Zar

Notice the quotes around "right". I mean to explore what happens if the Iraq plan is a success in cynically amoral terms.

Let's imagine for a moment that despite all the things we think we know, somehow Bush achieves success in Iraq with a minimum of problems as claimed. Let's say the "Fortunate Son" not only has lucky family ties, but lucky ties to fate in general. Let's say Iraq does not crumble and peacefully, more or less, coalesces into a government of the Iraqi's choosing. Let's say chaos does not ensue. Let's say the Arab world demures, regardless of casualties. Let's say "Shock and Awe" really does shock and awe people into reluctant compliance.

Are there any residual problems left from this? I think so.

I think the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption almost becomes more dangerous long term if it is a success than if it is a failure. You know how they say "crime doesn't pay?" Well, if it does here, people may forget about that. In short, repercussions in terms of world cooperation and stability could be very problematic. "Spread your message by the sword," and all that. Also, I think the unjustified killing of people for any reason other than self-defense is wrong regardless of whether you can get away with it or not. Perhaps the U.S. would lose a part of its respect from others and a bit of its own soul. I know I would lose something. Finally, if we consider the seeming plans for an overt Pax Americana, knocking down nations like bowling pins and grasping the necks of the rest, this seems like something I wouldn't want to deliver the first stepping stone for, either.

I know this is a somewhat oversimplified thought experiment, but I wanted to explore issues that revolve around other things than whether this particular operation is a success on its own narrow terms or not. I wanted to break out of the agitprop of the moment.

Ricomise

I think you've asked a very relevant question, and certainly not at all "simplistic." I believe that the first problem to be resolved is what is "America" or the "American Way?" Obviously, the patent answer is that we are the "arsenal of democracy" and the " leader of the free world."

Leaving history aside, (which, of course, presents many arguments to refute the above characterizations of the U.S.) what do we, as a nation wish to be, or more specifically, what do we wish to be perceived as? The U.S. military has recently admitted that two Afghan prisobers were killed during interrogation in its custody. The cause of death apparently, (at least according to, I think, Reuters news reports) was "homicide." Some congressional leaders have stated that perhaps torture is a necessary tool when terrorism againt the U.S. is concerned.

I wonder what these types of events, along with an arguably unprovoked attack against a sovereign nation (as you say, regardless of how "successful" such attack is) say about the "character of America. (If nations can be said to have "character.") Are we the shining beacon of freedom we've talked ourselves into believing we are?

I leave the answer to that question to the collective opinions of Americans.

JCS

If this is what it comes down to, will we as americans need a new definition of evil? I mean what will be the measure to separate us from it? Can we really claim moral high ground when our actions mirror that of which we rail against? When we speak of rights and freedoms, are they only "regional" in their intent and use? Do we care how how the rest of the world views us? Are we role models for freedom and human rights? Or are those just words used as control tools such as heavenly reward is in religion?

If there was evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 or evidence of impending attacks by Iraq and their WMD, sure I could jump on that bandwagon. But with human rights violations taking place else where and North Korea making nukes, sorry I can't buy into this bullshit. I'm being asked to swallow the Bush doctrine on faith, and as with all faith issues I prefer something more tangible. Has imposed will ever successfully instilled confidence or stability in the manor Bush is suggesting?

Vorkosigan

Zar, what are you worried about?

<slaps Zar upside the head> Come to your senses, man! George Bush is running the show.

How is King George going to spike the Kurds? Did you know the Iranians have already begun to infiltrate their anti-Hussein troops into Iraq? How is Bush going to stop them? And stabilize Iraq? And handle the refugees? And...and...and...

Forget it! Success is one thing you don't have to fear.

Vorkosigan

Alonzo Fyfe

I would agree with this.

When this whole buildup against Iraq started, I looked at the situation and decided that the worst situation is for the U.S. to move into Iraq after a vote opposing the attack in the U.N.

The hatred that would follow -- and the fact that Americans everywhere -- even in our own country -- will be less safe after this attack than before (because of the random violence of individual martyrs who cannot be known, let alone stopped).

Bush has bungled his foreign policy so poorly that the best he has been able to pull off is the worst situation possible.

Ruy Lopez

If I observe the guidelines that accompany your thought experiment, I would have very little to say. You are mentioning moral damage to the American soul or psyche and other similar things. That is important to many people but what is important to me is this:

By going into Iraq, Iran and the Caspian would be sandwiched by US troops and US client governments that would be in Afghanistan and Iraq--and Pakistan. Russia, I believe, considers Iran and the Caspian/Kazahkstan as vital to its interests. If I were the US, I would normally make a deal with Russia before taking on Iraq. But of course there are double crosses. Who can you trust in this game.

If I were Russia, I would make life very difficult for US troops and instrumentalities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US would be spending enormous amounts of money while their troops are exposed to danger. Russian troops would be safe inside their borders. I would raise the ante by arranging through militants a low-yield nuke that would annihilate a US infantry or armored division--about 10,000 troops. Russian involvement would be denied of course. What would the US do then? Probably nothing. They'll go home after nuking some weakling patsy country who cannot fight back.

