Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Mark's avatar

    I’d like to pose a question. Let’s be pessimistic for the moment, and assume AI *does* destroy the university, at…

  2. A in the UK's avatar
  3. Jonathan Turner's avatar

    I agree with all of this. The threat is really that stark. The only solution is indeed in-class essay exams,…

  4. Craig Duncan's avatar
  5. Ludovic's avatar

    My big problem with LLMs at the present time, apart from being potentially the epitome of Foucault’s panopticon & Big…

  6. A in the UK's avatar

    I’m also at a British university (in a law school) and my sentiments largely align with the author’s. I see…

  7. André Hampshire's avatar

    If one is genuinely uninterested in engaging with non-human interlocutors, it is unclear why one continues to do so—especially while…

Victory in Iraq

Marcus Stanley

I’m waiting with interest to see if the Bush administration can successfully head off public debate over whether we should withdraw from Iraq without ever defining why we’re there in the first place.  The White House "strategy for victory" defines victory as the following state:

"Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism."

I wish all that would happen too.  It was very generous of us to invade in order to help Iraq become peaceful, stable, and secure, although it seems to have been a bit counterproductive.  I think the "full partner" thing may be a little outbreak of honesty…is it shorthand for having a puppet government in the heart of the Persian Gulf?  I’m can’t see how that would actually help America, but from the Cold War we know U.S. policy elites are fond of such constructs.

The whole thing is more than a little surreal.  Especially the stuff about staying until the Iraqis learn how to fight.  The Iraqis definitely already know how to fight, they seem to do a fine job so long as they’re fighting against our troops and not for them. 

Our current situation there is so 20th century…straight out of the post WWII guerilla war playbook for a poor country against a rich one.  France in Algeria and Vietnam, the U.S. in Vietnam, Israel in Lebanon, Russia in Afghanistan, there are essentially no cases of a major power subduing a determined guerilla resistance in a foreign country by force of arms.  In every case the foreign power has tried to arm and prop up a puppet government, and in every case that government has been weak and corrupt despite the obvious military ability of the population.  It tends to be the most corrupt elements who cooperate with the invader.

The X factor in Iraq is the possibility of a closer alliance with the Shi’ite majority.  In Vietnam we were allied with a Catholic ruling group that would never be anything but a disliked minority.  But if we become the de facto allies of the Shi’ites in consolidating their power over the Sunnis, then we may eventually get a determined and motivated army on "our side", at least nominally.  Of course we’ll then be participating in a civil war and probably helping the Iranians too, but never mind.

What a mess.  The Syrians and/or the Iranians could probably help if we were willing to offer them a genuine say, they know the culture and territory.  I’m sure they don’t want their neighborhood trashed any more than it already has been.  But we don’t seem disposed to look in that direction.  Our consistent hostility to Iraq’s neighbors is a telling indicator that we are still less interested in seeing a peaceful, stable Iraq than an Iraq that furthers some mysterious geopolitical scheme.  After all this, do we really know what that scheme might be?

Marcus

Leave a Reply to Tim O'Keefe Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 responses to “Victory in Iraq”

  1. Tim O'Keefe

    You write: "Our consistent hostility to Iraq's neighbors is a telling indicator that we are still less interested in seeing a peaceful, stable Iraq than an Iraq that furthers some mysterious geopolitical scheme. One of the things that makes the Bush administration so untrustworthy as an occupier is that we still don't know what that scheme might be."

    You're assuming that there is some scheme that explains the administration's actions. I think that simple incompetence better explains the decisions of this administration rather than some devious, hidden master plan. They might have had some devious motivations going into this mess, but at this point they're just making things up and wondering what the hell to do until the next election.

    Reply
  2. Tim O'Keefe

    You write: "Our consistent hostility to Iraq's neighbors is a telling indicator that we are still less interested in seeing a peaceful, stable Iraq than an Iraq that furthers some mysterious geopolitical scheme. One of the things that makes the Bush administration so untrustworthy as an occupier is that we still don't know what that scheme might be."

    You're assuming that there is some scheme that explains the administration's actions. I think that simple incompetence better explains the decisions of this administration rather than some devious, hidden master plan. They might have had some devious motivations going into this mess, but at this point they're just making things up and wondering what the hell to do until the next election.

