« Tony Blair: The Next Middle East Envoy?
Democrats Will Try To Cut Cheney Out Of Executive Funding (UPDATED) »
Realism and Iraq
Victor David Hanson takes on critics of the surge in his latest article for NRO:
Just as journalists, generals, and politicians rush to get into print another tell-all, I-know-the-answers book about the “disaster†in Iraq, so too in the 1990s the mini-Middle East publishing industry used to be devoted to equally furious attacks on realism, neo-isolation, and cynicism of Republicans and conservatives for an array of sins — sacrificing the Kurds and Shiites, not supporting Democratic reformers abroad, leaving Saddam in power, failing to prod Gulf sheikdoms to liberalize, cynically prodding on the Iran-Iraq war, etc.
What is lost, then, in the present pre-election hysteria and the repositioning on Iraq, is that there were never any good American choices in the Middle East. The present ones in Iraq and Afghanistan came about only from 9/11 and a general consensus that the failures of the past had led to that mass murder — and thus a new course of action was needed to replace both the liberal appeasement and conservative realism that had worked in the interest of bin Ladenism.
This is very true of course. They only strategy that has not been used yet (recently) is isolationism. The problem for the US is that it cannot just withdraw from the Middle East (too many financial interests) and that doing so would backfire as well.
Hanson goes on to write:
Our present policy, however poorly managed in postbellum Iraq, arose as a reaction both to the do-nothingism of past administrations, which, by general consensus, had emboldened al Qaeda to up its ante on 9/11, and the decades of amoral realism that propped up thugs and dictators who ruined their societies but blamed the ensuing mess on Americans and Jews.
After 9/11, we did not, as alleged, invade countries serially, but removed only two fascistic governments, the worst in the Middle East — both with a record of supporting enemies of the United States, and both of whom we had bombed or sent missiles against in the very recent past…
If both governments can be stabilized even at this late date, the landscape in the Middle East from Lebanon to the West Bank will be much improved; if not, much worse. For those who wish to give up the struggle in Iraq, go home, and stay clear of the Middle East, a final question: What would Mr. Assad in Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq, President Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Hamas and Hezbollah wish us to do — and why?
[...]
It would be nice to go back to our pre-9/11 past, just as in a bloody 1944 the calm of 1937 looked to many of the starry-eyed far preferable, just as in the midst of the nuclear stand-off of 1962 we lamented the loss of the old “friendly†Russia and China of 1945.But while our ancestors engaged in the same despair, the same blame-gaming that we so enjoy, they at least were not stupid enough to lose those far more deadly and dangerous wars. We can win like they did as well, but only if we face the future with confidence, and not pine for the return of a mythical past that never was.
Of course there is one problem: what if you believe that the war is lost in so far that Iraq will not become a stable democracy for quite some years to come (say 10)? Of course, we must than also ask what withdrawal would accomplish.
As I see it, realism is needed right now. The middle way is the best option right now. Total withdrawal will result in genocide. Leaving 150,000 troops in Iraq is impossible and will not accomplish much… The US can only hope to limit the damage.
And yes, for that, we need realists. The idealists had their chance, lets get realists in to clean up the mess.
13 Responses to “Realism and Iraq”
Certainly realism is preferable. What realism actually consists of remains an open question, however.
There are at least three, and probably more, analytic trends among realists. All of them necessitate a goodly amount of speculation about what would happen if this or that were done in the future.
In the meantime, the reality of today shifts constantly. I heard a report that there is a plan among some Iraqi leaders to oust Maliki and replace him with someone with an entirely different mechanism for choosing department heads, w.e., giving him much more executive power over the power of the various parties. If that wete to happen, everyone’s reality assessments would change.
Also, no matter how the surge ends, we will still be the unwelcome occupiers of Arab lands. We can never completely win hearts and minds in the face of that reality. The memory of Abu Graib will not fade just because we say we’re sorry.
No matter how you slice it, it’s still a lot of speculating and guessing and trying to choose the least damaging of possible results.
We still have to pick among a series of realities.
Good points Doma, and you are most certainly right. Personally, I think, as I said, that the West should adopt a “damage control” policy, which automatically means a balancing act, which automatically will mean that some will say ‘here is the limit,’ while others will say ‘no it’s here.’
That’s, in the end, what makes foreign policy matters to interesting, to me at least. It’s incredibly difficult to work out a good plan / approach. As I see it, you got to look at the situation time and again, and be willing to adjust your earlier plan to recent developments.
It’s a balancing act, that’s for sure. It’s almost impossible to work something out, but it has to be done nonetheless.
MVDG-
Do we actually agree about something? I must be dreaimng.
Given the politics and the state of the Union, a withdrawal of some sort is necessary reasobably soom.
