Dean,

You make a good point. However, your comments do not address the central problem to your argument. Who is organizing this peace movement? Are these the same people who staged the internationalism protests in Seattle and Italy? Are these different people? Nobody can assess the strength of this “peace” movement until we understand who is behind it. I am deeply suspect since I espied hammer and sickle flags at these marches as well as Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevara flags, too. In addition, did these “protests” appear in any liberated nations of central or Eastern Europe? Therefore, just how universal is this peace movement thing?

We know that ANSWER and a few others are Stalinist groups. On the other hand, there's a loose conflagration of related hard left groups that have been doing this stuff for years, and have just been waiting for a new cause.

The more shameful question, to me, is why there were so few Iraqis at any of these demonstrations--despite the fact that there are millions of Iraqi exiles in the West.

But I don't expect any of these people to have the human decency or the introspection required to ask themselves that question, let alone try to formulate a sane answer.

Hi Dean
You haven't commented on Kanan Makiya's stinging denunciation of US post-invasion plans in the observer. Makiya has actualy got to see the US plans, and he calls them "Ba'athism with an American Face". Makiya's no peacenik. He was a hawk's delight, a supporter of war, and resolutely anti-Saddam (see his book Republic of Fear).

If Makiya think the USA is about to betray Iraqi democracy, isn't it time to take the idea seriously? State and the CIA have never been pro-democracy, and they, not Defense, are in charge of reconstruction.

Also, Dean, you have not blogged on the statements my Dough Feith, Stephen Cambone, Grossman, Khalilzad, etc on post-invasion iraq. Havel is not relevant here -- he's not in charge of the reconstruction. The plans slowly being made public are validating Makiya's disillusionment. The US is going to keep the Ba'ath structure, with a few US military officers on top.

I've blogged a bit on the post-invasion plans, but I have seen no blog-member of the party-of-war do so. I would like to hear your views on the post-invasion plans as they have been revealed thus far. What do you think of the proposal to keep the Ba'ath structure intact?

One correction: You have blogged on Feith's statements to the Senate committee. Also, any views on Chalabi's discomfort with post-invasion plans?

The Observer piece was discredited the week it came out by the Administration's own statements. There is no "betrayal." There will be a necessary period of transition--we cannot hold elections five minutes after taking Bagdad, and only a fool would think otherwise.

Various people in and out of Iraq have opinions. What needs to happen is debate and discussion, not hysterical claims about mass-murder and plans to install a new dictatorship. Most dissidents are agreed that Saddam must be removed, and that the status quo is intolerable.

Keeping some Baathists in place is certainly worth debating, and countless people who support the war effort have already begun that debate. I personally have no strong opinions on it. Given that they have made it clear that anyone tainted with human rights violations will be removed anyway, it is no betrayal either way.

The notion that we must wait until every dissident is satisfied is silly. The notion that we are planning to work evil is just hateful.

The post-Saddam structure will evolve over time, and will involve much debate in and out of Iraq. Is it really necessary to prolong the Iraqi people's suffering, and the danger to the West, until you are satisfied that the Post-Saddam government will be structured exactly as you wish it to be? Have you so little faith in the West that you believe that no voices of dissent will be tolerated after Saddam is gone?

Well, I wouldn't call Chalabi or Makiya -- "just another dissident". They've been the pro-US, pro-invasion pillars for years. They're the darlings of the defence department. If they are dissatisfied, something's going wrong. (Sullivan thinks so too -- see his blog)

(Why do you say Makiya has been discredited?)

De-Ba'athification is probably essential if Iraq is really going to break from the past. If the Ba'ath regime is generaly going to stay in place, democracy in Iraq is, in my view, a pipe dream.

As for support or oppose war, there is no reason to link an invasion of Iraq to democracy for Iraq. A better rationale for war would be "the US needs to ensure to regional hegemon emerges in the middle-east. Invading Iraq will ensure US dominance in a key oil producing region. For those who care about the "national interest", that should be enough.

Drop the idealism. US history in the middle-east shows that it does not operate on an idealistic basis. It works on a realpolitik, Metternich basis. There are good realpolitik reasons to go to war. If you support war, do so on that basis.

(As for 'faith in the west" -- the west has nothing to do with this. This is an American war, as the protests and opinion polls from Europe show. And my faith in US support for Middle-east democracy is slim, for good historical reasons.)

The US did things in the larger context of the cold war that we are not and should not be proud of. On the other hand, a free Iraq is crucial to the larger war against terror that now drives US policy.