    Reply
  3. Ruchira Paul

    You are right to be skeptical. If history of the region and the west's role in that history are any indicators, things are likely to go awry. It is very difficult to assume the role of occupier and benefactor simultaneously. Without the co-operation of neighboring Arab nations and Iran, stability in Iraq may be a long time away. And let us not forget Afghanistan, where our half hearted and half baked efforts have left it to lurch towards "undemocracy" once more.

    I wrote the following commentary on my own blog a few days ago, exactly on this topic.

    "We are currently engaged in the business of imposing democracy in two faraway lands whose history and culture we do not understand very well or don't care to. The ancient society of Iraq, consisting of Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, Jews and Christians, was transformed into its modern incarnation by Britain during World War I (when Britain was butting heads with the Ottoman empire for the control of middle east). The British plan was almost identical to our own government's in 2003 – regime change and territorial reorganization of the middle east. What began in 1914 as a strategic and political calculation, became the petro-politics of later years. The west's need and greed for cheap oil has necessitated a succession of "friendly", corrupt and oppressive rulers to govern the middle east. That in turn, has made the region hostile to democratic changes and created a breeding ground of Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, until the Iranian Ayatollas and Arab Islamic terrorists reared their ugly heads, it was not in the "interest" of the west to have a democratic middle east! The US is in Iraq now for the same reason as Britain was – hoping to control the region by installing a supplicant (??) government and ensuring the free flow of oil. The establishment of a free and fair democratic system, if it happens in the foreseeable future, will be a very fortunate accident. If only an exuberant show of purple fingers and a hastily cobbled constitution were guarantees of an easy and peaceful transition to democracy in an area that has for years been manipulated and exploited by its own leaders as well as foreigners.

    Afghanistan, which through the centuries, has been a poor, battle hardy land of proud people, is our other experiment in democracy. In the best of times, Afghanistan has been a loose confederation of tribal strongholds, run by fiercely independent warlords who paid taxes but not homage to the ruling powers. During the British colonial rule in India, Afghanistan was coveted by both Russia and Britain. Neither succeeded in colonizing or conquering it. (See my book review The Man Who Would Be King ) In 1979 the USSR invaded Afghanistan and managed for the first time, to install its puppet government there. We armed the "democratic" anti-communist insurgents to their teeth, fanned their religious and nationalistic fervor, only to see them later transmogrify into the dreaded Taliban and Al Qaida after the Soviets were forced out. We are there now to try and "civilize" the country, run free and fair elections and put another "friendly" regime in place. But we did not do a thorough and serious job of ridding Afghanistan (and Pakistan) of Islamic fundamentalists – the perpetrators of 9/11 and the real obstacles to democracy. Now the Talibs are training in Iraq and streaming back into Afghanistan, Osama is hiding in a nearby city or cave and the warlords with their American armed militia, are doing a booming business of growing poppy in the countryside.

    If the US does indeed successfully unload the modern day "white man's burden" in the middle and near east and democratizes the region, it will be a miracle. We can then boast of a new and successful formula for creating democracies in the world – by foreign fiat and military force. But I am not so optimistic. After all, one definition of insanity is "repeatedly performing the same action and expecting a different outcome."

    Reply
  4. Daryl Sawyer

    I agree that it is not likely that we will accomplish what Bush and the Neocons claim can be accomplished in Iraq. However, I happen to think that the liberal community in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, ought to back off on the calls for a pullout. It's not a terribly politically saavy move. What ought to be done is some grousing from the sidelines, something along the lines of, "We disagree that we ought to be there. However, now that we are, we're not going to interfere with the war effort. Our soldiers deserve more than that, even if their leaders do not. And given the damage we have caused in Iraq, we owe it to them to at least try to accomplish the stated goals."

    Then, with everybody participating in the president's goals, when they fail (and they definately will), we can definately say, "I told you so," without them being able to point the finger right back, saying, "We would've succeeded, if not for your interference." At the same time, we can ensure that this isn't just a stealth attempt to expand our worldwide empire of military bases.

    Finally, with greater credibility, we can oppose future wars of this nature. I would like it if peace-loving people were also vigilant against the lesser wars–the kind of operations that the Marines engage in in Latin America, or the CIA in Central Asia.

    Disclosure: I am not a Democrat, but I have been described as a liberal. I am a Libertarian.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress