patrick.net

History will look back at this era and tell us that the future of US is being decided in the middle east. If Americans lose there, the Americana (and the attendant way of life) as we know today will cease to exist.

It is debatable whether US should've invaded Iraq or not. But once US decided to get involved, she has no choice but to stay until total victory (in the political sense). That's why I find those politicians clamoring for US disengagement in Iraq either totally ignorant or traitorous.

The Middle East is the throat of US, South America her under-belly, Western Europe her former allies.

To US, North Korea is just an annoyance. To Japan, a manageable threat.

If the Russians are planning to move their Black Sea Fleet to Syria, they had better hurry up! LOL.

Korea has a strategic importance to China and Japan. But to a global player such as US, Korea is only important because Japan is a close ally of US.

Korea serves as a bridgehead to Northeastern China and Russian Siberia. It's evident from the map and history. Northeastern China could be easily cut off from the mainland. The Japanese did it. The communists also did it (to isolate and defeat the large nationalist army stationed there).

Joe,

The news could be an attempt to bluff. But it is evident that the Russians would fight the US influence in the middle east. US won round one (by occupying Iraq). But the end result won't be known until 20-50 years later.

I don't what Myers meant exactly. But here's a quote from him:

On 27 September 2005, only three days before leaving his post as Chairman [of the Joint Chiefs of Staff], [Richard] Myers said of the war in Iraq that, "the outcome and consequences of defeat are greater than World War II."

It is debatable whether US should’ve invaded Iraq or not. But once US decided to get involved, she has no choice but to stay until total victory (in the political sense). That’s why I find those politicians clamoring for US disengagement in Iraq either totally ignorant or traitorous.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. The whole "pulling out of Iraq is a mistake/treason" rhetoric to me is a lot like the "escalation of commitment" syndrome that we see in f@cked borrowers. "We can't cut our losses now, because we've already got too much invested/at stake", etc.

At some point you need to rationally calculate whether or not any additonal commitment or continued involvement is worth the extra price. I fail to see what additional net benefit staying there is supposed to provide for the U.S. It looks like civil war along tribal lines is already well underway and to me, fewer U.S. troops means fewer U.S. targets. For that matter, we need to wean ourselves off ME oil as soon as possible for our own sake.

The news could be an attempt to bluff. But it is evident that the Russians would fight the US influence in the middle east. US won round one (by occupying Iraq). But the end result won’t be known until 20-50 years later.

More proxy wars? Looks like Iraq is a small conflict compared to what lies ahead. Does anyone know Mundane Astrology?

GC,

You are right.

I wonder how far the Russians are willing to push this?

I'm sure they are basically bluffing. Their military is in even worse shape than during the Cold War. They could not possibly depoly a large number of troops, planes, or ships to the Middle East, and even if they could, the troops would be ineffective. Better than the ME troops, but still pathetic by our standards.

Then again, they only have to deploy a few thousand to make things ugly. They're still a nuclear power, so we really can't be attacking thier soldiers.

Still, though, I would think that we could inflict unimaginable pain -- economically, politically, and through espionage, if necessary -- on the Russians if they were to start throwing their weight around in the region like that. And the Israelis might well call their bluff, even if we don't.

I’m sure they are basically bluffing. Their military is in even worse shape than during the Cold War. They could not possibly depoly a large number of troops, planes, or ships to the Middle East, and even if they could, the troops would be ineffective. Better than the ME troops, but still pathetic by our standards.

But they have over 10K of nukes. And we will be very nervous if they somehow lose track of some in that particular region.

I don't think Russia or China really wants a war with each other or anyone else. Putin's army can't even deal with the insurgencies in long held areas. China's economy is very fragile and growth dependent, and any disruption would cause fairly disasterous repercussions - the Communist-in-name-only leadership haven't forgotten how Mao et cie took power, yet.

