A New Spin on Iraq...

[Henny]

What Iraq Tells Us About Ourselves
By Col. W. Patrick Lang, Jr.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3734

The Bush administration, the Iraqi people, and Iranian meddling have all been blamed for the mess in Mesopotamia. But the American people themselves are the true root of the problem.

In the four years since the United States invaded Iraq, it’s become clear that our campaign there has gone terribly awry. We invaded Iraq with too few troops; we destroyed the Iraqi civil administration and military without having a suitable instrument of government ready in the wings; we expelled from public employment anyone with a connection, no matter how tenuous, to the Baath Party—which included most people who could be described as human infrastructure for Iraq. The list of errors goes on and on. Even the vice president acknowledges that “mistakes were made” (although, presumably, not by him).

But how did the highly educated, wealthy, and powerful American people make such a horrendous, catastrophic series of blunders? As Pogo, the cartoon opossum, once famously said, “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Yes, that’s right: We, the American people—not the Bush administration, nor the hapless Iraqis, nor the meddlesome Iranians (the new scapegoat)—are the root of the problem.

It’s woven into our cultural DNA. Most Americans mistakenly believe that when we say that “all men are created equal,” it means that all people are the same. Behind the “cute” and “charming” native clothing, the “weird” marriage customs, and the “odd” food of other cultures, all humans are yearning for lifestyles and futures that will be increasingly unified as time and globalization progress. That is what Tom Friedman seems to have meant when he wrote that “the world is flat”—that technological and economic change are driving humankind toward a future of cultural sameness. In other words, whatever differences of custom and habit that still exist between peoples will pass away soon and be replaced by a world culture rather like that of the United States in the 21st century.

To be blunt, our foreign policy tends to be predicated on the notion that everyone wants to be an American. In the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuff”—their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon. The U.S. Armed Forces and U.S. Agency for International Development would be the sharp swords of modernization in the Middle East.

How did Americans come to believe that the entire world is embarked on the same voyage, and that we are the navigators showing the way to a bright future? Our own culture is a rich blend, brewed from such elements as enlightenment, optimism, Puritan utopianism, a Calvinist tendency to not forgive sinners, and the settler’s lack of respect for the weak and “native” peoples of the world. In the United States, such threads have pushed us to believe that we are all in a melting pot of common ideology. This belief system has been fed to us in the public schools, through Hollywood, and now in the endless prattle of 24-hour news networks. It has become secular religion, a religion so strong that any violation of its tenets brings instant and savage condemnation. So called “neoconservatism” isn’t some kind of alien ideology; it’s merely a self-aware manifestation of the widespread American belief that people are all the same. The repeated assertion by U.S. President George W. Bush that history is dominated by the existence of “universal values” is proof in the pudding.

Americans invaded an imaginary Iraq that fit into our vision of the world. We invaded Iraq in the sure belief that inside every Iraqi there was an American trying to get out. In our dream version of Iraq, we would be greeted as not only liberators from the tyrant, but more importantly, from the old ways. Having inhabited the same state for 80 years, the Iraqi people would naturally see themselves as a unified Iraqi nation, moving forward into eventual total assimilation in that unified human nation.

Unfortunately for us and for them, that was not the real Iraq. In the real Iraq, cultural distinction from the West is still treasured, a manifestation of participation in the Islamic cultural “continent.” Tribe, sect, and community remain far more important than individual rights. One does not vote for candidates outside one’s community unless one is a Baathist, Nasserist, or Communist (or, perhaps, a believer in world “flatness” like Tom Friedman and the neocons). But Iraqis know what Americans want to hear about “identity,” and be they Shiite, Kurd, or Sunni Arab, they tell us that they are all Iraqis.

Finding ourselves in the wrong Iraq, Americans have stubbornly insisted that the real Iraqis should behave as our dream Iraqis would surely do. The result has been frustration, disappointment, and finally rage against the “craziness” of the Iraqis. We are still acting out our dream, insisting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s Shiite sectarian government “unify” the state, imagining that Maliki is a sort of Iraqi George Washington seeking the greater good for all. He is not that. His chief task is to consolidate Shiite Arab power while using the United States to accomplish the deed. To that end, he will tell us whatever we want to be told. He will sacrifice however many of his brethren are necessary to maintain the illusion, so long as the loss is not crippling to his effort. He will treat us as the naifs that we are.

Through our refusal to deal with alien peoples on their own terms, and within their own traditions, we have killed any real hope of a positive outcome in Iraq. Our mission there will be over some day, but there will be other fields for our missionary work, other dreams to dream about: Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran ... Let us seek within ourselves the wisdom to avoid another such catastrophe.

Col. W. Patrick Lang, Jr., a retired Army colonel and member of the Senior Executive Service, served with Special Forces in Vietnam, as an Arabic professor at West Point, and as chief defense intelligence officer for the Middle East.

[BT]

We, the American people—not the Bush administration, nor the hapless Iraqis, nor the meddlesome Iranians (the new scapegoat)—are the root of the problem.

