What should Iraq mean?

[CDarwin]

Now this is a debate we're probably having about 20 years too soon, as we don't know what's finally going to become of Iraq, nor can the indications we've seen so far tell us much definitively. As far as I can tell, and I'm limited not only by how little anyone can know but also by the fact that I know much less still, Iraq stands the best chance of all of them of shaping up into something like Lebanon with a stronger economy. But this is an inevitable debate, because it has immediate ramifications to US policy in the now. So, what should the Iraq experience mean to us?

 

Should we take away from Iraq a general condemnation of interventionism principally in the name of nation-building? Should we simply take away practical lessons of how not to run a nation-building project? Was the Iraq project doomed to failure by the beginning, was it an arrogant expression of American imperial idealism, or was it simply botched in execution?

 

I'm really just asking. I'm not going to try to offer an opinion here because I really don't think I can offer one. So, don't jump on me, Pangloss. I can understand elements of both approaches to what's happened in Iraq. It was a little arrogant to think that the great, noble United States can waltz into any nation it wants, knock down its autocratic government, and bequeath it the glorious gift of liberal democracy like handing down a potted petunia. But on the other hand, you can definitely point to specific actions that were taken in the course of nation-building (disbanding the army, privatizing state industries, de-Baatification) that if not taken or handled differently could very plausibly had led to a different outcome for the country. And of course things are calming down, at least, now, broadly in response to constructive shifts in US policy.

 

But I always talk to much when I don't have anything to say. So what do you think?

[Pangloss]

Well, in terms of what I hope it ultimately means, my hope for Iraq is that they become a firmly-entrenched example of democracy in the region, showing backwards, religiously-repressed people what a bright future they have if they shuck off the bonds of their repression. I also hope they may ultimately teach US a thing or two about democracy and its value. It's a foregone conclusion that the next couple generations of Iraqis will know the price of freedom better than most Americans do.

 

Beyond that, I hope that my children or grandchildren will be able to explore the ruins of ancient Babylon and Mesopotamia, the very cradle of civilization, alongside their Muslim friends, without fear of attack. What a powerful thing that would be.

[CDarwin]

That wasn't quite my meaning. I meant what should Iraq mean to future US policy.

[ParanoiA]

Well, hopefully we move to a more non-interventionist policy since most of the "mistakes" in Iraq are fairly inevitable. Technology and skill cannot yet provide for mistake free, smooth running war with no consequences and no innocent blood. The best fought war with the best decisions still leaves a mess of things and people to blame.

 

More importantly it would be nice to learn from congress's disaffection to responsibility for the war with their war powers resolutions - it would be nice to make them declare war, as was originally intended, and be answerable for their decisions from that point on.

 

And lastly, I hope we learned something about how damn expensive wars are to wage, even with our techno wonder armed forces. We have this great, bad ass military and we can't make it do anything without spending so much money we jeopardize the economic integrity of the nation.

[Sisyphus]

I think that, for a little while at least (maybe a generation), we'll be generally less arrogant in our foreign policy, and rhetoric extolling worldwide democracy at gunpoint won't get much traction with the American people. I think we've lost the taste for nation-building, and are much more open to pragmatic diplomacy and compromise. There are still, and will always be, those who call any such things "appeasement," but I think more of us have a more realistic notion of what that word actually means. I think we may also have learned a bit about over-reacting, since the war never could have happened if we weren't all still in shock over 9/11, and most people seem to realize that. And I think all of this will still be the case even if Iraq magically becomes a successful, stable, self-sufficient, liberally democratic state tomorrow.

 

I also agree with both Pangloss and ParanoiA, though I'm less optimistic than either.

[PhDP]

You would think that the Iraq war would show Americans that, even when it comes to the war against 'Evil', you CAN be too aggressive. Attacking foreign countries, unilaterally and with no good reasons; that's just stupid. It's such a great gift to terrorists. The cost/benefit analysis on the War on Terror is just horrible, how many lives, how many $$$, and in the end, for what ?

 

Probably no results at all, and the problem is probably even bigger now. At the very least we can say this war has damaged the reputation of the U.S, reduced its influence in the world, embolden Iran, and Mr. Murdoch; we're far from the '$20 a barrel for oil' you promised us.

 

Yet, and this is the surprising part; McCain is still considered stronger when it comes to security issues, so I guess very little will change, at least for now. Still, I think (hope) that in the end this war will serve as an example against proponents of aggressive foreign policies vs. the proponents of more diplomatic approaches. I don't see this as an example against interventionism at large, after all, the most interventionists (that is; democrats) were generally opposed to this war.

 

BTW, I actually think that what will happen in Iraq in the near future is largely irrelevant to this question. After all, the U.S. have not invaded Iraq because of some humanitarian concern, they did this to fight terrorism.

[Pangloss]

You would think that the Iraq war would show Americans that, even when it comes to the war against 'Evil', you CAN be too aggressive.

 

An interesting point, and well put.

[bascule]

Iraq is a terrible mistake that we can hopefully learn a number of lessons from, the first and foremost of which should be that the US shouldn't engage in preemptive warfare, even in the face of allegations of WMDs, because there are dire consequences for being wrong as well which we shouldn't simply ignore out of fear.

[Pangloss]

Never?

 

Obama would disagree with you, you know.

[bascule]

Never?

 

Never, especially in the case of WMDs.

 

Obama would disagree with you, you know.

 

So? I guess that makes Obama more conservative than me *guffaw*