Thoughtful observers like Tacitus are in the doldrums. Basically, the American government is now pushing for Iraq to become independently self-governing by June. You can read Tacitus' essay for for all the bad things one might say about this. The upshot: it's politically motivated, and it's much too fast, and it risks too much religious influence in the new Iraqi government. He thinks that by taking things more slowly, we could be more certain of making Iraq a secular, truly free state.
He's making a strategic miscalculation though. I'd like to explain why.
Tacitus says that Americans have twice failed to live up to their responsibilities to a nation defeated in war: to the South in the aftermath of the Civil War, and to the people of Germany after the first World War. But Tacitus might well have added Vietnam, which was our grossest failure of all as a nation. He might have also mentioned what a very narrow victory the Korean conflict was.
In terms of Vietnam, we must remember that, after public support for keeping troops there eroded, we persued a "Vietnamization" program whereby we would train the South Vietnamese to defend themselves, and supply them with weaponry and other support. That program was, despite anything you may have heard in the press recently, highly successful. The South Vietnamese were doing an excellent job of defending themselves. That is, until, in the wake of the Watergate affair and Nixon's resignation, the congress cut off all funding. President Ford vetoed that but, despite his almost hysterical begging, they overrode his veto.
This left our Vietnamese allies helpless before the mass murderer Ho Chi Minh, and millions of Vietnamese were killed, or fled their homes forever, as a result.
What this should tell us is the same lesson Harry Truman learned in the (very difficult) occupation of Germany and Japan, and in the (nearly lost) Korean conflict: in any democracy, any major military effort will have detractors. The worst detractors will be those who initially supported the war, but then turn into carping whiners, kvetchers, and second-guessers who criticize and impede your every move. This happens always, in every war, in any democratic republic.
Sometimes leadership lies is in carrying on despite all the kvetchers and second-guessers. But part of it is in properly reading how long the public will continue its support, no matter how bold and masterful your leadership. Keeping the public focused and on-task very nearly destroyed Harry Truman and very nearly lost the Korean war. It almost ended the Japanese and German occupations prematurely. The same challenge did destroy Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, and cost us the entire Vietnam conflict.
The current administration's critics have made it absolutely clear that every single misstep, every single setback, will be used as proof that our leadership has failed, that our operation is doomed, that it probably should never have been undertaken. Some of the critics are honorable, but many others have shown, repeatedly, that they won't even be honest about the historical record, and will frequently and shamelessly put words in the administration's mouth.
One instinct would be to say "carry on come what may." A noble instinct. But you have to weigh that against the possibility that someone like Howard Dean might become the next President of the United States as a result.
Now, on a personal level, I do like George Bush, but that's not the real concern here. (Some jerk is about to claim that I'm only saying what comes next because of that. Let me just say now that that's a bunch of crap. Neither the world nor America would end just because Howard Dean became President, and neither would my life.) If Iraq is not self-governing by the time of next fall's elections, it's highly likely that, in the current political climate, we'd turn a non-self-sustaining Iraq over to either the highly dysfunctional UN, or the even worse Arab League. It's very hard not to think that the people of Iraq would be worse off in such a circumstance.
We would also vindicate those in the Middle East who have said all along that America is very dangerous in the short run, but always runs home to mommy once the going gets tough.
Thus, it should be clear that we are facing a pretty grim game right now: if Iraq is still not stable and self-governing 12 months hence, the risk is much greater that public support will be gone, no matter how charismatic, charming, and effective our leadership might be.
Thus, it seems to me that, strictly in terms of game theory, the best strategy is to get an independent government running in Iraq as soon as possible. There's also a pragmatic question: if it can't be done in 7 months, can it really be done in 7 years?
Tacitus also asks whether our effort in Iraq would have been worth it if we wind up with an "Islamic Republic" in Iraq. To me the question hinges on what "Islamic Republic" means exactly. Does is mean a Mullah-run theocracy with a veneer of democracy, like Iran? Or does it mean a titularly "muslim" state with some internal tensions but a general respect for religious pluralism, like modern-day Turkey?