Joe,

The most dangerous enemy of all is an enemy who believe they got nothing to lose, or worse, think that their rewards come in the afterlife. When these people come about in large numbers, it's best to stay out of the way and let them self destruct. America really needs to get out of Iraq. There is no upside. We don't have the political will to beat a whole region into submission. And every second we're there, we'll be resented for the same reason all occupying forces throughout history are resented. It really doesn't matter how nice or "freeing" we are, and we're not all that nice or "freeing". When we meddle in other people's destinies, they will be resentful and they will blame us for every single thing that goes wrong.

Just look at most of Africa. After 40+ years of post-colonial governments, they still blame everything going wrong on the European Imperialists.

Astrid,

it’s best to stay out of the way and let them self destruct.

Unfortuantely, they're coming here and destructing us. Isolationsim ended on 9/11.

The most dangerous enemy of all is an enemy who believe they got nothing to lose, or worse, think that their rewards come in the afterlife.

This is why they cannot be allowed to possess WMDs.

After 40+ years of post-colonial governments, they still blame everything going wrong on the European Imperialists.

They should look at Singapore, Macau and Hong Kong. Not only people in these ex-colonies are not starving, they actually have excellent seafood!

Unfortuantely, they’re coming here and destructing us. Isolationsim ended on 9/11.

Sorry, but I don't recall any of the 9-11 hijackers being from Iraq.
If Syria attacks us, do we bomb Canada?

There are plenty of successful examples of thriving democratic governments that were originally forcibly created by occupying powers. The post-Civil War southern USA. Japan. Germany. Panama. Greneda. India. The Phillipines. We're up to what, 20% of the world's population?

HARM,

The whole region is sick, you know that. Sadaam was a secular Soviet strongman. The Iranians are the religious strongmen. The Saudis are corrupt monarchist strongmen. They're all cut from the same cloth, and they all breed angry young men who aspire to kill us.

We are trying to reform the whole region, not just Iraq. We had to start somewhere.

They are coming to kill us. We've got to do something.

Joe,

America after 1941 was never isolationist. America has propped up Middleeastern regimes since that time.

Joe, please, no more 9/11 changed everything argument. Bin Laden didn't hate America nearly as much as he hated the American backed Sauds. He bombed us because he wanted to American action and blowback, and the Bush Administration and a coward/callous congress walked straight into Osama's trap.

Also, Iraq is not Afganistan. Iraq is not Bin Laden. But thanks to America's half assed efforts there, it's now a hotbed of anti-American activity that'll take generations to mop up.

The way to deal with terrorists is to policing them and treating them like the criminals that they are. The way to deal with state sponsored terrorism is to isolate the state and turn international opinion against them. By resorting to force and committing ourselves to war there, we are making them into religious and nationalist martyrs and upping their recruitment.

Peter P,

It's much easier to create a functional city state when you start with an unoccupied rock and llimit the population to less than 10 million. When you start in a region full of warring tribes, it becomes much more difficult.

We need less nuclear weapons and better control for all others of killing devices, including semiautomatic and automatic machine guns.

Joe,

A lot more Arabs hate us now than on September 10, 2001 or on March 19, 2003. Who do you think the people with relatives who died in the occupation will blame?

No, we can't control the hatred of the Arabs now hold for us, largely due to our actions since 9/11 and esp. after invasion of Iraq. But I think it's better to contain it at current levels, than escalate it further. These people are indeed dysfunctional, America's support of perceived corrupt regimes and for Israel has caused a small group to target us. By responding so clumsily, we've managed to substantially increase the number of America haters.

Unless you're committed to total genocide or at least several decades of high grade civil war that results in the death of a high proportion of the population (which is the solution of most past civilizations), we have no chance of pacifying the region

There are major difference between the organization of 1945 Japan/Germany and 2006 Middleeast. Those were highly structured and homogenous industrial societies, and ones who had no long racial memory of hatred for the US. Pacifying the Middleeast would make our failed efforts in Southeast Asia look like a cakewalk.

When you start in a region full of warring tribes, it becomes much more difficult.

Singapore is multi-cultural. The "warring" tribes include Chinese, Malay, and Indian. They seem to be living happily together. Must be the Bak Kuh Teh. :)

We need less nuclear weapons and better control for all others of killing devices, including semiautomatic and automatic machine guns.