I have always sided with a cautious step-by-step approach, with pauses and reassessments.
That sounsd about right, the question then is – a total withdrawal or partial? I say partial…
Yeah – first timer I think?
Definitely partial with a pause on the tail.
[...] Realism and IraqThe Moderate Voice – Republicans and conservatives for an array of sins sacrificing the Kurds and Shiites, not supporting Democratic reformers abroad, leaving Saddam in power, failing to prod Gulf sheikdoms to liberalize, cynically prodding on the Iran-Iraq war [...]
I assume your tone here is ironic: Victor David Hanson is one of the least realistic analysts of the entire Iraq war. I don’t know why people take him seriously, except that he offers the voice of Dick Cheney in academese.
Victor Davis Hanson was, of course, one of the biggest cheerleaders of the war in the months preceding the invasion of Iraq and launched scathing tirades against those who did not see the wisdom of launching a pre-emptive war against a third world country halfway around the world.
During the first few weeks of the war (during which time our troops managed to overthrown Hussein’s regime rather quickly and with relatively few casualties), Hanson was quick to crow about how easy Baghdad had fallen and how horribly wrong critics of the war had been in their predictions.
Yet Hanson’s own predictions haven’t exactly panned out themselves. Here are a few comments he made during the months prior to and the first few weeks of the war:
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, February 19, 2002:
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, March 28, 2003:
Victor Davis Hanson, National Review, April 14, 2003
So, Hanson was wrong about the Iraq War not inflaming the Muslim World.
He was wrong about the Iraq War not turning world opinion against America.
He was wrong about a liberated Iraq serving as a model and catalyst for Iranian reform next door.
He was wrong about expecting the Iraq War being over “soon” (unless “soon” means four a half years ).
And despite Mr. Hanson’s constant association of anti-war liberals with “appeasement”, he appears to somewhat of an appeaser himself–offering knee-jerk support and appraisal for President Bush with regards to Iraq.
But worst of all, Hanson continues to spout the big lie with regards to our involvement in the Middle East. According to him, Muslim extremists attacked us on 9/11 because 1) they hate us for our freedom, democracy, and modernity and 2) emboldenment due to inaction on the part of prior administrations. Like Rudy Giuliani, who pounced on Congressman Ron Paul during the second Republican Presidential debate for daring to suggest that our foreign interventionism in the Middle East is a large contributor to why Muslim extremists hate America, Mr. Hanson refuses to even acknowledge the concept of blowback as a major cause of Muslim hatred toward America. Consider, for example, Mr. Hanson’s explanation as to what caused the tensions between our two countries:
Predictably, Hanson cites the 1979 Revolution and taking of our embassy. And just as predictably, he fails to even mention 1953–the year in which the democractically-elected Prime Minister of Iran was overthrown following a covert operation by the CIA.
The bellicose foreign policy that Mr. Hanson has advocated these last five years is exactly what we DO NOT NEED. And it takes a special kind of arrogance for him to continue to accuse anti-war liberals of “appeasement” given how wrong he and his fellow warmongers have been with regards to the Iraq War.
Umh, where did I call Hanson a realist? He criticized the realists, I’msaying, we need to get hte realists in.
Unfortunately, it was the realists (if by that you mean the Hamiltonians) who brought us 9/11. We can’t engage the oppressive regimes in the Middle East without making enemies.
BTW, Michael, American Jacksonians are realists, too. My concern is that, unfortunately, it may be their turn next.
Is Dave Schuler saying Americans are to blame for 9/11?
Seriously, I’d like to know who the Hamiltonians who brought us 9/11 are. I’d be interested in understanding the argument behind that assertion.
I read a book called Special Providence. As I understand the arguments of that book, Jacksonians don’t have to wait their turn–they’re currently running things. I shudder to think that our next leaders could be both less realistic and more belligerent. So I’d really like to have that explained, too.
Anyone looking for realists should avoid NRO and its parent like the plague.
I don’t see any political constiuency for staying in Iraq indefinately, absorbing a low level of casualties while suicide bombing lead off the news every night for 20 years. Why do you think past adminstrations propped up dictators who kept the lid on and the oil flowing? Bush threw an idealistic hail mary on the middle east and it got knocked down.
I talk to my neighbors and they have already “checked out” of Iraq. In their minds, we gave the Iraqis a chance, they were ingrates, and now we should leave. This is in Ohio where support for the war was near 100% in 2003.
Americans are black and white thinkers. The idea that the proper policy is a gray area of leaving some troops there indefinately is not going to fly. The Republicans know this and are screaming bloody murder up on the hill. Americans want out, ALL THE WAY OUT, and if there is a bloody end in Iraq, well the Iraqis brought it upon themselves. Now THAT is realism.