Before this war even began, I said (more than once) what I would like to see: A system like Pakistan at worst. Turkey, better. Korea, better still. Japan or Germany, best of all. I suspect that what we're staring at now is a system like modern-day Turkey's, and I can live with that, as it would still be better for all concerned (except the Baathists) than what was there before.
I am not convinced that Islam itself is incompatible with modernity and tolerance, especially because the Islamic world has been highly tolerant in times past. Read scholars like Stephen Schwartz or Bernard Lewis on that score. "Intolerant, violent, oppressive" religions like Christianity are still the official religions of places like the United Kingdom and Norway, and I wouldn't fear to live in either nation. Enshrining "Islamic values" into any new Iraqi (or Afghan) Constitution is not a huge concern to me; it's how it's done, and what the results are, that concern me.
We need to do the best we can by these people. We also have to work with what we've got. We also need to keep a military presence in the region, both to keep the new governments stable and on the path to modernity, and to continue to have a base of operations from which to hold the feet of the regimes in Damascus, Tehran and (hopefully) Riyadh to the fire when it comes to fighting terrorism.
If Iraq winds up with a government that looks a like like a nation called South Turkey, I can certainly live with that, and won't feel we've wasted our efforts. If we wind up pulling out and turning everything over to the UN and/or the Arab League, I'll feel much worse about it.
Wouldn't you, Tacitus?
* Update * Retired officer James Joyner concurs (more or less).
Excellent analysis, Dean. Clear-thinking and pragmatic yet moral.
I expect it to be hysterically reviled by those on the Left (except for Shep).
Dean:
Good essay! Excellent! Maybe you should change your last name, swap it with the first, and get elected!
Merely "former," not retired. I was only on active duty four years. I ain't THAT old. ;)
I disagree, respectfully, about Islam. I've read Lewis' books. Even Lewis says Islam was tolerant according to historical standards -- not according to modern ones.
We've seen the fruits of Islam -- bloody wars at practically every border, poverty, the oppression of women, taking every concession as a sign not of charity, but of weakness, corruption, hatred, ingratitude for military assistance and international terrorism.
These fruits are not rooted in temporary aberrations of Islam but in the spiritual source of Islam, which is evil. And good fruit doesn't come from an evil tree.
Go back a few hundred years, and could not all the above be said about Christianity for over a thousand years, Bill?
Besides, if I take what you just said seriously, we must see ourselves as being at war with over a billion people.
To be blunt, if that's the Christian message, no thank you.
Besides, I think I'd rather live in Turkey (Islamic) than Thailand (Christian).
But then, as I've said many times, I'm a former Christian who's rejected Christianity. So I have my own biases.
Thailand is Buddhist and I'd much rather live there than Turkey. (And I did live in Thailand for two years, so I know what it's like.)
Aw, crikey! I meant Armenia. Where the hell did I get Thailand?!?!?
(Wait, is Laos officially Christian? Can't remember now.)
Hey Dean:
The central message of Christianity is encapsulated in John 3:16, and primarily preaches love and personal servitude. If everyone in the world were truly Christian (and not "Christian" as has generally been the case) there would probably about as much civil strife as there is in any given Amish community.
I believe that the Koran sanctions the spread of Islam by the sword if necessary, which stands it in sharp contrast to the core belief of Christianity.
I don't think the true character of Greater Islam has yet emerged. But I take heart that by sending to Allah those Muslims who refuse to co-exist on this planet with people of other faiths, we may be helping the remaining more temperate, living Muslims will firmly establish Islam as a religion of acceptance and coexistence.
Enh. I've read Revelations, and enough other parts of the New and Old Testaments that evoke fire, brimstone, and the sword. A favorite Psalm of mine involves dashing the heads of babies against stones. I'm not impressed with Christianity (or Judaism's) claim to any sort of historical moral high ground. Nor Hinduism's or Buddhism's or Taoism's. I'm really not.
