Reality Check
July 12th, 2007 by Michael van der Galien
Yesterday, I published a post in which I criticize Thomas Friedman’s latest column in the New York Times. In it, Friedman argues that there are only two options remaining: all in or all out. He ignores the fact that the world will blame the US for what happens. He ignores the fact that the US will appear weak. He ignores the fact that no country will fear American power as much as it once did. So - I criticized Friedman for not taking the blowback into account. When I did, American readers responded, both here and at my own blog, by saying, basically: “how long do you want us to stay, we cannot solve this,” and “the anti-Americanism will go away after a few years,” etc.
So - I thought, let me talk with some Dutch people about this. I asked 8 people: only one of them supported the war in Iraq, the other opposed it from the get-go. I asked them what they thought would happen in Iraq when the US withdraws. The unanimous answer: genocide. Who, I asked, would you blame? America or Iraq? The answer: America. So, I also asked them what they thought Arabs, Muslims and everyone else would think of it. The, again, unanimous answer: everybody will blame America, and it will greatly hurt America’s image.
Now - eight people is not exactly a representative poll, but I want to make something clear to all of you: I strongly believe that this is how most people will look at it. Mass genocide will be blamed on the US. Why? If the US would not have attacked, Iraq would still be stable. Yes, Saddam would still be in power, but most people do not look at that (besides, they will also argue that life under Saddam was probably not worse that it is today) - most people simply look at the result.
Now, many Americans argue “we have to bring our troops home: they should not die in a far away country, if we cannot win / bring stability any time soon.” To Americans, this sounds logical. To 5.5 billion other people, this sounds extremely egotistical. The other citizens of the world say “3500?? are you kidding me? Tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, and if you withdraw prematurely, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions more will die, and you complain about 3500??? You started this war in the first place.”
I realize that the way I choose to word this might anger quite some Americans and I thought about bringing it across less bluntly, but I am not a politician: I am a blogger. And I am simply trying to explain something important to you all (the majority of whom are Americans). To those living in the other countries I ask this: don’t you agree with this post? If you look around and ask other people, isn’t what I wrote the answer the far majority gives? Yes it is harsh, but 300,000 Iraqis killed (quite a random ‘in between’ number) is quite harsh as well.
Another commenter asked (paraphrasing): how long would you want us to stay? 10 years, 20 years?
The answer of the world: as long as it takes. Again: you are responsible.
He also said why don’t you all send more troops? Two things:
- America did not want international organizations involved when the war started. Now, still, they do not want many countries involved, and if they do, they only want it because Americans are dying and it’s better for domestic purposes that foreign soldiers die (again, I’m not a politician)
- You started this war. What gives you the right to tell the world that it should send soldiers just because your refused to send enough / stay as long as it takes / work with other countries?
Please understand, I am not trying to anger all of you as much as I possibly can - I am trying to make you understand how the world perceives this debate in America.
When you talk about what the US should do, you have to take this post into account. Another commenter argued that the blowback would be only temporary. It would ‘fade away’ within a couple of years time. Right. Reality check: as one of the Dutch people I asked about that comment said, “That’s ridiculous. It will increase hatred for America for generations to come.” Again, this is basically what I am saying about this as well: it will not ‘fade away.’ The world - especially Arab peoples - will make it part of its collective memory and it will be used against the US for decades, possibly even longer. When talking about the Mideast, do not forget that they have quite a different culture than we in the West have. Holding grudges is something Arab peoples are quite good at. And this time, for quite a good reason.
My American friends, you must look at how the world will perceive an early withdrawal and a possible genocide. Take it into account. And then ask yourself: is it worth the risk? I am not saying that everyone should conclude “no, it is not worth the risk. We should stay with, say, 75,000 troops.” I am saying, however, that you should be able to deal with this, that you should take this into account. Too many Americans seem to live in some kind of bubble, shielded from the world. Too many Americans seem to have no idea how the world operates, how the world thinks. Take it into account and then come up with a plan.
But one thing should be very clear: total withdrawal will not ‘restore america’s image’ or show that America is quite moral etc. No, it will cause great, great damage.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 12th, 2007 at 1:50 am and is filed under As Yet Unassigned. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:32 am
I didn’t participate in the other thread, since I was extremely busy at the time, but I’ll add my two EuroCents in here.