Besides, I suppose it is not the US that provides sufficient cover for the Kurds in northern Iraq to have developed their own democracy within the confines of a hostile nation?

I would not base support for a war on good treatment for Kurds. Kurds are not going to get the federal state they want, and Turkish troops will be permitted to enter the Kurdish free zone. I had hoped Kurds would get a fair deal, but it they are going to be sold out yet again. Stories in WaPo and the NYT make that clear (I'm lazy, the links are on my own blog. They were told to be "realistic" about federalism.)

I agree, Owen, that there are those who think a free Iraq is key to a broader anti-terror strategy. I would say that those people are not at the State department, and will not be designing the future Iraq. (look at current US policy in Jordan, where elections have been postponed and democratically elected leaders have no voice in the government).

And this might be OK. From a realist perspective, a free Iraq is dangerous to American interests. What if a Shia government makes nice with Iran? What is they are anti-Israel? Is a truly democratic Iraq in the interests of the USA?

I'll repeat, I think there are good reasons for Americans to want to make war on Iraq. Hegemony and stability. Support war on this basis and you will not be disappointed.

>>And this might be OK. From a realist perspective, a free Iraq is dangerous to American interests. What if a Shia government makes nice with Iran? What if they are anti-Israel? Is a truly democratic Iraq in the interests of the USA?
I'll repeat, I think there are good reasons for Americans to want to make war on Iraq. Hegemony and stability. Support war on this basis and you will not be disappointed.

Ikram,

What form of government do you support in Iraq if not a democratically elected one? Do you believe a “democracy” has no chance in Iraq at all? Hopefully, a democratically elected Iraq will have means to resolve conflicts both internally and externally that avoid violence. I see repeated Arabs governments blaming everybody Jews, Americans, Brits, French for all their present problems. I also see these same Arab governments not coming to terms with modernization. They treat their women as second-class citizens as well.

>>I would not base support for a war on good treatment for Kurds. Kurds are not going to get the federal state they want, and Turkish troops will be permitted to enter the Kurdish free zone. I had hoped Kurds would get a fair deal, but it they are going to be sold out yet again. Stories in WaPo and the NYT make that clear (I'm lazy, the links are on my own blog. They were told to be "realistic" about federalism.)

Ikram,

Supporting Kurd separatists will destabilize the entire Middle East. It will seriously upset our key NATO ally in Asia right now, Turkey. Turkey will necessarily rethink their support of our war on terrorism if we supported such a plan. Kurds were always encouraged to participate in a liberalized, democratic Iraq.

Kevin -- Did I say I do not support democracy in Iraq? If so, it was a typo and I apologize. I was trying to say that those who support the war should not do so on the basis of a free and democratic Iraq, because there are plenty of signs that it will not happen, and plenty of good realpolitik reasons for the US to not want it to happen.

Second point

You are cheating when you say "Kurd Separatists." They are not separatists, they are federalists. A huge difference. I agree that a federal Iraq will destabilize the middle east and that is why it will not happen (am I correct in thinking you also agree?).

Since the Kurds will not get a federal state because it will "destabalize the middle east and upset key allies", why do you think Iraqis will get democracy when that will not only destabilize the middle east and upset key allies, but may also be against American interests.

Which is more important, freedom for Iraqis and self determination, or stability. With respect to Kurds, you say stability is more important. Why would you change your mind with respect to Iraqis and democracy?

>>Q: You are cheating when you say "Kurd Separatists." They are not separatists, they are federalists. A huge difference. I agree that a federal Iraq will destabilize the Middle East and that is why it will not happen (am I correct in thinking you also agree?).
A: Yes, I agree.
======================================================
>>Since the Kurds will not get a federal state because it will "destabilize the middle east and upset key allies", why do you think Iraqis will get democracy when that will not only destabilize the Middle East and upset key allies, but may also be against American interests.
Ikram,
I see you offering two false premises here. I do not believe Iraq will destabilize the Middle East. I believe respecting the territorial integrity of Iraq will maintain stability. I do not see that as destabilizing. I am not sure why you believe this may be against American interests. Maintaining stability in that very unstable area of the world is paramount to every western and Arab government.
======================================================
>>Which is more important, freedom for Iraqis and self determination, or stability. With respect to Kurds, you say stability is more important. Why would you change your mind with respect to Iraqis and democracy?
Ikram,
I see this as a choice between two false alternatives. I believe Kurds have always been part of either Turkey or Iraq. Before that, they were happily part of the Ottoman Empire. I do not see why a democratic Iraq will destabilize the Middle East as you say.
======================================================
>> Kevin -- Did I say I do not support democracy in Iraq? If so, it was a typo and I apologize. I was trying to say that those who support the war should not do so on the basis of a free and democratic Iraq, because there are plenty of signs that it will not happen, and plenty of good realpolitik reasons for the US to not want it to happen.
Ikram,

