On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Dan Minette wrote: > I'll agree that the main motivation is the perceived self interest of the > United States. I'd also say that was the motivation for the Marshal Plan > too. But, an argument could be made in both cases that the actions would > benefit the people of the countries where the plan is implemented.
I agree that self-interest and altruism may not be mutually exclusive, and the marshall plan is a good example of that. The problem is that, except for the personality of Hussein himself, I just don't see many parallels between post-WW2 Germany and modern Iraq, IMO. Japan was a natural and self-willed nation, so to speak. Even Germany was, after its unification. Iraq is not. Afghanistan is not. Many other nasty nations are not; their current geographical configurations don't necessarily match the historical identities of the people stuck in those configurations. The nations we're talking about building now must have it imposed on them by preemptive force, may very well be more difficult to handle as societies than Japan or Germany, and the US has, I think, a lot less will for the job than after WWII and during the Cold War. An off-the-wall question: are there any economies of scale to be had from trying to build many nations at once? > Obviously, the Marshal Plan worked. Clearly there have been other > instances where you could argue for good intentions but bad results for > actions by the United States. The jury is out on what will happen with > Iraq, and I'm not really all that sanguine about it. But, I think that the > folks who have pushed the invasion of Iraq the hardest in the Bush > administration actually do have a vision that Iraq can become a much better > place for its people after the US intervenes. Clearly they have a vision of a burgeoning democracy in Iraq. I haven't seen any signs that they have a clear vision of how to get there, though. > > Two. The way to create moral credibility on the matter is to put forward > > a detailed long-term plan explaining either (a) how Iraq will be rebuilt > > and improved after a war, or (b) why Iraq and the world will be better > >off left alone. > > Or, more importantly, if we do change the government forcibly, as it looks > like we will do, the proof will be in the pudding. A big part of what I'm trying to say is about persuading people of the goodness of the US's intentions before we go to war. Without any kind of clearly articulated post-war plan (except, "We'll imitate the Marshall plan," being voiced by veterans of administrations that have betrayed the Iraqi people in the past) how can we convince anybody that we're serious about achieving the rosy outcome that we're promising? > > > > The closest the US/UK have come to achieving the former is Bush mumbling > a > > rehashed version of manifest destiny suggesting it's America's turn to > > take up the 21st century version of the White Man's Burden. > > Why mock his view like that? The US does not have colonies. I think that > the actions and results in Japan and Europe after WWII is the ideal Bush > wants to emulate. Unless you think that human rights just exist in a > cultural context, and dictatorial rule and genocide are acceptable within > other cultural contexts and it is terribly egotistical to think that other > people think like we do and don't want totalitarian government. I'm mocking it because expressing it the way he does shows no hint of understanding that his chosen means may ultimately undermine his goal, however lofty it is in his imagination. Preemptive conquest and nation-building looks a lot like colonialism to a lot of people, especially the conquered. Even without colonies, a stated belief that it is the God-appointed destiny of the US to, over time, overthrow by various means the nasty regimes of the world smacks of the worst kind of hubris and is not calculated to gain allies for a project that must require long-term allies. Moreover, I believe it is a lie, or at best a rash exaggeration. For starters, nation-building is a lengthy process. Bush can't promise that succeeding administrations will follow through with Afghanistan or Iraq, much less that they will continue a policy of preemptive invasion and reform across the world for the many decades it would take. For this reason alone talk of a divine manifest destiny sounds like vain boasting. I'd expect it to sound especially inane to the ears of nations who used to believe they had a divinely appointed world mission and have been taught otherwise by history. Also Bush's party - and the US military in general, I think - has not been interested in nation-building of late. Afghanistan and the lack of a plan for Iraq suggest to me that we will lose interest quickly in such projects once we feel we can safely declare a victory - no doubt to be billed as one of many to come - over terror (and secure a few oil fields and military bases in the bargain). Once the domestic economy and ballooning deficits loom large in the aftermath of a military victory, I believe that a whole lot of corner-cutting will happen in any nation-building project currently underway. Plus there are all those other evildoers to take care of! Sorry Iraq, sorry Afghanistan: we can't spend a couple of decades on you -- we have to share the love! Once that loss of interest in nation-building sets in, I think the odds of creating a prosperous democracy will drop precipitously, and at best we will get a less-nasty US-tolerant despotism, just like our other Arab "allies." Our allies, erstwhile allies, and enemies will snort and say, "Ah, self-interest rules the day again!" They'll say it gladly or with anger depending on how well their own interests were served. > But, it does exist in broad outline. I know what it is, I'm just not sure > they can pull it off. Would you mind telling me, then? The best I can figure out is 1. Kill Hussein or drive him into exile. 