious that in parts of Iraq at least, not only is it more free, but more 'safe' as well. Basra and it's immediate region seem a pretty good canidate for that. The Kurdish areas are perhaps equally free, but have better guarantees of long term security.
The situation in places like Baghdad and Mosul is much more ambiguos. Obviously the security situation there is not good. I am confident that our analysis of the eventual outcome of these places differs, but I also have to wonder, even if your more pessimistic outlook is correct, is there value, and what degree we should assign to that value in giving Iraqi society as a whole a chance to choose?
I think everyone agrees, most of us pro-war folks from the beginning, that a democratic Iraq ultimately depends on the choices of Iraqis. Is there any moral value in giving them that choice, even if they ultimately choose a path we don't like at all (a new totalitarian government, Islamic Fundamentalist state, or widespread sectarian civil are)?
Obviously this would greatly effect the utilitarian judgement of if such a war is in our interests, but what effect it should have on the moral appropriatness of a war is, I think, a very interesting question.
I hold that a war must be both moral and in our national interest in order to justify us going to war, with the moral being the first question that must be answered (unfortunately I think it is often the interest question that is first asked, which can be distorting to the overall debate.)
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 14, 2005 3:54:12 PM
The Boston Globe today has an article by some Harvard prof. aruging that the US can't defeat al Qaeda and so ought to accomodate it, I suppose, by pulling all US troops out of the mid-east, pulling all support from Israel, and generally by bending over and greasing up.
Posted by: DBL | Sep 14, 2005 3:55:08 PM
What I would like to point out is that the ones who would object to these methods are the same people that see no problem with the insurgents' use of them. They never mention how terrible and amoral the insurgents are for using these while claiming religious motivation.
Bullshit. However, I would not denounce terrorists whilst wrapping myself in the flag and typing frantic, one-handed messages of virility on FreeRepublic.
Posted by: TJ | Sep 14, 2005 4:01:05 PM
Bullshit.
I call bullshit on your 'bullshit.' Please show us one instance where you or anyone here has railed against the insurgents' use of suicide bombgings and other terrorist tactics. Now if you could only muster up the same anger for that you demonstrate daily for the duly elected leader of your own country.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 14, 2005 4:19:56 PM
Guys, don't be baited by Fred, he's as well aware his question is idiotic as we are. In any case, I've never heard him denounce Hitler, so he's clearly a nazi, and who wants to argue with a nazi?
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 14, 2005 4:30:54 PM
Ezra, good point.
Fred, come on. It really should go without saying that I detest kidnappings and the murder of innocents. Fuck you for saying otherwise.
Posted by: TJ | Sep 14, 2005 4:37:27 PM
I think that speculating on motives of other commenters is usually a sign of bad manners and poor ability to actually debate the issues.
I assume that those who disagree with me notheless have the good of America and mankind in general at heart. We may assign different values to different aspects of that, disagree on probabilities and likely outcomes and have different methods of evaluating what solutions will be most promising but it is rare that anyone is actually acting from evil motives.
Since I naturally believe I am right, and I would therefore like to convince others that I am right, resorting to arguements based on motives would be counter-productive, as it would immediately end my ability to convince anyone, to even a small degree.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Sep 14, 2005 4:46:38 PM
I'm still ambvivolant about withdrawal but the 160 deaths (according to the Globe and Mail) were obviously a response to the US taking out those 200 or so insurgents around Haditha that all the right wing blogs were crowing about earlier this week. It's almost a tit for tat.
It's so hard to know whether there's a finite number of people who will blow them and their fellow citizens up. I think the Sunnis are in for a hard ride over the next few years as they lose political power and guys like Chalabi gin up thoughts of revenge on the Baathists among the Shiites. But it could be that the US forces think they can eliminate enough of the hardcore edge that are desperate enough to actually kill themselves out of anger over losing power. That's clearly what they're hoping for.
I never supported the war. I marched against it. And I'm not optimistic. But to be fair, the clash between the Sunnis and the Shiites would have taken place once Saddam was deposed, even if it was an internal Iraqi matter (or at least one without a direct US intervention) or once the Baathist rule came to and end. On the question of whether the clash is better with an international presence and a government that supports it in the region like now or without is an open question I'd say.