I still think that nuclear weapons have contributed to peace. Without them we would have to fight several more world wars.

Astrid,

Oh, they've hated us for centuries. It's not just our troops in Saudi Arabia. It's our support of Israel. Before we came along, they hated the Britsh. Before that, they hated the turks. And the Spanish. And the French. And the Catholic Church. That region has been declaring jihad against the west for over 1,000 years.

Consider these specific examples. First, the stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia in 1990. It's the thing that supposedly enraged bin Laden and caused him to hate us. Do you know why we stationed our troops there? To prevent Sadaam Hussein from invading over the country. Are you suggesting that we should have let him do this? No easy answers.

Second, consider our support for the despotic regimes in the region during the Cold War. Do you know why we supported them? To prevent the Communists from taking over the region and installing their own despots.

Now suppose neither the US nor the Communists had paid any attention to the region for the past 50 years. Do you think that Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia would be flourishing, peaceful Jeffersonian democracies? Or would they still be stoning women to death, chopping off heads, and governed by brutal despots?

With respect to Iraq, the people of Iraq RISKED THEIR LIVES to participate in the government we set up for them. They do want what we are offering. They are trying to build a better life. I don't know if they will be successful. But we've got to give them the chance.

Peter P,

Still, Singapore is one small rock and the ruling family is able to keep a firm grip on its relatively small population. Control of larger areas is much more unwieldy. The Chinese are also the overwhelming majority, accounting for about 3 quarters of the population.

Astrid,

The people of Iraq do not hate us. Some of those in the Sunni Triangle perhaps, and the foreign terrorisrts who have gone there to join the jihad, certainly.

But the insurgency in Iraq woudl be 1,000 times worse if the people of Iraq really were outraged at the presence of American troops on their soil.

They know that we are trying to help them. They see how Sadaam treated them vs. how we do it. Having thousands of armed foreigners in your country might not be an ideal state of affairs, but they know our intentions are basically noble. And they want to live in a democracy, as we do. That is why they risked their lives to go to the elections that we set up.

Still, Singapore is one small rock and the ruling family is able to keep a firm grip on its relatively small population.

True. But India, also a former colony, is not a small rock. It has a thriving information industry and it even has its own space program!

We are trying to reform the whole region, not just Iraq. We had to start somewhere.

They are coming to kill us. We’ve got to do something.

Joe,

I agree the Middle East is a pretty f@cked up region. But it was that way long before America even existed, and it will probably be that way long after we pull out of Iraq.

"Reforming" an entire region (i.e. bringing Western style democracy) is an incredibly gargantuan task that no nation --not even the U.S., powerful as it is-- can accomplish on its own. For that matter, I take issue with the claim of all those "thriving democratic governments" that were forcibly created by occupying powers.

The post-Civil War southern USA:
Was the South a dictatorship prior to the Civil War? Hardly. They started out as part of the U.S., setup their own separate (but still representative & elected) government, then were forced to rejoin the Union 5 years later. At no point did they abandon democratic government, even though they fought to preserve enslavement of blacks.

Japan:
This is about as close to an example of "successfully imposed democracy" as I can think of, but seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Oh, and they started out with one big advantage over other regions: a first-world industrialized infrastructure (even though it was bombed to ruins) and a highly educated/literate public.

Germany:
They at least had the Weimar Republic (some experience with democracy) prior to descending into facism, and --like Japan-- a first-world infrastructure and highly educated/literate public.

Panama:
Basically a U.S. satellite, created by carving a strategic chunk out of former Columbian territory to build the canal. Not much of a "nation" to speak of, and still largely under our direct sphere of influence/protection.

Greneda:
A caribbean island with, what --about 500 inhabitants?

India:
Occupied for the British for nearly 200 years, who they successfully expelled, through guerrila warfare & non-violent protest. Not so much an "imposed" democracy, as an evolved one that was created by Indians themselves.

The Phillipines:
Another U.S. island satellite. Very politically unstable, very poor, with Marxist rebels still battling U.S.-backed government troops as we speak.

This is about as close to an example of “successfully imposed democracy” as I can think of, but seems to be the exception, rather than the rule.

