A free, unified Iraq
DAVID E. SANGER, writes in an article in the online NY Times today, September 14, 2007, that George W. Bush's goal for being in Iraq was, "a free, unified Iraq." Such a goal implies that 1) Iraq is currently not free, and 2) Iraq is not unified.
Before George Bush invaded Iraq, he could have said that Iraq was free and unified. Iraq may not have been free and unified in the way that he wanted, but it was nevertheless free and unified. Iraq was free in the sense that it was a sovereign country. It ruled itself, it determined its own foreign policy, it did what other sovereign countries do. "People" may not have liked what Iraq did, but Iraq was not the only country whose behavior "people" did not like. Some of those other countries behaved in worse ways than Iraq, yet "people" did not call for the invasion of those countries and the deposition of their rulers.
Iraq was also unified before the American invasion. It was unified under Sadam Hussein, or at least under the Baath Party and the Sunni sect. This was a condition in which a minority oppressed a minority. But this condition was never a reason on its own merits to invade another country; if it was, then the US would have invaded South Africa.
After the United States invaded Iraq and overthrew Sadam Hussein and eliminated the Baath Party, Iraq was no longer free and unified. When the Hussein government was abolished, Iraq entered a state of civil chaos and fragmentation. The Kurds effectively established their own country, and the Sunnis and Shiites both seems to have split into sect affiliated tribes who are fighting each other as much on a tribal basis as on a religious one.
The evidence that Iraq is no longer free is that the current national government was created at the direction of the Bush administration, but that it is still dictated to by the US. The US continues to impose conditions on the Iraqi government about what it should do about its oil, about what kind of laws it should make, about how its police and military should behave. Further, Americans continue to speak about "victory" in Iraq. But how can there be "victory" by a foreign government in a free and independent country? Against whom would this foreign government win a "victory"?
The idea of "winning a victory" makes the most sense from the perspective of an occupying power such as the Germans in France during World War II. Under such conditions, the Germans had to fight and win skirmishes with the French resistance. But of course, Iraq is not France. There is no government in exile around which the Iraqis are willing to unite. A parallel between the American occupation of Germany are not especially helpful in dealing with the internal politics of Germany. Vanquished Germany seems to have been relatively united as a country and culture and shared certain cultural assumptions and values with their occupiers. This cannot be said to be the case with the Americans in Iraq.
Also, the Americans in Iraq (Bremmer, et al.) seem to have done the opposite of what the Americans did in Germany and Japan in the sense of retaining much of the bureaucracy rather than engaging in purges that Bremmer carried out.
The American occupation of Germany:
To conclude the account in the middle of 1946 may appear less defensible. The occupation went on, with the Army as the executive agency for military government until 1949, and the Army continued to provide the occupation force until 1955. (Earl F. Ziemke)
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/Occ-GY/
Before George Bush invaded Iraq, he could have said that Iraq was free and unified. Iraq may not have been free and unified in the way that he wanted, but it was nevertheless free and unified. Iraq was free in the sense that it was a sovereign country. It ruled itself, it determined its own foreign policy, it did what other sovereign countries do. "People" may not have liked what Iraq did, but Iraq was not the only country whose behavior "people" did not like. Some of those other countries behaved in worse ways than Iraq, yet "people" did not call for the invasion of those countries and the deposition of their rulers.
Iraq was also unified before the American invasion. It was unified under Sadam Hussein, or at least under the Baath Party and the Sunni sect. This was a condition in which a minority oppressed a minority. But this condition was never a reason on its own merits to invade another country; if it was, then the US would have invaded South Africa.
After the United States invaded Iraq and overthrew Sadam Hussein and eliminated the Baath Party, Iraq was no longer free and unified. When the Hussein government was abolished, Iraq entered a state of civil chaos and fragmentation. The Kurds effectively established their own country, and the Sunnis and Shiites both seems to have split into sect affiliated tribes who are fighting each other as much on a tribal basis as on a religious one.
The evidence that Iraq is no longer free is that the current national government was created at the direction of the Bush administration, but that it is still dictated to by the US. The US continues to impose conditions on the Iraqi government about what it should do about its oil, about what kind of laws it should make, about how its police and military should behave. Further, Americans continue to speak about "victory" in Iraq. But how can there be "victory" by a foreign government in a free and independent country? Against whom would this foreign government win a "victory"?
The idea of "winning a victory" makes the most sense from the perspective of an occupying power such as the Germans in France during World War II. Under such conditions, the Germans had to fight and win skirmishes with the French resistance. But of course, Iraq is not France. There is no government in exile around which the Iraqis are willing to unite. A parallel between the American occupation of Germany are not especially helpful in dealing with the internal politics of Germany. Vanquished Germany seems to have been relatively united as a country and culture and shared certain cultural assumptions and values with their occupiers. This cannot be said to be the case with the Americans in Iraq.
Also, the Americans in Iraq (Bremmer, et al.) seem to have done the opposite of what the Americans did in Germany and Japan in the sense of retaining much of the bureaucracy rather than engaging in purges that Bremmer carried out.
The American occupation of Germany:
To conclude the account in the middle of 1946 may appear less defensible. The occupation went on, with the Army as the executive agency for military government until 1949, and the Army continued to provide the occupation force until 1955. (Earl F. Ziemke)
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/Occ-GY/
posted by Godel at 12:41 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home