Yes, Islam preaches a certain amount of conversion by sword. Christianity, by comparison, merely has a history of torturing people for failing to convert, in the interests of saving their immortal souls, and of treating heretics as threats to anyone who believes.
Then the atheists like Stalin and Mao have gone about butchering people in the tens of millions, simply for not accepting their secular message.
Meanwhile, if I am to accept the Christian message to heart, I must accept that God intends to torture 4/5ths of the current world population (at least), including many people I love, and probably including me, to eternal torture simply because we didn't believe a couple of difficult-to-believe concepts.
Whatever.
Dean:
Armenia?!!!!!
The Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians and you'd rather live in Turkey than in oppressive Armenia? Mon dieu. Half of Armenia was destroyed by the Turks and, ethnically cleansed, remains in Turkey. The rest has been free since 1989 after suffering decades of Soviet oppression. Really bad example.
As for comparing current Islam with medieval Christianity, I don't think they are remotely analogous. Three-fourths of Christendom was conquered by Islam, the people converted forcibly or subject to humiliating dhimmi status, and finally the Christians fought back and got some of the land back. You think they wouldn't try it again if they could?
And by the way, the Psalm you quote was from the Babylonian captivity, and usually, those lines are skipped when the Psalm is read.
"By the rivers of Babylon, we sat down and wept for Zion...."
It is a beautiful song of a people that has lost everything, and yes, it ends in a frustrated wail. Surely you understand the singer's frustration, having watched a foreign army destroy your nation, your holy Temple, and carry your people off to a foreign country and serve the people there.
Well, yes, the Armenians were horribly slaughtered. I've written about that, in fact.
But I wouldn't choose to live in modern-day Armenia vs. modern-day Turkey, all things considered. Maybe I'm missing something.
I'm not sure I'd live in Poland by comparison to Turkey either, although having a Polish wife would obviously prejudice me.
Am I missing something about Armenia? It seems we're not on the same page.
My point is that Armenia and Warsaw were destroyed, and so yes, they are less pleasant places to live.
Modern-day Armenia, last I read, is offically Christian, and rather squalid.
Turkey is, on the whole, rather prosperous and cosmpolitan, on the whole. Maybe I'm romanticizing it, though.
(just to get back on topic a tad {g})
Dean, I think you missed a couple of points in your column.
First, there have been presidents who have been guided by their concience: Lincoln, for one. At one point he fully believed that he would be defeated in November of 1864, and even left sealed instructions for that contingency.
Second, and more importantly, you have overlooked the very strong chance of a general civil war in Iraq if the US pulls out too soon. In fact, that's what the Baathist/Sunnis are hoping for. They have lots of money, and lots of guns, and they are perfectly willing to turn Iraq into Greater Lebanon if they think they'll come out on top in the end.
One worst-case scenario would be the defeatists forcing an early abandonment ("support the troops!" bring them home now!), which results in anarchy, which results in defeatists and pacifists saying "See, we told you it wouldn't work!"
Armenia. Armenia? How'd this thread end up there?
Modern-day Armenia, last I read, is offically Christian, and rather squalid. Turkey is, on the whole, rather prosperous and cosmpolitan, on the whole.
Not sure if you're saying something about Chrisianity or rather Communism?
No matter. The inhabitants of that ancient land are well-aware of the challenges they have faced for the last 100+ years, first with the Ottoman Empire then with the Communists.
For starters, most of classic Armenia has long since been absorbed into Turkey (including Mt. Ararat which is to Armenia what Mt. Fuji is to Japan). To the victors, after all, go the spoils.
So, some may (sadly) agree with your assessment of its squalor.
In fact, the inhabitants of Armenia have long referred to what is left of our homeland by its bitterly ironic (yet somehow still affectionate) other name:
"Kahr-a-stahn" or "Land of Rocks."
The humor, at least, has helped us get through the millenia.
As long as we're on the subject...
