Barry Lando’s Take on Iraq
Pieter Dorsman writes:
One of the drawbacks of the political blogosphere is that there is very little dialogue between the left and right sides, or the anti-war and pro-war camps. And if it ever happens, it isn’t all that pleasant to read. Yet, the time has come to get an exchange of ideas going and I was prompted to do so after reading Barry Lando’s Web of Deceit and noticing that it was mostly discussed on the left side of the blogosphere. That in my mind is somewhat absurd as Lando has written an instructive book – buy it here – on how Iraq’s destiny has been manipulated over the years by western powers in not exactly the most clever ways. If your background on Iraqi history is light, Lando’s book is a good primer, regardless of whether you agree with the author or not.
So, Pieter decided to “put a few thoughts forward to him and he has kindly taken the time to address them.”
I suggest you all head on over to Peaktalk to read the entire interview. The first question and answer:
Barry, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. You’ve written a very instructive book about western influence in Iraq over the past 100 years and you start out by arguing that in addition to Saddam major western players should have been standing next to him for enabling the chaos and endless bloodshed. Is this an emotional call or do you really believe that the mandate for the Iraq tribunal should have been expanded?
I realize that, unfortunately, the way the international criminal justice is currently set up, there is no court that realistically could have delivered justice for the crimes of Saddam.
If the purpose of the Iraqi Tribunal was truly to punish those responsible for the crimes against humanity committed during the reign of Saddam –as the Tribunal officially claims– that goal can never be achieved by limiting those who can be tried to Iraqi citizens and residents as the regulations of the Tribunal have done. Many observers realized there was no way that the question of guilt for Saddam’s crimes could not be fully explored by a Tribunal based in Iraq, a Tribunal that also would have no participation by international jurists. The U.S. and its Iraqi allies, however, refused to consider such options.
Certainly the mandate should have been expanded. The fact that it was not, and that the Tribunal was so limited in the issues it covered, simply demonstrate what a farce the whole process has been. It has only in a very limited way contributed to an understanding of what happened during Saddam’s reign as 90% of the story remains untold.
Another approach might have been to have a Truth Commission –as South Africa and Argentina did– to examine their dark history, apportion guilt where appropriate, though exact no punishment. More of an emotional release for the countries involved, a way of putting the past behind them. At one point such a commission might have worked in Iraq, but no longer I think.
Read more at Peaktalk.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Barry Lando’s Take on Iraq”
Lando is treading familiar territory, but it is worth bringing up yet again: The U.S. is only the latest Western power to manipulate Iraq to its own ends. Saddam should have been tried in an international venue, not by the feckless Iraqis themselves. (Although I do believe, as an otherwise harsh critic of the U.S.’s conduct, that it was with the best of intentions it put the Iraqis in charge of his fate.)
Unfortunately, this is merely incidental history to most people now but will loom large when this bloody era is at last over and we can truly take stock of what George Bush wrought.
More relevant to where we are now is the notion of getting left and right talking to each other.
I was going in that direction, albeit without much subtlety, in my post yesterday — A Corner Is Turned (No Not That One) — encouraging the people who had argued the war could be won but have recently been silent to find their voices and explain why they are no longer so arguing.
The response was underwhelming.
Once again everyone here is missing the entire point of this fruitless exercise.
We are attributing to the Iraqis….Western Values. That they somehow want a civilized commission to peacefully and intellectually look into the misdeeds and representations of what has transpired in their past.
That they will politely and with remarkable “Western” Civilized restraint seek out and apprehend those in the wrong and put them on trial where they most certainly will receive fair “Due Process” without prejudice.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who criticize Bush and Company for failing to understand the enemy then turn right around and embark on the same mindset when seeking their “version” of what events should transpire in Iraq or the Middle East based upon inappropriate “Western” values.
Western Values demand JUSTICE. Eastern Values Demand REVENGE. Every day they are getting their revenge. Until the cleansing is done there will be no peace.
Until the West changes its mindset and looks at the Middle East with a Middle Eastern Perspective we will continue to have the screams of anguish coming from the bleeding heart liberals who are aghast at the treatment they inflict on each other and work furiously to blame it on something or somebody so that they can compartmentalize and work up talking points for their middle eastern philosophy.
I would only recommend that the liberals change their talking points about the Middle East to reflect what is really going on there. Not because of a philosophy that says:
“Well if the Republicans believe X then we MUST beleive Y. Etch it in stone Fred.”
Done. Now lets have a beer and chant X for the rest of eternity.
Based on my discussions with a Middle Eastern expert (he is an American who lives and works in a high quasi-government position in a Gulf State), this is accurate to a point but missing a huge piece.
First, a minor quibble — calling it “eastern values” implies that you are describing pretty much everything in Asia, including Confucianism and Taoism. I don’t think that would be at all accurate. A better term might be “Arab culture”.
Second, while you are correct to note the large role for “revenge”, you overlook the alternative of compensation. Giving of money or property to compensate for a perceived grievance is a common way to resolve conflicts in Arab culture.
This opens up some possible approaches other than the classic “they like to kill each other” orientalism that tends to dominate some of the discourse about alternatives in Iraq.
Recognition of those overlooked alternatives may be the only way to bridge the domestic divide over Iraq too. A recent spate of posts has shown authors claiming to want to promote a renewal of debate about Iraq that has collapsed in acrimony and recrimination. It remains to be seen which, if any, of these authors are sincere and which are just trying to “play gotcha”. But surely the key sign will be how they react to those few who step forward with something different than what has been said over and over again before,
Jason: it’s also interesting to note that they create a spiral of revenge. Shia take revenge on the Sunnis for the years under Saddam, the Sunnis take revenge for the revenge of the Shia, etc. This means that ‘the cleansing’ knows no end.
Compensation: very true. The question: what compensation will be suffice?
Seems to me that the issue of oil revenue sharing is the critical political step towards reducing the level of violence.
Michael/Jason,
Interesting report from Michael Yon today.
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/be-not-afraid.htm
Sounds like there should be more on this Battle of Balquba (sp?) by this evening’s news cycle.
Mvdg You must have over did the birthday celebration, your first link is to TMV. Here is the links to both blogs:
Pieter Dorsma’s Blog
Barry Lando Blog
If anyone is interested, the columnist Pepe Escobar at Asia Times Online reported for Iraq from outside the emerald City. His perspective is 180 degrees from Steven Vincents In the Red Zone. Here is the links to Pepe Escobar:
Pepe Escobar
Asia Times S Vincent
Meanwhile, the always thoughtful Dave Schuler has this to say over at The Glittering Eye.