As a Spanish-American hybrid who thinks she knows the general feeling of Spaniards pretty well I must coincide completely with Michael. You can argue about whether it’s fair for the US to be blamed, you can argue whether avoiding such blame is A- possible and B- worth the sacrifice in lives/economy, but you can’t really argue that it won’t happen. It will, absolutely. You are ALREADY blamed for the mess in Iraq, OF COURSE you will be blamed if it gets worse once you leave.
American exceptionalism is at work here. Please remember that ONLY the US automatically thinks the US is the good guys. You start with that assumption, and your conclusions are influenced by it. The rest of the world (except, maybe, Israel) does not automatically start with the US being the good guys, and a good deal of it (most especially in the Middle East) begin thought with exactly the opposite assumption. Again, you can argue about whether this is fair, but not that it isn’t real.
Think of it this way. Another country, say Japan starts a war with North Korea. They said the threat of an attack was imminent and implied Kim had ties to the nerve-gas attacks on their subways. They totally ignore calls from the rest of the world (including the US) to wait, that the evidence is not that clear, and invade anyway. Fast forward 5 years and the whole thing is a mess. Chaos reigns in North Korea as Japanese troops and what is left of their allies (most of whom have already left) struggle to maintain even a modicum of order. The North Korean “government” is fairly useless, as the elimination of Kim Jong Il from power (and subsequent trial and embarrassing public execution) has created a succession war of power amongst strongmen of a country that has very little in the way of democratic process, and whose stability depended exclusively on the iron grip of it’s dictator. People are hungry and blame the Japanese troops for eliminating what little stability they had, and alternate fighting them with fighting other factions for control of terrain and precious food. Japan has sustained many victims, but still 100 times fewer than the North Koreans, and decides that they’ve had it, they’re leaving. Having lost their previous taste for war they leave, and what little order was left in North Korea disappears, together with the steady supply of food that was all keeping many displaced North Koreans alive. The country plunges into all out civil war and famine and the world (including the US) condemns Japan for skirting it’s responsibility to the North Koreans after destroying their country. Koreans, of course, will hate the Japanese for generations to come, and other Asian nations close to Korea take note of the situation as well.
Does it sound like a wild fantasy to you? Do you honestly think it would be wrong to condemn Japan in those circumstances? The US is given special consideration and understanding ONLY by the US. To the rest of the world you are not special, you are not the Boss, you are another country, albeit a very powerful one with a tendency to get in trouble.
Mind you, I don’t see any good way out of this situation. I don’t think staying is going to help much unless some radical genius change takes place. With the current strategy all you are doing is putting off the inevitable (more) massive bloodbath. I wish I knew a way to avoid it, but I really don’t. Whenever the US leaves, now or in 10 years, if there is massive loss of life, they will be blamed. They started the mess, it’s only natural that they get blamed for how it ends, even if there is no way they could have possibly avoided it once the invasion and chaos had set in. In that case the only option is to leave and suck it in, put diplomatic relations into overdrive and hope against hope that the blame blows over quickly. It might in the West, but I fear that the consequences of this in the Middle East will be felt for decades to come.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:50 am
Michael - The world thinks America’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I think you and most Americans now agree with that assessment. Our diminished image in the world is a direct result of that MISTAKE.
Most Americans believe in American Exceptionalism and so does much of the rest of the world, even though they might not like it. However, even Exceptionalism has it’s limits. It simply may not be within our power to “fix” Iraq. The problem may be too big and too far gone for even the US with it’s vast resources to fix.
Does America deserve the blame for the Iraq fiasco? Yes. and the blame extends beyond Bush, Cheney and this administration to just about all republicans and democrats and independents who passively sat by and let this happen. Looking at the last 5-6 years of our efforts in both Iraq and Afganistan I do not believe we will get either country back to what the world would consider an acceptable level.