Posted by: tlaura | Sep 14, 2005 5:28:01 PM
The premise that this war was intended to bring "democracy" to the people of Iraq is false, and you can't base an argument in support of the war on this false premise. Sure, the Cheney administration started to pitch this idea after the other sales pitches didn't stick, but a great many of us in America and the rest of the world never bought into it. The actual reasons for willfully invading Iraq were - to establish a permanent military presence in a region where the world's most important natural resource lies, to set up an unregulated market there for favored investors, and to shore up some badly needed support in the US electorate for a bad administration. The urgent warnings and rationalizations for war put forward to the American people by the administration and the pro-war media have all since been exposed as, at best, extremely poor judgement or at worst, outright lies.
So why is it any wonder that the whole thing has turned into an awful mess. I would love to see a solid convincing argument for staying the course or for immediate withdrawal, but I've seen neither.
Posted by: sprocket | Sep 14, 2005 5:35:21 PM
I should hesitate and think before I write on this again. It would be close to the sixth comment in 2-3 days. I am honestly looking for a solution that is not shameful. Or least shameful. I cannot handle a million dead after we leave. I can't.
I presume Fred above is thinking about carpet-bombing the Sunni triangle? Fallujah times ten?
You are not seeing these kinds of suicide bombings and attacks in the Sunni areas, planned and executed by Shia extremists. Why not? Is it because the Shia are just nicer people? Actually Sadr and others have been assassinating the Sunni elite:lawyers, professors, etc for a couple years. Is it because the Shia have American support, believe they have won, and don't want to lose it? Could be. Do the Iranians have a history of supporting this kind of urban terrorism? Not to my knowledge - Hezbollah was closer to a standard army grabbing territory in S Lebanon. Got to look it up.
Is it because the Sunni have a lot of outside support from the rest of the Arab world, or the radical portion of it is providing logistics for Zarqwahi? Again, I really think, short of total Sunni ethnic cleansing, American withdrawal results in another Sunni dictator, with horrible reprisals against Shia "collaborators".
Iran will give up long before Riyadh.
And we need the Kurds. Any stable Iraq requires some level of Arab Sunni/Kurd cooperation to balance off the Shia.
Too long; and I don't know what new value I am adding. Just thinking out loud.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 14, 2005 5:51:21 PM
"Meanwhile, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani retracted his earlier statement that the US could withdraw a third of its ground forces this fall. He said he refused tos et deadlines." ...Juan Cole
Separate post
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 14, 2005 6:02:30 PM
Guys, don't be baited by Fred, he's as well aware his question is idiotic as we are.
?? So, how idiotic *ARE* you?
In any case, I've never heard him denounce Hitler, so he's clearly a nazi, and who wants to argue with a nazi?
Not withstanding a clean vilolation of GODWIN'S LAW, here's Ezra's and TJ's opportunity to get angry about the use of these tactics. It's not enough to 'denounce' them. Everyone will do that for political cover including most of the Arab leaders.
You should be PISSED about it..........but you're not. You're only pissed when America does something bad. Remember Abu Grahib? How about GITMO? Oh, yes, you were certainly pissed about that, but when bombers deliberately target civilians including women and children, no one gets angry. It seems to only work one way.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 14, 2005 6:31:30 PM
Bad terrorists. Bad.
Fred, I want them all dead now. The bombers, their leaders, their financiers, many of their conscious and willing supporters...nah I won't go that far.
Hmmm...does Fred have this point? Do we get angrier at the Republican leadership or base for supporting Bush/Rumsfeld than at the "Arab Street" or that relevant portion of it that encourages or tolerates terrorism?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Sep 14, 2005 9:40:25 PM
You're right. I expect barbarism from barbarians, not from Americans. What's interesting isn't my decision to not waste breath condemning murderers who don't listen to me, but the low opinion you have of America that makes you accept our bad behavior as fair retribution. I believe we're great, you believe we're -- ugh -- like them.
Posted by: Ezra | Sep 14, 2005 11:09:21 PM
I expect barbarism from barbarians, not from Americans.
War is, by definition, barbaric. What moron would expect anything less? *AND* now that we are at war, I wish for victory above all. The "Ezra Faction" does not wish for victory. They do not cheer when foreign fighters are rounded up or killed. They do not cheer when caches of weapons are found and destroyed. They only cheer when there is a misstep that they can use in political war for power. By backing people like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan who advocate "quitting", they have demonstrated to the world that they desire an American loss.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 15, 2005 9:48:16 AM
I think in pretty obvious that in parts of Iraq at least, not only is it more free, but more 'safe' as well. Basra and it's immediate region seem a pretty good canidate for that.
Well, if you count 'free' and 'safe' for those willing to go along with Sharia, then yeah, you're right.