...film fans may want to see Ararat newly released on DVD/VHS.
It's pretty challenging stuff, and might not be the perfect entertainment for movie night, but I found it to be a pretty good expression of what it's like being Armenian.
That, plus it tells a story that somehow hasn't made it into the movies even after this long.
One point (OK maybe it's two). Dean likes to blame “kvetchers and second-guessers” for loss of support in the war because he’s in denial about the President’s spin in the run-up to war. I don’t know if he thinks the Gulf of Tonkin incident happened just the way the Johnson administration depicted it but my point is that these deceptions are far more harmful to support of war policies than partisans because administration deceptions give partisans credibility and moral standing that they wouldn’t otherwise have. If Bush had made only the case that we were going to Iraq because we had a moral and legal obligation to relieve that country of a despot partly of our making, we could have left five months ago with our heads held high and let the Iraqis do what they will with their "liberated" country.
But, of course, there’s the rub. The reason for taking down the Iraqi regime was always about attempting to transform the region and the world (aka The Project for The New American Century) and the administration thought they needed a better rationale for both domestic and international audiences. Hence all the crap about terrorism and WMDs. Oh, what a tangled web…
Bad theology aside, I don't see it as terribly controversial to imagine that Islam needs its own Reformation and Renaissance in order to survive in modern, pluralistic society.
We are quick to point out Christianity's past failures in the atrocity department, yet slow to also recognize the flip side of that historical witness: a huge number of those atrocities were committed by state churches (including, yes, the Lutheran and Anglican ones). That they do so no longer is testament to the figurehead status both state churches now hold in their respective societies.
It may very well be that state-sponsored religion is the only way forward in Iraq and elsewhere. But let's recognize it for what it is: a throwback to circumstances that led to such things as the reign of Bloody Mary in Britain.
I've written plenty of times on the success of our efforts to crush the Viet Cong, and how it was the withdrawal of American support that undercut our successes there. Kevin Drum even devoted a highly contentious thread to refuting my arguments. Bottom line is that we agree on this example -- except inasmuch as it's a relevant example. Vietnam (and Korea) was not a defeated nation under our heel, and we never intended to remake its society as we meant to remake the American South and the Second and Third Reichs.
Actually, there is one part of your Korea analogy that is germaine -- it's the part wherein you contend that Truman's pursuit of the war nearly destroyed him and "lost" the war. I assume you mean to say that the American public wasn't interested in the long, hard slog of Korea, and that they preferred to get out and not pay the price altogether. If you are saying this, then you're getting the history backwards. The American public demanded a far more vigorous war than Truman was willing to engage in. They demanded stronger efforts; hence the adulation of Douglas MacArthur and "no substitute for victory." It was the American people who were the more clear-sighted about the war, and more willing to pay the cost, than the President. Even in Vietnam, polls of Americans indicated that most preferred outright victory to all other outcomes up through about 1970.
If they were willing to do so then, they would be willing to do so today. All it would take is a leader willing to articulate that vision, and demand that sacrifice. The American people aren't the brake on the war that you're implying they are -- not after a mere eight months.
Moving on....
Would I be happy to see Iraq become a secular republic a la Turkey? Sure. (Although we shouldn't pretend that Turkey is wonderful; it's only great when set against its abominable neighbors.) Is that going to happen with "Islamic Republic" appended to its official name? Doubtful. Speaking of self-proclaimed Islamic Republics, you say you'd be happy with at least a Pakistan-style endstate -- I say that's a horrific compromise. Pakistan is a barely-functioning autocracy with a chronically unsustainable democracy, a history of external aggression and internal repression, and a huge jihadi/Islamist following within its society and government. No thanks. Making Turkey II is worth fighting for; making Pakistan II would be a betrayal.
As for this:
The worst detractors will be those who initially supported the war, but then turn into carping whiners, kvetchers, and second-guessers who criticize and impede your every move.
....I am very interested indeed to know which historical examples you have in mind.