What concrete evidence does anyone have of our ability to accomplish that task? Neither Europe or Japan after WWII is comparable to Iraq. In the former situation the peoples themselves were united in the effort to rebuild. US money was the catalyst but the primary effort was made by the people themselves. Iraq is different. Until the Sunni, Shites and Kurds have their fight over land, resources and power - no amount of US “fixing” will permanently take. In Afganistan until the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks sort out their power relationships stability will not return.
In a nutshell, the US is condemed by most of the world for Iraq. That poor image will not go away or be appreciably be diminished for a generation or more. We screwed up and we have to pay the consequences. We must admit our error, ask for forgiveness and in the future try to be a better servant to the world and it’s peoples. We will have a poor image whether we leave or stay.
I think it is the height of hubris and arrorgance for America to think it can solve any problem, anywhere. It’s simply not true. Yes we broke Iraq, but we CANNOT fix it. Iraq will be what Iraq will be and that is what it’s people decide - not us.
The momentum politically is toward a full scale civil war that will probably turn into a regional sectarian war. Our troops and money can only postpone this inevitability, not prevent it. Perhaps our redemption will have to wait until after this occurs when we can come in to an environment of an exhausted people, receptive to progress like Japan and Germany.
We have been in Iraq and Afganistan for more than half a decade. If you look at the situation in both countries 3-6 months after the invasion was complete, the people were in FAR better shape than they are today. We have tried hard and poured blood and treasure into both countries but also watched everything deteriorate.
We are not G-d who can fix anything. The US is human with all our frailties and limitations. We screwed up and the World is our Judge. Admit our mistake, ask forgiveness and maybe the Judge will give us a lighter sentance.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:02 am
[…] a way, this is related to the post I published earlier today about how the world will perceive a withdrawal from Iraq that will result in genocide. American […]
July 12th, 2007 at 5:31 am
I mostly agree with jdeldell, but would add America should get out of the business of regime change and forget about spreading democracy in the ME, since we are not able to predict nor prepared to face the unintended consequences of our actions. Our misadventures in Vietnam should have taught us that building up and supporting a puppet government is nearly impossible.
Wapo has an article on the front page, detailing how Adm Hayden at the CIA predicted that the failure of the Iraqi government was inevitable back when the ISG report was issued. He might as well have come out and said that the surge had no chance to succeed, because that seems tohave been his real meaning.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:33 am
[…] a way, this is related to the post I published earlier today about how the world will perceive a withdrawal from Iraq that will result in genocide. American […]
July 12th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Austin bay offers a quick but interesting take on 7 possible scenarios if the US pulls out of Iraq:
Quick US Exit From Iraq: Seven Scenarios
July 12th, 2007 at 6:24 am
Here’s one fACT no one should ignore.
The USA invaded Iraq without considerding the consequences. The public backed the invasion based on EMOTION, not reason.
The worst thing it could do now is to end the invasion the same way - based on emotion..
Neither this post, nor yesterday’s, nor any commenters supporting your view have presented an analysis of what the consequences of NOT withdrawing might be based on REASON.
As I said yesterday,the FACT is that the US will be blamed, no matter what happens, no matter what we do. World blame is just not a valid argument, no matter what decision one favors.
The possible consequences of withdrawal have now been laid out in vivid, emotion-laden detail. To make decisions, though, we need to put away our tear-stained hankies, and assess the consequences of not withdrawing, but staying indefinitely.
1. What are the possible challenges arising in the region while we stay re Iran, Syria, the Saudis, etc.
2. What will be our mission if new conflicts arise (Kurds-Turkey, etc.)
3. How will this affect our ability to deal with other international crises
4. How will we maintain and support the forces necessary (costs include equipment and MEDICAL care)
5. How will this affect civilian life, in view of an already fed-up and fractious public
…And that’s just for starters….
PS. I also took an informal poll of my friends and family. 100% of them said that since the US has been emotionally traumatized and emotionally manipulated ever since 9/11, it is extremely important to let rational assessments lead now.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:27 am
All this talk of emotion, US domestic politics, and how the US will be perceived miss the most important factor of all - or at least what should be the most important factor: What course of action will best serve the strategic interests of the United States and it’s allies?
