Yes, the consequences of American failure in Iraq will be devastating - to Iraq, to the Gulf region and perhaps even to the West. Okay, so what?
Late last year, Vanity Fair ran an article on the Iraq debacle featuring all the leading neo-cons. To a man they insisted their ideas were good, it was the execution of them that was bad. What a load of hooey.
Just how good were their ideas? For starters, their grand scheme simply ignored the reality of Iraq and its smoldering sectarian tensions. The neo-con wizards had the same opportunity the rest of us had to watch the disintegration of another hobbled-together country held intact only by strongman rule - Yugoslavia. It was obvious that it was the strongman who served as the cork that kept the genie of sectarian mayhem safely inside the bottle of the state. Why would Iraq without Saddam be any better?
They thought that a government of exiles could be tossed into place to rule Iraq in serene democracy. How could they be so stupid as to think that? For starters, the Kurdish north was already in a de facto state of autonomy and, in the Arab south, Iraq would have to go through a transition from Sunni rule to governance by the Iran-leaning, Shia majority. These were seismic-level changes.
They thought that the Bush/Cheney administration had the "right stuff" to pull this one off. Just what in Bush's extensive background of mediocrity and failure convinced them that he had the wisdom and vision to finesse this extraordinarily challenging and delicate task? What did they see in Cheney's rich history of cynical manipulation that warranted their confidence?
What made them believe that American-style democracy could be imposed on a distant and troubled state that shared no common history, language, religion or culture with the US, a people that had never known democracy?
Bush surely deserves a swill bucketful of blame but the neo-cons who put him up to this were flat out idiots, willingly blinded by their radical ideology. Yes, American failure in Iraq will have disastrous consequences for the region and the world for many years to come but both the inevitable failure of their grand scheme and the consequences that would flow from it were all too obvious before this adventure even began.
7 comments:
I think to say that the neocons thought Iraq would quickly become a "serene democracy" is a bit far-fetched. Guys like Bill Kristol all knew that Iraq would be a hard slog -- the question is can they still win?
What seperates neoconservatives from traditional conservatives is the fact that neoconservatives think that Iraq could still turn out alright if we keep up the fight
I think, in describing neocons, optimists would be a better term to use than idiots.
Call them optimists if you like but it was blind optimism at best fueled by a hegemonic ideology and that, in my view, adds up to idiocy. They were optimists in the sense of someone who dons a blindfold and strolls across the 401 at rush hour.
You should also recall that the neo-cons did, indeed, claim that the conquest would go smoothly with Iraqis dancing in the streets and throwing candy at the US soldiers. That is one of the reasons the US went in with a force completely unsuitable and unprepared for occupation duties. Remember Rummie saying they would be in Iraq for "six weeks, maybe six months" at the maximum? Sorry Taylor, you're wrong on that one.
Sorry Taylor but you're wrong on that one. The neo-cons boasted that US troops would be welcomed as liberators and there would be dancing in the streets. Rummie even predicted that his forces would be in Iraq for "six weeks, maybe six months" at the outside. That's why they went in with a force that was unprepared and unsuited for occupation. No one was expcting a "hard slog" until it all went sideways.
If there is blame, it was the so-called Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremner that made a hash of it. Knowing this institution lacked sovereignty, it made a complete hash job of creating the so-called democracy. In fact, some neo-cons abandoned the bush administration over this
Of course, the neo-con will believe that nation building in Iraq is not the job of the US. Iraq should be step 1 and the US needs to concentrate all its efforts into changing the regime in Iran and Syria. For them, instability in the Middle East is desirable as long as US and Israel interests are manifested.
Sorry Shroom but I think you're overreaching here. Bremer was just one cog in a whole gear case of failure in this one. The whole business was wrong - because it was driven by deceit. Going after Iran and Syria? With what? You might get away with a few airstikes but you would drive two populations sitting on a fence into the arms of America's targets. America has no remaining military options, accept it. Going after Iran would turn Iraq into a grotesque hornet's nest for the US soldiers there on the ground. Do you really believe a national uprising couldn't kill thousands of American soldiers? They wouldn't be impeaching Bush, they'd be storming the Bastille. There's too much water under that bridge Shroom, far too much. The last thing anyone needs now is more fantasy about kicking ass in the Middle East. It's over.
Post a Comment