I am not sure what signs you are referring to, but I have reservations about the eventual success of a democratic government in Arabs states that have nothing to do with realpolitik. Arabs have no experience governing themselves in their two thousand year history. Traditionally, they have not chosen their government. Authoritarian or totalitarian strongman rule has been their plight since the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.

As I see it, I believe Arabs are educated enough to govern themselves. The question is, will they? Will Iraqis work at governing themselves? Or will they allow another strongman assassinate their new leader and become the de facto ruler in turn?

Kevin, I must be stupendously unclear. You say: Respecting the territorial integrity of Iraq will ensure stability"

Kevin -- no-one is arguing against the territorial integrity of Iraq. The Kurds are asking for a federal Iraq, not a separate state. The US is telling them they are not going to get it, and that their region will be occupied by Turkish troops not under American command. As you know, Turks oppose a federal Iraq, probably because it will give Turkish Kurds an example.

My point: The US is rejecting Kurdish aspirations for autonomy becuase it will inspire Turkish Kurds to ask for more freedom. Stability trumps all, freedom is subordinated.

(The Independent (of London) had an article on Feb 17 on this)

---------------

As for a democratic Iraq destabilizing the region -- in a strict sense it has to, it a broader sense it probably will.

The US hopes that a democratic riaq will have spillover effects in neighbouring countries. (See Feith and Cambone in the New Yorker article by Lemann). These effects will alter the governing structure of those countries. That is, strictly speaking, unstable.

But it still could go peacefully. A stable elected gvt taking over in Syria, Saudi, etc. Myself, I doubt it. Democractic elections may throw up anti-Americans, anti-Israeli governments.

Conservative pundits have spoken about democracy in Iraq as a destabilizing event (e.g. Steyn). It's supposed to disrupt what they consider to be a bad equilbrium.

-----------------------------------

As for Iraqis not beng ready for demcracy -- I don't fear it. I fear the American government not being ready for democracy on the Middle East.

The US is telling them they are not going to get it, and that their region will be occupied by Turkish troops not under American command.

Ikram, can you document this portion of it?

I think that if Turkish support is contingent upon there not being an identifiable separate Kurdistan state, then the Kurds will just have to lose on that one, because Turkish support is vital to success in the war.

But can you document this part about Turkish troops occupying the area? This is news to me.

Here's a link to a NYT stroy, htough it's been reported in other places too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/19/opinion/19GALB.html

Here's a paragraph from the article:

"Zalmay Khalilzad, President Bush's special envoy to the Iraqi opposition, went to Ankara this month and told top Kurdish leaders to accept a large deployment of Turkish troops — supposedly for humanitarian relief — to enter northern Iraq after any American invasion. He also told the Kurds that they would have to give up plans for self-government, adding that hundreds of thousands of people driven from their homes by Saddam Hussein would not be able to return to them."

As I see it, we have two clues so far on post-war Iraq. One by Feith, Grossman, etc to the Senate committee, New Yorker article, etc, the other by Khalilzad to Kurds and the INC. Most of the rest is speculation.

As the days go by, more is leaking out. Taheri has an articel on the NRO today on the topic. He's not thrilled.

I've long suspected that the Kurds are going to be unhappy with the results, because no matter what happens they're going to lose the sovereignty that they've become accustomed to. They've been functioning as an independent nation and are about to lose that.

Yet at the same time, they cannot imagine that the current circumstance will go on forever.

What surprises me is that they have indicated their willingness to give up sovereignty before. But now they are upset with the plan.

Well, I can see why they would be upset to be occupied by Turks. That seems like a horrible plan.

I begin to wonder, however, if the Turks aren't going to wind up excluded, given events in the news this morning.

Ikram,

I compliment you and apologize at the same time for not appreciating your arguments. Your argument was more complex than I originally understood. However, I see some problems with the Galbraith column you sight.

First, please note this NY Times article was written by none other than Peter W.
Galbraith. This article notes at the bottom that he was the United States ambassador to Croatia without citing when he served or for which administration he served. I suspect from the last name that he just might be the son of John Kenneth Galbraith who served JFK as ambassador to India.

