Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

This week's Sunday New York Times Magazine contains an excellent essay on Iraq: War-Mood Metrics captures the precarious nature of the situation there but points out some positive developments. In the essay, author Noah Feldman says:

A little less than a year ago, in the aftermath of the first Iraqi elections, the most irresponsible thing being said in Washington was that everything was going to be fine. Now, with the next set of elections scheduled for Dec. 15, the new irresponsibility is the increasingly respectable assertion that the war has already been lost. Irrational optimism has been replaced by unjustified pessimism. This is not some triumph of experience over idealism. One a priori ideological standpoint is simply giving way to another.

Feldman also notes that:

....if the Iraqis are to reach a political agreement that holds, they cannot do it without U.S. troops as guarantors of any pact. For all their complaints about occupation, the new Sunni politicians understand this. Instead of calling for immediate withdrawal, they are urging a timetable for a phased pullout - a request to which Shiite and Kurdish leaders are ready to acquiesce. The willingness of Iraqi leaders to reach such a consensus suggests that, for them at least, the construction of a functioning postwar Iraqi state is not yet out of the question.

Feldman ends with "But it is indefensible to claim that [a] disastrous outcome is inevitable and ethically obtuse to use such a prediction to justify doing nothing to prevent it. All is not well in Iraq. But all is not lost, either."

In the same issue Kanan Makiya, a Brandeis University professor, in Present at the Disintegration, points out the dangers of the government structure being written into the new Iraqi constitution. The fact of Thursday's election, in one sense a victory in itself, does not solve the problems of long-term stability for Iraq, in Makiya's view. He notes in particular:

Without the return of real power to the center, the ascent of sectarian and ethnic politics in Iraq to the point of complete societal breakdown cannot be checked. We cannot fight the insurgency, rebuild Iraq and live in any meaningful sense as part of the modern world without a state. There are no human rights, no law, and no democracy without the state; there is only anarchy and a state of insecurity potentially much worse than what Iraqis are experiencing today.

I think there's cause for (some) cautious optimism on Iraq. What do other Webdiarists think?

I followed the link in Ian MacDougall's post of 09/12/2005, only to find my own name quoted on Damian Lataan's web-blog.

Damian Lataan, keep any debate have with me here on Webdiary. I do not want my name to even appear on your blog, lest anyone think I have anything to do with it. I have absolutely no involvement with your blog, and I do not intend to do so. The only venue in which I have agreed to engage with you or any other Webdiarist is Webdiary itself (though I'm now wondering about the wisdom of doing even that).

Dragging my name onto your blog is unacceptable to me. I would not have even looked at it if I hadn't clicked on the link in Ian's post.

(Eds. - surely there must be some ethical guideline about this? It endangers Webdiary as it will tend to drive people like me away).

Craig R: Will, I have empathy with your view as I've also had my name appear on a range of blogs in attempts by authors who disagree with my views or even my involvement with Webdiary to insult me, or worse, to spread falsehoods. Many others have experienced that kind of thing as well. However, the Webdiary management team can't control what people publish elsewhere, nor would we seek to do so. Individuals are guided by their own ethics in publishing to their own or other blogs and media outlets.

C Parsons notes "The hope of those who want the Coalition to immediately withdraw from Iraq is an easy victory for the "resistance" over the elected government of Iraq, and the imposition of an alternative.

That alternative, of course, is presently in the dock berating an Iraqi judge, along with six of his former cohorts, and fighting to avoid the noose."

Ian MacDougall says " I have never once encountered an opponent of the war who did not concede that the fall of Saddam was a good thing. (Usually, it was said in passing from one bucketing of Bush to the next.) Such people praise the fall, while at the same time condemning the only conceivable means whereby it could have been brought about."

CP and Ian: importantly, I have heard no critics of the invasion of Iraq say they are prepared to take responsibility for the alternative. The COTW is often challenged to account for and take responsibility for the casualties of the March 2003 invasion. Fair enough. But what of the casualties that would have occurred under the continued rule of Saddam Hussein? We can never know what that number would have been, but Saddam's history up to that point suggests it would have been a large number.

Of course it is possible that on 21 March 2003, Saddam Hussein would have announced he was going to end his genocidal despotism, step down, and call elections. In fact, we'll never truly know, but all signs indicate he would have continued his decades-long killing spree, and indeed he appears unrepentant in his trial appearances so far.

This is the conundrum of having taken action to remove Saddam. We must deal with the dilemma of "lesser evils" as Michael Ignatieff has put it so eloquently in his book and essays of the same title. Whether you supported or opposed the 2003 invasion, it's important to be clear about the consequences of either deposing Saddam or leaving him in power.

Similarly, supporting elections now, does not equate to having supported Bush, or Blair, or Howard. Millions of Iraqis have now spoken repeatedly, with their vote, of their desire for democracy, however imperfect, and even if the means by which they got to this point was flawed. As you pointed out Ian, the only risk of reprisal for Iraqis was from the insurgents. It's not as if COTW troops were marching people to the polls and forcing them cast their ballots at gunpoint.

Many of the "activists" who oppose the current transition of Iraq to a democratic state have come to hate Bush and the US so much they are prepared to keep fighting them - right down to the last Iraqi.

Ian MacDougall asks: "Damian Lataan, Was the fall of Saddam a good thing?"

I'll speak for myself, no one else, Ian.

IMO, it was NOT a good thing, given what came afterwards. Indeed, in the light of three years actual experience of post-Saddam Iraq, it was a very BAD thing.

I trust that's a sufficiently succinct response.

Actually, it amazes me that pro-war fanatics are still playing this faded old card (was Saddam the Ace of Spades? I can’t recall).

You may be obsessed with the independently minded strongman who was first courted, then used and finally dumped by the western plutocracy. (He's currently the focus of a show trial, under the auspices of an installed regime of dubious legitimacy.)

I care about actual outcomes for people and the environment.

Outcome of the armed invasion of Iraq and the smashing of its previous Government have been appalling for very large numbers of people, especially, but not only, in Iraq.

I wonder whether cheerleaders for war are paid for war mongering postings. If not, you guys are underpaid. There must be a consultant who could pick up your case under Howard’s new IR laws.

There's always cause for optimism, Will Howard, but I don't see much in Iraq at the moment.

I don't think things will improve while the US (and us) remain there. I don't think the US will leave in sufficient numbers or in a manner that will make a significant difference. If the US does withdraw then there is a chance for improvement, but not much of one.

My reasons?

The American presence in Iraq is widely perceived by Iraqis (not just Sunnis) as an illegal occupation. It is also seen as illegal by most of the Middle East, most muslims globally and by a large percentage of the world's people. In fact, the occupation has probably been technically legal since the UN Security Council (reluctantly) gave it the OK. That doesn't change the perception, or its basis in an illegal invasion.

The American military is creating more insurgents than it kills or captures. It appears incapable of finding a successful way of fighting insurgency. Just like Vietnam or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Have a look at Wiliam S Lind's analysis of Bush's National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.

The Occupation and Insurgency are fuelling a range of conflicts from local and tribal up to regional and international. The longer it goes on, the harder the reconciliation.

Infrastructure is abysmal. I haven't found anything recent, but my guess is that for many Iraqis conditions are still worse than before the war.

Oil! There was a discussion on Bush rewrites history of the disposal of Iraq's oil that is going on. About the only thing certain is that ordinary Iraqis aren't going to benefit. Because of the oil, the US has to stay, and to ensure a compliant government. The government should be democratic if possible. If that's not possible, then an appearance of democracy is just about as good. In any case, it must be compliant.