Absent from almost every one of these internet debates, and shockingly absent from congressional debates is the fundamental question of what America’s foreign policy interest is, how it is best served and what course of action would be best for that policy. What worries me most is that our political elite and the next President will compound the gross errors of the Bush administration by founding a policy based on something other than American strategic interests. Sadly, that looks like the road we’re on now and historically, it could be a recipe for disaster.
Another, better, argument on the subject.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:35 am
LMAO - John… no the world doesn’t think that at all. The world thinks that America is arrogant and that it is this arrogance that destroyed Iraq.
Lynx: exactly. Fascinating to see that the two people living in Europe agree but that Americans think they know better.
Entrope: no not at all - do you think it is in America’s strategic interest to have the world hate her, to have many more terrorists, to have chaos in the Mideast, etc.?
July 12th, 2007 at 7:55 am
Domajot - Why don’t you start with a rational expanation of what we can do to avoid all the bad consequences of withdrawing. So tell us - how many troops will stay, for how long and what will their mission and tactics be? How much money is it going to cost us?
We are in our 5th year and we have the best minds in our think tanks and pundit class who from what I have read don’t have a clue how to RATIONALLY solve the problems in Iraq. If someone comes up with a logical plan with dates, milestones and implementation tactics, I will sign on wholeheartedly.
Domajot - have you seen a rational plan anywhere? I am of the opinion that Iraq is beyond our ability to fix. If we stay and try to muddle through all we are doing is wasting blood and treasure without making things better. I would like it to be otherwise but nothing I have seen gives me any confidence in our abilities. If we leave the terrible consequences will emerge. but once that is over, stability will, I believe, return to Iraq as it finds it’s natural equilibrium. That equalibrium may involve 3 countries, one country or confederation with outside countries or some other permutation that is unknown at this time.
Remember, the US is not G-d. We cannot fix everything. We are strong but not omnipotent. Iraq, I believe, is a task beyond our grasp.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:00 am
[…] a way, this is related to the post I published earlier today about how the world will perceive a withdrawal from Iraq that will result in genocide. American […]
July 12th, 2007 at 8:01 am
John, that might be true - but please, this is directed towards every Americans, take into account how the world will perceive this and what the blowback will be. This is serious stuff. It should not be taken lightly.
My point is not to make yoou all agree with me on Iraq, it merely to make you all think about something that’s being ignored.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:05 am
That depends. Europe “hated” us for bombing Libya in the 1980’s too among many, many things we did. The US cannot base its foreign policy solely on what the rest of the world thinks, though obviously it should be a factor. As others have said, the US will be hated no matter what it does at this point.
It’s American blood and treasure being expending in Iraq, not European with very few exceptions. American exceptionalism is certainly a problem, but perhaps Europe should look at the stick in it’s own eye and examine it’s own exceptionalist tendencies and arrogance.
Ultimately, what happens in Iraq is a decision for the US to make and my point is that it should be made based primarily on solid and identifiable US interests. I might agree with many of the strategies put out by the political left in America if their strategic reasoning wasn’t completely divorced from American interests. They haven’t even gone so far to identify American interests in the region that need preserving and defending - instead their strategy is largely justified because it is different from Bush’s or appeals to their anti-war base. An abrupt departure or more of a middle plan (like the abortive attempt with the supplementals recently) may be valid options, but their proponents argue for them not in terms of American interests, but in terms of satisfying domestic political politics.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:13 am
“LMAO - John… no the world doesn’t think that at all. The world thinks that America is arrogant and that it is this arrogance that destroyed Iraq.”
Michael - For almost 30 years I lived in countries outside of the United States being in charge of International operations. I’ve lived in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, Israel, Italy, Belgium. England, Argentina, Brazil with shorter stays in about a dozen other countries.
When I talk about American exceptionalism as viewed by many it is our economic vitality, entrpreneurship, our cultural attributes etc. I also speak of the last 30 years attitudes towards America, not JUST during the Bush/Iraq era. So being only 23 years old, perhaps you were too young to know attitudes pre-Bush. LMAO back at you!!!!!!!!
PS - rather than make snippy comments why don’t you repond to specific points like exactly how the US is suppossed to “fix” Iraq.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:21 am
MvdG, there were very few of us, American’s at least, in 2002-2003 who said an Iraq war would be a mistake. I don’t know what “the world” thought but support seemed tepid in the “coalition of the willing”. I also take no pleasure in seeing my fears realized, but your own statements already tell us that the world is going to blame us for Iraq no matter what. So why take it into account?