2. Install military government while making current Iraqi exiles a local authority/advisory council (in spite of the fact that no one in Iraq wants them). 3. Get those oil wells pumping so Iraq can make a living. 4. Let the magic of America's presence rub off, allaying all doubts and fears, until a propserous and pluralistic democracy emerges. That's a very, very broad outline, IMO. > Well, I see a coherent argument on Bush's part, I just don't see the > willingness to pay the price to execute it. It seems to me that a coherent argument includes by definition a detailed plan, including a plan for paying the price of executing the plan. I think that any other nation trying to make a decision to come on board should ask for such a plan, should expect to see such a plan, before it makes a decision. Common sense, right? But that plan doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Given the sudden multiplication of possible military issues presented by TWAT, I believe in my gut that for Iraq and Afghanistan both the administration has decided that nation building may be allowed to fail in a lot of ways as long as certain military targets are met. Moreover, nobody else seems to be making suggestions, either. I haven't heard anything along the lines of, "Well, maybe a war would be OK if you agree to join us in doing x, y, and z afterwards." Which suggests to me that other nations who weep for Iraq are shedding only crocodile tears. Please bear in mind I'm pissed at Bush *along with* every other world leader in the debate. Whether it's for war or against it, I haven't seen any nation make an argument that strikes me as being both morally and practically serious at the same time. I think that Bush is morally serious in his mind but not practically serious in his planning, which will erode his moral goals and authority over time if not outright. The nations who oppose war seem to have serious, including some selfish, practical considerations in mind, but not much in the way of morally sound arguments about what *ought* to be done. Or perhaps I should say, their practical considerations too often seem to assume the nonexistence of an ongoing moral issue. > Lets assume that, via deux ex > machina, Iraq has a stable representative government that uses the oil > revenue to build a modern economy with a nice broad middle class. How does > this effect the US? My guess is that it would be of overwhelming benefit > to the US, just as a prosperous Japan and Europe are. Whether it can be > accomplished is a totally different question. My guess is no, that's why I > lean against a regime change. But, it is a difficult question. I agree, actually. But the thing is, the difficulty of the operation is obvious. It's the big pink elephant in the political room. But nobody is debating how to fix the big pink elephant. Which is why I have a hard time believing that anyone is really taking the big pink elephant very seriously. So a big question is: once the US achieves it's immediate TWAT and strategic goals in Iraq, how much attention is nation-building really going to receive? Not much, I think. UPDATE! I just caught Gautam's message suggesting that the administration does in fact have a highly secret yet highly elaborate plan. It sounds as though Tommy Franks will be MacArthur and Iraq will be the Middle East's Okinawa/Japan. If that's the case, I can understand Bush not trying to sell it, because how many nations, European and Arab, would be delighted by such a prospect? Not just a rebuilt Iraq, but Iraq as the Middle-Eastern franchise of Fortress USA(tm)? Maybe it's a good thing. If the US's long-term security and strength are tied so directly to the happiness of the Iraqi people, then maybe the nation-building will last and succeed. Or maybe the whole world will step back and say "holy shit" and never trust another US administration. Some would say that's a good thing too, I suppose: let them hate us so long as they fear us. Or maybe they'll hate us briefly and then be won over by success. But how the hell is anyone supposed to guess at the likelihood of success under the current conditions? Please bear in mind, it's not just that I don't trust Bush. It's that I can't find any reason to trust anybody in this matter, really, because nobody seems to be laying their cards on the table for how they want a long-term scenario to play out. Except that everybody, of course, is "in favor" of "peace" and security. As I think I mentioned before, I'm very conflicted about the whole thing. On the other hand to all I've said above, for instance, there's the fact that I think the US/UK alliance has been at war with Iraq since the "end" of the last Gulf war. Someday the ongoing war has got to stop. How to do so? I'm not sure. The French/Russian plan is clearly to get to some point where they can say that strict containment is no longer necessary so that they can buy oil and sell Iraq whatever weapons their reputations and consciences can bear -- not very reassuring. An unending series of reinvigorated inspections is no good either, unless it's OK to wait for Iraq to reform itself from within -- not very reassuring. I don't mean to suggest that I have the answers. I mean to suggest that the citizens of the world, including those of the US, ought to be very angry with their governments for providing a maximum of propaganda and a minimum of information. If we're all jittery and nervous (well, all who aren't born-again Bush fans) about things, it's because we're all being asked to trust people who are obviously being secretive - or deceptive - about their goals. Marvin Long Trust me! Maru Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) http://www.breakyourchains.org/john_poindexter.htm _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