This is a very clear eventuality not difficult to execute.

cheetah

Well, I agree that that kind of "success" is really not possible. however, I don't think it has to work out nearly so well for the Bush Regime to be able to sell to the American public that is was a HUGE success. They are pretty goos at that, and the public is getting only slightly less happy to buy all the poo he sells us. So, despite the fact that we could leave another country in ruins, tens of thousands of innocent people will die and we will be less safe than we were before...not to mention we will have nothing to be proud of and cannot ask, "What do we as American's WANT our country to be" without hanging our head in shame about what people are currently making it, most Americans will be happy. They'll feel like they got some revenge (for what?), they'll feel powerful and they will literally say that they don't care how many more people hate us and they will deny that we are less safe. And Bush will get re-elected. Most Americans are about as good with foreign policy as Bush, meaning unilateralism is a "good" thing!

Zar

Interesting responses so far...thanks for participating. Ruy Lopez, you are correct that I am just skimming the surface in a more or less "hearts and minds" and "moral principled" dimension. The concerns you mentioned seem very real to me also.

Vorkosigan

A chilling scenario you raise, Ruy.

John Hancock

Zar

Right? If this ain't a plan for Nam from my favorite chickenhawk. I'll fuck myself.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ANTI-DEMOCRACY PLAN FOR IRAQ.
Federal Reserve
by Lawrence F. Kaplan
Post date: 03.06.03
Issue date: 03.17.03
Inside the Bush administration, the war over whether to go war is over. But the war over the war's aftermath is just beginning. On the question of how, or even whether, democracy should be established in Iraq, no two members of the Bush team seem to agree. The president only appeared to settle the issue last week when he said that he envisioned Iraqis "moving toward democracy and living in freedom" and recalled that, in the past,
Americans "did not leave behind occupying armies; we left constitutions and parliaments."
Despite the president's admonition, it is precisely occupying armies, not constitutions or parliaments, which the State Department plans to leave behind in Iraq. The latest outline that America's diplomatic corps has drawn up for postwar Iraq proves the devil really does lie in the details. The plan calls for an American military governor to rule the country for up to two years, while American officers take control of Iraqi government
ministries. It does call for Iraqis to participate in their country's
reconstruction, but the Iraqis to whom American officials anticipate delegating this responsibility will mostly be former employees of Saddam Hussein. As for the leaders of Iraq's democratic opposition, aside from serving on a powerless "consultative council" for an indeterminate period
of time, they will have virtually no say in how their country is governed.
Thus, the Bush team has instructed leading Iraqi dissidents to shelve their plans for a federal political structure, in which different regions of the country would enjoy a measure of autonomy. Rather than allowing Iraqis to create a federal state--which is to say, a democratic one--Foggy Bottom, which lost the argument over whether to topple an authoritarian central government in Baghdad, has settled for the next best thing: an
authoritarian central government under U.S. control.

TNR Online | Fault Line


SAFWAN DISPATCH
Fault Line
by Peter Baker
Post date: 02.28.03
Issue date: 03.10.03
Nadum Hassan shuffles in barefoot and sniffling, folds his tiny body into a ball, and stares down relentlessly. He will not look at strangers, and I find it difficult to look at him. Nadum is ten, and his face seems to be falling off. His skin is mottled and blackened, pieces flaking as if he had just emerged from a fire. Nadum rarely leaves his room, as sunlight causes him intense pain. "He can't go into the sunlight. He's losing his sight," Nadum's father, Mashun Hassan, explained as he glanced at his son huddled in the corner.
For as long as Nadum has been sick, Iraq has told his family the United States is to blame. The depleted uranium (D.U.) in U.S. munitions used during the Gulf war, Baghdad says, affected his father, resulting in Nadum's cancer. Indeed, Iraq claims the detritus of D.U. munitions have led to an explosion of cancer, birth defects, and liver disease across the country. The United States says that no evidence has linked D.U. to these illnesses reported in Iraq. And outside doctors find it implausible that
D.U. is responsible for the boy's condition. But, on the eve of another possible war, science matters less than belief in places like Safwan, the dusty town on Iraq's southern border where Norman Schwarzkopf brokered the cease-fire ending the Gulf war.
Whether or not Iraqis' bodies have been poisoned, their minds have been. Saddam Hussein's government has wasted no effort promoting stories of the horrors. "It was they who brought cancer through, ... their depleted uranium, which they used against us," Saddam fulminated in a speech last year. Baghdad regularly sends complaints about D.U. to international agencies and has even issued a postage stamp with a picture of a deformed child purportedly afflicted by uranium. The state-run Iraqi News Agency maintains on its Internet site a link to "Another DU Victim" that takes viewers to a picture of a grossly misshapen child. Foreign diplomats and peace activists are regularly taken on tours of cancer wards to highlight the issue. And, after more than a decade of propaganda, it has become an
article of faith among Iraqis that the Americans have poisoned the civilian population. "This is terrorism," Nadum's father, a farmer who has sold many of his belongings to pay for the boy's cancer treatments, told me. "He's a victim of American aggression." If American soldiers expect ticker-tape parades once they conquer Iraq, my visit to Safwan suggests that might be overly optimistic. Saddam's army may crumble, but the bitterness among many ordinary Iraqis will remain.

You'd have to suspend reality for this asshole to be right.

Martin Buber