Monday, April 12, 2004
In the handbasket (part 2)
What news is escaping from Iraq these days is mostly coming through blogs. Not mine, of course, but those of Iraqis on the scene, or others with exclusive quotes from coalition soldiers and other foreign nationals on the scene. They paint a horrifying picture that simply makes me feel like we're in over our heads.
A few days ago, a friend of mine named Ryan posted a comment to the board, which any readers I have surely missed (since it is, after all, the only comment on the whole board). Here's a juicy bit:
I think Ryan is spot on in assessing Blair's motives (he went to war on the assumption that Bush would fight the war alone if he had too, and that someone should keep tabs on Bush so he didn't do anything really crazy). And we will see over the next few weeks whether Blair has gotten anything for his gamble; I suspect he has gotten very little leverage.
But I find myself doubting whether it would have helped at all if other powers had followed suit. First, unless they were contributing a lot of troops, it is hard to see if they would have any leverage at all. Second, at the time, France, Germany, et al had the example of Afghanistan, where their offers of military aid and alliance on the ground were rudely rebuffed. During the 2002-3 debate over the Iraq war, I suspected (and I think these governments suspected as well) that Bush wanted permission slips, not partners. He wanted to be able to say to war critics that everyone in the world supported the war. But neither he nor Rummy wanted a bunch of foreign generals involved. And he wasn't willing to pay much for permission, so the amount of leverage it would buy seems ex ante very small.
I think Ryan and I agree that it would be great if we had a broad coalition, including Arab forces, on the ground in Iraq. Where we disagree is whether the DoD would have allow this no matter what Europe said or did in 2002-3.
A few days ago, a friend of mine named Ryan posted a comment to the board, which any readers I have surely missed (since it is, after all, the only comment on the whole board). Here's a juicy bit:
consider Europe largely at fault for the way things are going now. If the Europeans had taken the Tony Blair (God bless him) strategy of "we can't stop Bush, so we might as well deflect him," they could have co-opted the war. Then it would have been all about liberation, and with European and hence UN support, things would be going vastly better. With European and UN support, Islamic and Arab support would have followed--Fallujah might be occupied by Indonesian troops right now, and cries of "jihad" by xenophobic Islamic fundamentalists would fall on deaf ears.
But the European left would rather see our idiot cowboy president embarrassed than think about what's good for the world beyond their borders. A failure in Iraq is very bad for Iraqis and rather bad for America, while a success is bad for no one but the unfortunate casualties (that no American, even the Bushies, relish), and Saddam's inner circle, for whom I shed zero tears.
How dare anyone put the goal of embarrassing the US above the future of men like Muhammad, the author of "The first candle"? And is there no sympathy for the ordinary American soldier in Europe? He's the one who takes more bullets for Bush's sake. All of Europe should be insisting on UN-ifying the occupation (how could Bush say no?), but instead it's a race to the bottom, to see which nation can remain quietest and least involved in order to get to the bottom of the terrorists' target list.
I have wondered, would a strong, militarily unified EU be the beacon of liberty that we liberals have wanted the US to be? Or would they be just as selfish in outlook as America is, and more concerned with one-upping the US than improving the world? The Iraq war suggests the latter, and that is deeply disappointing.
I think Ryan is spot on in assessing Blair's motives (he went to war on the assumption that Bush would fight the war alone if he had too, and that someone should keep tabs on Bush so he didn't do anything really crazy). And we will see over the next few weeks whether Blair has gotten anything for his gamble; I suspect he has gotten very little leverage.
But I find myself doubting whether it would have helped at all if other powers had followed suit. First, unless they were contributing a lot of troops, it is hard to see if they would have any leverage at all. Second, at the time, France, Germany, et al had the example of Afghanistan, where their offers of military aid and alliance on the ground were rudely rebuffed. During the 2002-3 debate over the Iraq war, I suspected (and I think these governments suspected as well) that Bush wanted permission slips, not partners. He wanted to be able to say to war critics that everyone in the world supported the war. But neither he nor Rummy wanted a bunch of foreign generals involved. And he wasn't willing to pay much for permission, so the amount of leverage it would buy seems ex ante very small.
I think Ryan and I agree that it would be great if we had a broad coalition, including Arab forces, on the ground in Iraq. Where we disagree is whether the DoD would have allow this no matter what Europe said or did in 2002-3.