I saw J.K. Galbraith appear on many talk shows debating with anybody. He debated William F. Buckley on “Firing Line” numerous times. Galbraith defended the liberal tradition well. He is expert at making the most of weaknesses in opponent’s arguments and miscues. He is also expert at mitigating weaknesses in liberal positions as well. In short, he is one of the best debaters in America even if he is a liberal Democrat. That means he is quite capable of forming sophisticated arguments. This article by Peter Galbraith has all the hallmarks of that very complexity.

I am not sure where Mr. P. Galbraith received his information about Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad informing the Kurds about the future occupation by Turkish troops of Iraqi soil. This is the first time I ever heard that. If it is true, then it is a major development not covered by the American media. I believe that is entirely possible since America’s media has fallen in the toilet the past decade missing major stories and overlooking important aspects of others that contradict their view of events, er I mean propaganda. Note also, that invasion is not the same as occupation. I will hold my opinion in abeyance on this major contention until I hear confirmation by other reliable sources. For all the information I have, it may well be liberal license. The NY Times has used much liberal license the past few years.

My understanding of this development is entirely different. I always understood that the Kurds were presently administering, not governing, the northern region of IRAQ, not a new Kurdistan. The northern no-fly zone the Kurds administer is called the NORTHERN NO-FLY ZONE IN IRAQ! It was never called Kurd-anything. I also understand that the United States always intended the northern no fly zone to be part of a future democratically governed Iraq. This leaves no room for Kurdish independence. It is quite presumptuous for anybody to understand that to imply another future independent Kurdish state.

Everybody knows an independent, autonomous northern Iraq administered and governed by Kurds would be destabilizing. I was referring to that destabilizing aspect. I did not refer to a democratically governed Iraq as a destabilizing force. We must decipher that major misunderstanding between you and I before proceeding with anything else. My understanding of a federal Iraq is a unified Iraq, not a dismembered Iraq with an independent, autonomous Kurdish state in the north.

Second, stating explicitly at the top of the column that America was about to double-cross the Kurds “again” belies the difficulty of managing relations in the Near East. American relations with all nations in the Middle East have always been complex and difficult to manage. (It is difficult for even the Middle Eastern nations themselves to manage.) America relied heavily on the Shah of Iran to block Soviet attempts to dominate the entire Middle East and its natural resources. Iran also served as a geopolitical ally preventing the Soviet Union from obtaining a warm water port that always was a historical yearning for Russia.

Leveraging the Shah to resume aid shipments to the Kurds might have been difficult for numerous reasons. Galbraith says Iran stopped sending aid to the Kurds in the 1970’s after cutting a back room deal with Iraq of some sort. Mr. Galbraith conveniently omitted what that deal was. He also omitted why Kissinger did “nothing.” Was it perhaps because of Watergate? Was it perhaps because of the 1973 Yom Kippur War? Mr. Galbraith conveniently leaves out a precise date. Is this more liberal license? Alternatively, is it not germane at all? How are we to decide this for ourselves? How does Mr. Galbraith know Kissinger did not try to even phone the Shah? Can he prove Kissinger did nothing? The word nothing is a rather definitive word leaving no room for confusion. Galbraith never clarifies why Kissinger did nothing.

Third, I reject the way Bush 41 let the Kurds down as part of a conscious “double-cross.” President George H. W. Bush firmly believed the Kurds could depose Saddam Hussein solamente. Norman Schwarzkopf stated repeatedly, “Nobody in 1991 would have believed that Saddam Hussein would be in power ten years later.” Bush 41 lost any momentum he had in deposing Saddam Hussein after he ordered an end to the hostilities and began cease-fire negotiations. This is a miscalculation. It is not a double-cross. I believe Mr. Galbraith is taking considerable liberal license characterizing this as another American “double-cross.”

Fourth, Mr. P. Galbraith admits himself that the Kurds accepted many Turkish-American demands for an independent Kurdish state. He even admits himself that the Kurds agreed to not occupy oil-rich Kirkuk. Mr. Galbraith then states this is the equivalent of Israel giving up Jerusalem. These are significant sacrifices for the Kurds to accept. But they accepted them. Agreeing to diplomatic terms is not usually an integral component of a double-cross. This sounds to me like more liberal license.

Ultimately, if Turkish administration of humanitarian relief proves problematic to establishing a federal Iraq then I believe America will administer the relief itself. It might be even better if the United Nations administered this humanitarian relief instead. It might prove the only successful thing the United Nations does.