I think everyone agrees, most of us pro-war folks from the beginning, that a democratic Iraq ultimately depends on the choices of Iraqis. Is there any moral value in giving them that choice, even if they ultimately choose a path we don't like at all (a new totalitarian government, Islamic Fundamentalist state, or widespread sectarian civil are)?
The Locke and Jefferson in my mind say that if the Iraqis wanted to make that choice they would've thrown off Saddam themselves. Instead, they wound up with a surprise visit from Uncle Sam and, ta da, their very own unexpected revolution. I think its rather bad form to blame the Iraqis for not being able to choose wisely when they didn't have a choice to make the choice at all.
Posted by: Dustbin Of History | Sep 15, 2005 4:13:25 PM
I come bearing troll snacks:
Fred, dear,
Just because we don't wet ourselves denouncing obviously reprehensible activities does not mean we support them. Terrorism is bad. It's a given. A given is something you don't have to mention because it's rightly assumed.
Now, becoming like the terrorists, just so we can stand proudly atop the rubble that was once the cradle of civilization and say, "I told you so!" to the French is not a good enough reason to stay in Iraq. If becoming the thing we're fighting is the only way to achieve victory, than we've already lost.
The Civil War in Iraq already started. Our troops are just collateral dammage at this point so we can either pack up and go home or stay and be slowly blown to pieces. Those are the only two viable options.
If you want to play Rambo, Fred, get an XBox.
Posted by: Keith | Sep 15, 2005 4:26:21 PM
I wonder if we could have won WW II with these same constraints coming from the liberal left.
Not sure what you're saying here. Did/do you support this war because of its freedom-bringing quotient? If so, how can you advocate methods that assuredly will inflame public support against us and well, kill a whole bunch of innocent people at the same time?
The military holds back because an all out assault would drive us deeper into the problems we face. The only silver lining brought by these recent attacks is that its Iraqis killing Iraqis and not Americans killing Iraqis. I obviously don't know the sentiment Over There. But from media reports, it seems there has been a shift from Americans are bad because their collateral damage kills us to the Iraqi government is bad because it can't protect us. I would think that would be progress on the side of public relations. Of course, recent events show regress of the side of insurgent destroying.
Posted by: Adrock | Sep 15, 2005 6:01:49 PM
The British stood in the open fields while the French and Indians used trees as cover. They also used suprise attacks and ambush. A shameful practice at the time, but commonplace military strategy now.
General Robert E. Lee refused to utilize the same tactic that Sherman used in his march through Georgia destroying the civilian support of his enemy. I might point out that both of these armies that used constraint in the face of barbarism lost.
So now we face an enemy in Iraq that is using "uncivilized" techniques. Is this not war? They have set the standards by their actions. If we constrain ourselves, we are as stupid as the British that lined up in red coats out in the open.
If the suicide bombers do not care about themselves, do they care about their families? One technique that I have pondered would be to make disappear all known family members upon learning the identity of a suicide bomber, and quickly. Word would spread fast. It could also be done clandestinely, quietly. Would they continue knowing that their actions would cause the deaths of their entire families? What else do they care about?
Does this seem too barbaric? Are these relatives more innocent than those waiting in line for a day's work or those waiting at a bus stop? Would stopping the bombings in this way save lives in the long run?
I guess you have to want to win this war to care about this. Backing Michael Moore, moveon.org, and Cindy Sheehan shows that the left doesn't care about victory in the least. It doesn't seem important. By their actions, they would like to see an American defeat.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Sep 16, 2005 7:58:43 AM
One technique that I have pondered would be to make disappear all known family members upon learning the identity of a suicide bomber, and quickly.
You do realise, Fred, that this would require disapearing almost an entire region of people, right? Muslims have very large, very close knit families. You'd have to Disapear not just parents and siblings but aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents. Where the fuck are you going to put all those poeple? Let me guess, big camp-like compounds where we can keep them together, in concentrated locations.
Backing Michael Moore, moveon.org, and Cindy Sheehan shows that the left doesn't care about victory in the least. It doesn't seem important. By their actions, they would like to see an American defeat.
We're already defeated over there and Cindy Sheehan and MoveOn had nothing to do with it. It was poor planning on the part of the Neocons, who relied on fairy tales of Impirialism rather than the realities of history.
Those options we've been talkng about? Victory isn't one of them. We gave up that option the moment we opened the Green Zone in Bagdhad. No occupying force in the history of the world has ever won. Not one. The result has always been defeat through attrition at the hands of an insurgency, or the extermination of the occupied population. If you are advocating mass extermination, than Ezra was right the first time, you are a Nazi.
Posted by: Keith | Sep 16, 2005 9:09:40 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