A country with an extensive culinary culture (like Japan) will always be civilized. People want to live another day just to eat.

Joe Schmoe,

The Arabian Peninsula was sparsely populated by nomads before 1900. America was not a major player there until at least after WWI and probably not until WWII. So hundreds of years of hatred cannot exist. The few people on the Arab Peninsula was more interested in carving their kingdoms out of the Ottoman Empire than hold a grudge against a country very few would have heard of. You mentioned countries they purportedly hated, note that those were all occupying forces who held these people against their will, and they all failed to assimilate these people, even though they are much more experienced at imperialism and willing to resort to much cruel methods. Is that not a reason for us to get the hell out, ASAP?

As for Israel. Well, I'm against the existence of an Israel in Palestine. Displacing a large native population and living amongst sure to be hostile neighbors...that's just asking for trouble. They should have been given a less occupied area, perhaps on the African side of the Mediterrean coast. American support for Israel has indeed caused us nothing but headaches. We did this to ourselves, we gave the Arabs a reason to hate us rather than deal with their underlying problems.

I will not question what we've done in that past, that cannot be changed. But we ought to learn lessons from the problems of our intervention there and not repeat them on a grander scale.

Well, I’m against the existence of an Israel in Palestine.

Huh? 8-O

Most of the stable and successful (however you want to define that) of the world's democracies have one thing in common: they were created by the will of the people in those nations themselves, not imposed by a foreign power.

If the French had invaded America in 1760 to "liberate" us "colonial Anglo savages" and bring us the gift of "superior" French civilization and culture, I wonder what sort of response they would have received from the locals?

Joe,

Do you read polls taken of Iraqis? Ones taken outside of Kurdish areas? We're losing hearts and minds everyday we're there.

We had much more support in South Vietnam (which had a semi-functional civil service and a century of fairly placid rule by the French) and we still couldn't make it. The situation in SW Asia is unmanageable as is.

It doesn't matter. The Bush administration will soon lose support of the vernture there and they'll leave and declare victory. That's the best possible outcome available now, all those American deaths and American dollars will have been spent to further Osama's goal of destabilizing the area and less friendly to America.

If the French had invaded America in 1760 to “liberate” us “colonial Anglo savages” and bring us the gift of “superior” French civilization and culture, I wonder what sort of response they would have received from the locals?

Des the "superior" gift include excellent French sauces?

HARM,

Yup. Japan too was modernizing and moving towards democracy at a fast clip in the 1920s, before being set back by conservative militarists in the 1930s. Both the Japanese and the Germans also went through an internal unification process which already cohered into a strong national identity. Thus, they had an interest in their country succeeding. The Shia, the Sunni, and the Kurds all have no interest in their country succeeding. Their tribal/religious identification comes before their national identification.

Also, the Japanese and the Germans understood the choice to be between US or USSR. Their governments had also demonstrably failed at what they promised. Furthermore, both country were fairly middle class and egalitarian, thus not as prone to producing radical extremists. That the cooperation and even active participation of the Japanese and the Germans were pivotal to the success of their governments/countries.

astrid,

Good point about the tribalism/religious sectarianism. Most successful & stable democracies also tend to be culturally homogenous --even when ethnically diverse-- and require placing NATIONAL identity ahead of tribal/religious identity. Hmmm... kind of reminds me of the whole debate over illegal immigration and "divided loyalties" theme.

Joe,

"Fighting" terrorism and tyranny can take many forms, just as terrorism and tyranny has many sources. While direct military action is sometimes unavoidable and completely justified (Afghanistan), it's not the only tool in the shed.

I think one of the most potent "weapons" we can use against terrorism & tyranny is to provide a good example of a healthy, prosperous, well functioning democracy that respects human rights and rule of law. The more we try to live up to the shining "City on a hill" ideal, the more we will be a beacon --and example-- of freedom to the oppressed all over the world.

We can also pursue the aim of spreading democracy by supporting --and funding-- programs aimed at increasing literacy, birth control and education. Or by rewarding nations that respect rule of law, free markets and human rights with favorable trade agreements. And when that fails, we can always secretly arm the opposition ;-).