I believe there are opportunities as well as risks managing this new arrangement amongst Middle Eastern governments. Ending the regime, as well as the life, of Saddam Hussein will create a Middle Eastern power vacuum. Somebody will fill that vacuum. It may as well be our allies as our villains. A federal Iraq can serve as an example to Turkey of how an integrated, stable, pluralistic democratic form of government can function. I do not see it as a power challenge as the Turks do. I see this as an opportunity. The Turks see is as a risk. It is up to the Bush administration to convince the Turks that a federal Iraq is more opportunity than risk for the Turks as well. Successfully ensuring them on this point is pivotal to stability in a reconstituted Iraq. If a democratic, federal Iraq can survive then so too can Turkey survive with its Kurdish population. I do not envision this as stability trumping freedom. I instead see it as freedom ultimately winning.

Mr. Galbraith then ends accurately recapitulating the problems of managing relations amongst Middle Eastern governments. Turkey will be a loser if she stays out of this war. She will lose any leverage with establishing a new, peaceful Iraqi government. It is too early to determine whether America can negotiate a stable, federal Iraqi government. The United States will have considerable leverage after winning this war. Whether or not the Kurds, a new Iraqi government, and Turkey win the peace is ultimately up to them.

Ultimately, if Turkish administering humanitarian relief proves problematic to establishing a federal Iraq then I believe America will administer the relief itself. It might be even better if this humanitarian relief is administered by the United Nations instead.

I believe there are opportunities as well as risks managing this new arrangement amongst Middle Eastern governments. Ending the regime, as well as the life, of Saddam Hussein will create a Middle Eastern power vacuum. Somebody will fill that vacuum. It may as well be our allies as our villains. A federal Iraq can serve as an example to Turkey of how an integrated, stable, pluralistic democratic form of government can function. I do not see it as a power challenge as the Turks do. I see this as an opportunity. The Turks see is as a risk. It is up to the Bush administration to convince the Turks that a federal Iraq is more opportunity than risk for the Turks as well. Successfully ensuring them on this point is pivotal to stability in a reconstituted Iraq. If a democratic, federal Iraq can survive then so too can Turkey survive with its Kurdish population.

I also personally believe that Arabs are well educated enough to govern themselves. At this point predicting whether or not a true Iraqi “democracy” will prevail in the end is a guess. Your concern about American readiness for a Middle Eastern democracy is misplaces. One already exists. You know from studying the Middle Eastern history that Israel is the only Middle Eastern “democracy”.

My concern is whether a viable “democracy” in Iraq will last. I am sure you understand that Arabs have no functioning “democracies” and are prone to strongman rule for various cultural reasons. This is a legitimate cause for the concern of a viable Iraqi “democracy”. Egypt has a “President” who never faces elections. Jordan set aside its recent elections. Unelected Iranian mullahs can dismiss any legislation their elected legislature passes. Saddam Hussein regularly wins Iraqi plebiscites with 100% of the vote.

>> The US hopes that a democratic Iraq will have spillover effects in neighbouring countries. (See Feith and Cambone in the New Yorker article by Lemann). These effects will alter the governing structure of those countries. That is, strictly speaking, unstable.

Ikram,

This might not be all bad. The Middle East is as unstable as trinitrotoluene anyway. Who knows if Arabs can actually govern themselves? They never tried. We already know the dictators and totalitarians that governed them for the past century had made of mess of things. Anything is an improvement. Forcing Arabs to actually govern themselves may be a very stabilizing thing for all you know. They might even confront their own failings. You cannot govern by continually blaming everybody else.

====================================================

>> But it still could go peacefully. A stable elected gvt taking over in Syria, Saudi, etc. Myself, I doubt it. Democratic elections may throw up anti-Americanism, anti-Israeli governments.

Irkam,

How do you know? One important reason for these anti-American, anti-Semitic sentiments is directly due to authoritarian Arab governments bamboozling their populations into believing Americans and Jews are the cause of all Arab problems. In short, Arabs do not accept responsibility for their own problems. An independent press can go a long way toward directly confronting Arab problems.

>> Conservative pundits have spoken about democracy in Iraq as a destabilizing event (e.g. Steyn). It's supposed to disrupt what they consider to be a bad equilibrium.

Ikram,

Are you kidding? How is disrupting a bad equilibrium bad? That is the whole idea! Anything different is better what exists now.