He is right about that. The American People are the problem, but not for the reasons he gave.

We are the problem because we no longer have the fortitude to see it through to the end.

[Michael Tee]

<<He is right about that. The American People are the problem, but not for the reasons he gave.

<<We are the problem because we no longer have the fortitude to see it through to the end. >>

The "it" that you expect the sheeple to "see through to the end" is PRECISELY the problem the guy was talking about, the desire to ram your way of doing things down the throats of the rest of the people of the world.

It's a positive sign when the people begin to see the stupidity of that way of doing things.

[BT]

The "it" that you expect the sheeple to "see through to the end" is PRECISELY the problem the guy was talking about, the desire to ram your way of doing things down the throats of the rest of the people of the world.

You are probably right.

You can barely turn on the TV without seeing massive demonstrations with millions of people demanding that their government transform into strong arm dictatorships.

Lebanon - check
Ukraine - check
Tiannemen Square - check

Venezuela - check

[Michael Tee]

<<You can barely turn on the TV without seeing massive demonstrations with millions of people demanding that their government transform into strong arm dictatorships.

<<Lebanon - check
<<Ukraine - check
<<Tiannemen Square - check

<<Venezuela - check>>

I don't know how Venezuela got on your list.  Last time I checked, about 60% of Venezuelan voters wanted Hugo Chavez.  The anti-Chavez demonstrations were about as real and spontaneous as the CIA-financed and directed "pots and pans" demonstrations of "housewives" that preceded the military coup, also CIA-sponsored, against the democratically elected regime of Salvador Allende.  About what you'd expect the upper middle class to do in the face of Socialist Revolution, if they had the benefit of CIA "advisors."

I also don't think you're going to find the same level of support for pro-American "democracy" (LOL) movements in Ukraine or Lebanon now - - they've seen the CIA puppets in action and they're no longer impressed.

The only place you're likely to see a genuinely popular uprising now is China and that's only because Chinese government has deviated a long way from basic Communist principles.

[BT]

Mikey says blah blah

Whooosh

[Amianthus]

Whooosh

Yeah.

"Look, way up there!"

 

[_JS]

Damn good article Henny.

[Plane]

"In the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuff”—their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon."

I disagree strongly with this point , nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.


To free from opression is more like it , but what about opression is needed for all of the traditions of the Arab culture?

[sirs]

"In the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuff”—their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon."

I disagree strongly with this point , nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.

Agreed.  Is it an effort by the anti-war side to push a false premise, then provide evidence to refute the false premise?  It wouldn't be the 1st time.  "That old stuff" would largely be referencing oppresive dictator rule.  Is such rule what's being consdered "traditional" by the author?  Is this how they're going about pushing the premise?

[Michael Tee]

plane:  <<I disagree strongly with this point [that "in the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuff”—their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon.""]
 nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.>>

Bah, humbug - - crap like that was all over the airwaves:  Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami all the tame "experts" you could hope to find on the Muslim mind.  Here's an article by Pipes from the website of the Sydney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725733354.html

February 11 2003
Outsiders wonder if the Security Council will endorse Washington's goal of toppling Saddam Hussein. But policy insiders assume there will be an American war and an American victory, followed by Iraq's rehabilitation.
For insiders, the main issue is the extent of US ambition in the Arabic-speaking countries after that's all done. This foreshadows the debate likely to dominate foreign policy circles for decades: what should be America's role in the world?
In the ambitious corner stands the Middle East specialist Fouad Ajami, a Lebanese immigrant and professor at Johns Hopkins University. Writing in the liberal-leaning Foreign Affairs, he comments scathingly about the reigning political culture in the Arab countries (the belligerence and self-pity in Arab life, its retreat from modernist culture, and its embrace of conspiracy theories). He sees in the vigorous exercise of US power the best chance for improvement: no great apologies ought to be made for US unilateralism. The region can live with and use that unilateralism.
Ajami wants US will and prestige to tip the scales in favour of modernity and change and calls on Washington to aim high. Beyond toppling the regime of Saddam and dismantling its weapons, Onthe driving motivation of a new US endeavour in Iraq and in neighbouring Arab lands should be modernising the Arab world.
Only a successful US military campaign in Iraq will embolden those Arabs who seek deliverance from retrogression and political decay, so he hopes the war will be fought with the promise that the US is now on the side of reform.