The problem is Michael, and you just brushed over it, that we can’t sustain these troop levels indefinably. Yes, I’ll admit, we-started-this-war with only a small minority (you know, the “Surrender Monkeys”) who opposed it. This Administration’s hubris and poor planning got us into this mess, but do you trust it to get us on a path to redemption? I certainly don’t, nor the next administration whomever that will be.
Secondly, Iraq can not be stabilized by a military force alone. There MUST be a political component to any sustainable stability in Iraq. The Iraqi’s have no desire to get along with each other and seem to want a all-out civil war. How do you propose we get the three factions to work together instead of killing each other?
Democracy doesn’t come pre-packaged:
GTL Article
July 12th, 2007 at 8:45 am
jdledell-
But I agree with you.
I don’t think the US can fix Iraq.
We can only apply an assortment of band-aids, here and there.
The surge is the current band aid, and I would like to wait to see if it sticks.
But eventually, we have to admit we can’t do whaat we can’t do.
Eventually, we have to pay some attention to holding our own society together.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
[…] I decided to publish a post today called “Reality Check.” You can read that post here. From it: I thought, let me talk with some Dutch people about this. I asked 8 people: only one of […]
July 12th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
do you think it is in America’s strategic interest to have the world hate her, to have many more terrorists, to have chaos in the Mideast, etc.?
No, no, and no, but Michael, the point that you are not getting here is that the world already hates America because we invaded and occupied Iraq, and because of everything we did related to that: demonizing Muslims, legalizing torture, detaining people arbitrarily with no evidence and keeping them in prison camps indefinitely, abolishing habeas corpus, setting up a gulag of secret prisons in Eastern Europe, beating, torturing, and sexually humiliating Iraqis at Abu Ghraib, forcing our way into Iraqi homes like storm troopers, screaming at and terrorizing the people living there, pulling out drawers and throwing their possessions all over the place, and really the list goes on and on and on and on.
The world already has many more terrorists because of the Iraq war; and chaos in the Middle East is a reality NOW because of the Iraq war. It doesn’t matter what we do at this point as far as world opinion goes, because all the choices are horrible, and there is no choice that will make things better and get the world to like us again.
I’m also more than a little puzzled as to why world opinion is so very, very important to war supporters now, when it was completely irrelevant and of no concern whatsoever in the lead-up to the war.
July 13th, 2007 at 12:31 am
[…] - right; Lorie Byrd (Wizbang) - right; Robert Bluey (Bluey Blog) - right; Michael van der Galien (The Moderate Voice) - centrist; Pamela Leavey (The Democratic Daily) - […]
July 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
It doesn’t sound like a wild fantasy to me, yet I don’t think I could condemn Japan for this. The reason why is that you are asking Japan to risk its national existence in exchange for preventing its attacker from possibly dissolving into chaos.
Chaos is the morally preferable outcome to genocide. The pre-20th century European tradition of warfare was different, I know - the conqueror would be held responsible, if only because the conquered territory was a future source of tax revenues - but I think the four-year chaos of postwar Germany was far preferable to the warfare of 39-45. If the French had had the balls to attack Germany in ‘35, that would have been even better - the generals wrote they would have removed Hitler (destroying the democratically-installed Nazi government) and instituted military rule instead. Germany is proof that democracies don’t always work right the first (Bismark) or second (Weimar) time.
The truly interesting result of the survey is that these Dutch want the U.S. to withdraw even though they are convinced genocide will be the result. What, exactly, are they afraid will happen if the U.S. remains?
July 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
he point that you are not getting here is that the world already hates America because we invaded and occupied Iraq
Gee, do you think that’s what motivated Al-Qaeda to destroy the World Trade Center in 2001, before these things ever happened? No, there is a sizable percentage of the world that hates America because of what America is, not because of what it does - people who are willing to act violently on that hatred.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
[…] a way, this is related to the post I published earlier today about how the world will perceive a withdrawal from Iraq that will result in genocide. American […]