Shep: "Denial?" Okay, whatever. I see an administration that was absolutely truthful from day one, whose arguments are as solid today as they were when they were first made, and a bunch of carping, whining armchair generals and and second-guessing partisans who are revising history.
The proof for me is the fact that we wouldn't even be having this conversation WMDs had been found. The lack of WMDs may bring down this President, but it's the height of dishonesty to say that he "lied" about them when every sane person in the Western world believed they were there--and when we had every reason to believe they were there, and would have been utterly irresponsible not to think they were there.
That, to me, is the ultimate irony. This President may be brought down by the fact that intelligence is never 100% reliable under any circumstances. So he made the right call, for the right reasons, and may be destroyed as a result. Sad. He'll still have my support for doing all the right things for all the right reasons--indeed, there's nothing he's done in the case of Iraq that I wouldn't have done were I in his shoes, even with the benefit of hindsight.
Others, who never liked him to begin with and who have no real understanding of the limits of intelligence, will blame him for "dishonesty." Feh. Let them do so as much as they want, and I'll still think them fools.
Tacitus: I simply do not believe that a nation declaring itself to be Islamic makes freedom impossible within it, any more than a nation declaring itself officially Christian does. What matters is the structure of the Constitution, and what exactly it says.
As others have indicated, too, if the majority of the country want Islam as the "official religion" then they'll have it one way or the other. We'll either forbid it to be in their Constitution and they'll just go about structuring laws which follow Islamic belief anyway, or they'll amend it later.
7 months or 7 years, I see no reason to believe taking a lot longer is going to change anything.
Regarding Turkey, I have long been under the impression that Turkey is both officially secular and officially Islamic, in that "islamic values" are enshrined in its Constitution (sort of like a national flower or national bird) but secularism is enforced. Maybe I'm mistaken.
As for revising history: To be honest, I've written about this so many times it's exhausting to bring it all up again, whether it's the "imminent threat" canard, the "they told us it would be a cakewalk' lie, the "Bush lied about WMDs but Clinton never did" baloney, and so on. It's tiresome, it's exhausting, and it never ends because most of the President's critics have no respect for concepts like reasonable doubt and reasonable disagreement or the perils and limitations of intelligence analysis: the leap is always to calling things lies, or incompetence, or quoting things out of any rational context.
As for Korea and Truman: Truman was getting lambasted from all sides for his handling of both Korea and the occupations in Germany and Japan. He didn't feel like we were ready for a full-blown war, and that's a big part of what made him unpopular--although in my judgement he was probably correct not to want a wider war.
"Win or get out" seems to be the primary motto for most Americans. Slow wars of attrition with no clear victory or path to victory eats at the American soul. I do believe that ending the "occupation" and letting people know we're there now to assist the new government will probably be a positive thing for public support.
I see no other option. The generals have made it clear, repeatedly, that they do not want more troops. Although their hands have been untied a bit, it's still inevitable that it is going to take years to beat down the terrorists in Iraq. America's "win or get out" sentiment will only rise higher and higher over time unless we show some tangible progress--and having Iraq self-governing will definitely be tangible progress in most people's eyes.
""Denial?" Okay, whatever. I see an administration that was absolutely truthful from day one"
Wow. Can you name 1 other political entity in the entire history of the planet about which that statement would be true? Perhaps it should be called Deanial.
Most politicians are truthful most of the time, Shep. It's crass cynicism to suggest otherwise, in my view.
People can be wrong or inconsistent and even contradict themselves while still being truthful.
But by the way, when I said I believed they'd been "absolutely truthful from day 1," I meant on the issue of WMDs and our other reasons for going to Iraq. They were the simple truth, and they are as valid today as the day they were made. The President's critics on this are, in my view, irrational.
Thanks for the clarification, Dean. I’m actually starting to hope that they weren’t “absolutely truthful” when they described the “clear and present danger” that was Saddam’s WMD “stockpile”. That earnest administration belief based upon then available evidence would be far more shocking that spinning the truth for political purposes.