In the cautious corner is the strategist Andrew J. Bacevich, a retired army colonel and now professor at Boston University whose evocatively titled article "Don't Be Greedy!" appeared in the conservative National Review. Bacevich admonishes the Bush Administration to confine its attention to Iraq and not make grand plans to bring democracy to the Arabs.
He dismisses these as utterly preposterous on four grounds:
  Arabs have little affinity for democracy due to historical, cultural and religious factors. Arabs understand that freedom implies disposable marriages, sexual licence and abortion on demand as much as it does self-government and the rule of law - and they decline the package.  Efforts to inculcate democratic values will find few allies from within Arab societies, where advocates for liberal values constitute at best a small minority.
  Advocates for an ambitious program point to Germany and Japan as models, forgetting the protracted, ugly and unpopular US failures in the Philippines, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and South Vietnam. The Arab countries will more likely fit the latter pattern than the former.
  Instead of trying to bring the Arabs into ideological sympathy with the United States, the goal should be to improve their governments' behaviour. Concepts such as parliaments or women's rights may strike Saudi princes as alien. On the other hand, they have no difficulty grasping the significance of a B-2 bomber or a carrier battle group.
More broadly, Bacevich sees this approach as a proper modesty and self-restraint in US foreign policy.
Bacevich and Ajami make compelling arguments and their articles should be read in full, but this analyst sides with Ajami. Addressing Bacevich's four points:
  Japan had about as much affinity for democracy in 1945 as the Arabs do today, yet democracy took hold there.
  There is no indication that an open political system inexorably leads to higher divorce rates and the other social changes - again, look at Japan.
  A US victory in Iraq and the successful rehabilitation of that country will bring liberals out of the woodwork and generally move the region towards democracy. (Saudi leaders are leaking their plans to establish elected assemblies, something totally unprecedented in their kingdom.)
  The US cannot pass up a unique chance to remake the world's most politically fevered region. Sure, the effort might fail, but to not even try would be a missed opportunity.
The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said last week that US success in Iraq could reshape (the Middle East) in a powerful, positive way, suggesting even the Bush team's most cautious member is rightly coming around to the ambitious point of view.
Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America (W.W. Norton).
This story was found at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/10/1044725733354.html

[sirs]

plane:  <<I disagree strongly with this point [that "in the months leading up to the start of the Iraq War, it was common to hear seemingly educated people say that the Arabs, particularly Iraqis, had no way of life worth saving and would be better off if all “that old stuff”—their traditions, social institutions, and values—were done away with, and soon.""]
 nothing like this was common to hear , there really isn't a strong desire in America to convert all of the world to sameness.>>

Bah, humbug - - crap like that was all over the airwaves:  Daniel Pipes, Bernard Lewis, Fouad Ajami all the tame "experts" you could hope to find on the Muslim mind. 

Who??   

[Plane]

   I sorta missed all of the supporters of the administration being dismissive of Arab tradition or intelligence.
 
    I did notice a lot of people who were against the idea of trying to foster democracy in Iran because the people there couldn't handle it , but I don't count them as supporters of the administration policy.


    Traditions such as Islam being the first choice of religions , gold jewelry being popular , coffee being brewed in a particular way ,do not require a repressive government .


     What Arab cultural features or traditions do require a repressive government and would die in a democracy?
   

[Xavier_Onassis]

A representative democracy is not the result in a belief in one omnipotent God.
God as described in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a harsh, yet mystically fair ruler.

If you believe in one God, the political system suggested is that of a benevolent dictator, chosen based on his adherence to Islam and God's laws. Certainly Iranian government under Kholmenei is more in conformity with the Koran than anything any of Juniorbush's geniuses had planned for Iraq.


Democracy developed in the US, Switzerland, and the Netherlands because there was no single religion dominant. In Europe, people were tired after centuries of religious wars. England had a Civil War between Catholics and Protestants, and then between Cavaliers (Church of England) and Roundheads (dissenters).

The US is not a democracy because of anything Jesus or Moses said or did. Jesus seemed to be quite comfortable with the existence of slavery, so long as slaves were not overly flogged. The main reason to have a democracy in the US was pragmatic. The English are also pragmatists, as did Canada and Australia, the colonies that most resemble England and the US in culture and population.

The Koran teaches that there should be a single, just Caliph, and indicates that he should be chosen by religious leaders: NOT the people. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shia favor any sport of representative democracy. Neither does the Koran favor capitailis: like the Bible, it considers all lending of money at interest (which is central to capitalism and economic development in the US mode) to be usury and therefore sinful.

Capitalism does not function equally well in all societies. The best capitalism has done in Hispanic societies is Puerto Rico, a country where fully half the population lives part or all of their lives outside the country , in the US. Spain is a mildly Socialist nation, and is far ahead of other Hispanic nations, despite the fact that it lacks the natural resources of Mexico, Peru, Venezuela or Argentina.

The idea that all nations and societies will be at their best under a US economic and political system is simply bogus. Every society needs to reach its optimal system on its own.

Only Iraqis are qualified to decide what Iraq should have, and only Iraqis will eventually decide how this will be decided. It is folly to assume that a massive surge of US troops, no matter how many doors they bust down or Iraqis they throw in jail, will determine how Iraqis will eventually govern Iraq, once this civil war ends.

Suppose 130,000 Iraqi troops landed in the US in 1862. Can you imagine what possible beneficial effect they might have had on the outcome of the US Civil War? How is the US supposed to be helpful in sorting out Iraq's politics?

[Amianthus]

Democracy developed in the US, Switzerland, and the Netherlands because there was no single religion dominant.

So, how do you explain the democracy that has existed in Iceland for over a thousand years?