HARM,

It is a little too late for the Peace Corps.

Besides -- and this is really, really important -- we've already been doing what you suggest for decades, if not centuries. We're already setting an example.

The entire world can watch TV and see that we are a country that chooses its leaders by free and fair democratic elections, has constitutional guarnatees of free speech and association. They already know that we do not brutialize and subjugate women, allow people of all relgions, including Islam, to freely practice their faith, etc. These things are not news to anyone. The US has given billlions of dollars in aid to foreign countries for decades. Everyone already knows what we are about and what we stand for.

Yet despite the shining power of our example, the Middle East is still stuck in the middle ages. We're not inspring them. They're not reforming.

And we've been doing a lot more than set an example -- we've been pressuring them, with carrot and stick, for years. In the 1990's, the only thing standing between the House of Saud and a fundamentalist revolution was US troops. You'd think that when the rulers owed their very lives to us, they'd finally give into our requests to permit women to get driver's licenses. Did this happen? No!

Either the despots are too powerful, due to their vast wealth, or the people of the Middle East are simply incapable of modernizing and reforming on their own. So we're trying to upset the applecart and help them modernize.

The evidence that the people of the region want what we are offering is overwhelming. They risked their lives to vote in the elections that we set up. When is that last time that an American risked his life for the right to vote? That's a commitment to democracy.

They haven't voted in a bunch of mullahs. Iraqi politicans are not trying to legislate Sharia into law establish a constitutional theocracy. Why not? Becuase the people of Iraq are not stupid. They see how badly the theocrats have screwed up the neighboring countries of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Besides, they know that the theocrats are not about religion, they are about power. The Iraqis know a would-be dictator when they see one.

Remember when all the liberals said "the insurgency is growning," "there is a 'closing window' of opportunity in Iraq," and that if we didn't reconstitute the Iraqi army and get the power in Baghdad restored, the whole thing would be a disaster. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now when they say that a civil war has broken out in Iraq.

We're succeeding over there. It's not certian to work, but thus far we have performed beautifully. And I think it is going to work. We're almost there.

And our noble effort in Iraq isn't the only measure of our success. The people of the region fear us now. The young men of the region see that we are beating the jihadis. We didn't just crumble, like bin Laden said we would. They know that if they hit us, we'll hit back.

Astrid,

India has something like 12 languages and a 50% literacy rate. Yet it's a functioning democracy. In the mid-19th century, the US was so politically divided that we fought a civil war, killing over 620,000 of our own people. Yet in the aftermath, we managed to re-establish a functioning democracy and have lived in peace with one another for almost 150 years.

You don't need to be homogenous to be a successful democracy. It certainly helps, but it's not a prerequisite. Heck, the US is a nation of immigrants. We get by.

And in the final analysis, people are going to have to learn to get past their tribal differences if they are going to live in the modern world. If we were to split Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiastan, and Shiite-ville tomorrow, there would still be lots of conflict. There would always be tension in those border villages that are 50% Shia and 50% Sunni. And the Islamic Republic of Shiastan would, of course, never forget the many outrages that the Shiite-villians perpetrated on them when both lived in Iraq. Redrawing the borders would not solve these problems. People have to learn to bury the hatchet on their stupid tribal conflicts and move on.

Joe,

You can believe that we're "winning" and that "winning" is possible. History is not on our side. There is consequences for what America has already done in Iraq, and there will be future consequences if we want to stay there.

You can't chose other people's destiny and tell them what is stupid and what isn't. The point isn't who is right and who is wrong. The point is that they have to learn their own lessons. Attempts to teach them will backfire. Believe me. I am Chinese and I've studied Chinese modern history very closely (and have a working knowledge of modern history in general), and well intended attempts at occupation and protectorates caused resentment. The Chinese even started calling the Soviet Union imperialist. This is the case even though the Qing dynasty was a decrepit and obvious failure.

Honestly, I don't think it'll matter what you think. We'll be out of there. It'll be ugly, but we'll be out of there soon enough. And as ugly as it is going to get, it's way better than staying.