Real no irony liberation [Updated!]

[muckefuck]

Again, mollpeartree surfs the web for news so I don't have to. Today, she has a link to the fascinating story of a visit to Iraq by a team of young exiles sowing the seeds of democracy. The stories of them founding debating societies and newsletters among college students make me misty-eyed. How you can be cynical in the face of bright young men and women discovering the meaning of "freedom" for the first time ever? And one of the exiles states how I feel about the current "End the Occupation" movement, but with all the moral authority that I can't give it:

She adds: "I find it absolutely incredible that the anti-war people are now calling for the coalition to leave straight away. Nobody in Iraq wants that. The opinion polls show it's just 13 per cent. Don't they care about the Iraqi people and what they want at all? This isn't a game. This isn't about poking a stick at George Bush. This is our lives."

[Addendum]
Currently, what I'm most worried about in Iraq is the typical American foreign policy response to grassroots democracy that--by some inexplicable miscalculation--doesn't result in a pliable client state with closely-alligned interests. This would only convince the rest of the Arab world that we don't really mean it when we say the d-word and, in the end, are no better than the local tyrants in Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, or anywhere else in the Arab world. I'm worried that "Islamic fundamentalism" (lumping together everything from al-Qaeda to the AK party in Turkey) will become the new Communism, to be resisted at all costs regardless of what this does to civil society or future prospects, rather than allowed to run its course and burn itself out (cf. Iran). Sorry, Mr Bremer, but the first post-Saddam Iraqi government is going to have a large Shiite component. It will be anti-Israel and ambivalent toward America and monkeying around to make it less so will only piss everyone off in the end and cause them to remember us as conquerors rather than liberators. Suck it up, and we could eventually have a staunch, stable ally whose existence will once and for all put the lie to the assertion that the Arabs must not be allowed out from the firm hands of despots.

Comments

[febrile.livejournal.com]

I concur. Whether we should have been there or not was a point of debate -- we are now, and we haven't the option of just packing up, saying "Oops!" and wandering home to leave them to pick up after us.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

On a similar note, there's the reason Iraq Today (about which everyone from Instapundit to Salam Pax to Robert Fisk apparently has good things to say) gives for publishing in English:

Publishing in English was mainly a business decision. Approximately, 150-180 new Arabic newspapers have gone on sale in Baghdad since the end of the war. There are, by contrast, only three English newspapers.

A hundred-fifty plus newspapers, in what was a totalitarian police state at the beginning of this year.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Currently, what I'm most worried about in Iraq is the typical American foreign policy response to grassroots democracy that--by some inexplicable miscalculation--doesn't result in a pliable client state with closely-alligned interests. This would only convince the rest of the Arab world that we don't really mean it when we say the d-word and, in the end, are no better than the local tyrants in Syria, Morocco, Egypt, Algeria, or anywhere else in the Arab world. I'm worried that "Islamic fundamentalism" (lumping together everything from al-Qaeda to the AK party in Turkey) will become the new Communism, to be resisted at all costs regardless of what this does to civil society or future prospects, rather than allowed to run its course and burn itself out (cf. Iran). Sorry, Mr Bremer, but the first post-Saddam Iraqi government is going to have a large Shiite component. It will be anti-Israel and ambivalent toward America and monkeying around to make it less so will only piss everyone off in the end and cause them to remember us as conquerors rather than liberators. Suck it up, and we could eventually have a staunch, stable ally whose existence will once and for all put the lie to the assertion that the Arabs must not be allowed out from the firm hands of despots.

I see what you're saying. On the other hand, monkeying around to keep the Communists out didn't prevent western Europe from developing functioning democracies, or prevent NATO from working as a successful alliance. (As for how they remember us, it's never wise to depend on gratitude between nations. Liberating western Europe and keeping them out of the Iron Curtain was the right thing to do, regardless of how those countries happen to feel about us at the moment.) The consequences of Communism running is course and burning itself out in the countries where it was able to do so was horrible enough, in enough cases, that I think there was a humanitarian argument for compromising democracy to fight it as well as a realpolitik one. (As a general rule-- which isn't to deny that we did it wrong or badly in some cases.)

Might that be true of a political Islamic movement in Iraq? Sure-- there's no question that many strains of political Islam are straightforward repressive theocracy. Is such a dominant political strain inevitable? I don't think so. But I don't think that we're honor bound to pretend disinterest in the outcome of Iraqi elections if that's what looks like to be emerging. I don't *want* a staunch, stable ally that enforces a totalitarian interpretation of Sharia domestically-- we've already got one Saudi Arabia, and that's one too many. Micromanagement should be out, but it's only honest to communicate the basic boundaries on what we're willing to live with. We may need to compromise, but so, probably, will the Islamicists.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

monkeying around to keep the Communists out didn't prevent western Europe from developing functioning democracies

For some value of "functioning". The one where I think we monkeyed the most was Italy, where we decided to support the Mafia against the Commies. Look what that got us.

The consequences of Communism running is course and burning itself out in the countries where it was able to do so was horrible enough, in enough cases

Can you give me examples where the Communist government was freely elected and not imposed by force (as it was in all of Eastern Europe)? Actually, I think it's a damn shame our idealogical stance prevents us from working with the Communist Party in Iraq, who are about the only functioning secularist organisation of any size there.

I agree with you that we don't want another Saudi Arabia, but we don't want another Syria or Iran either. It's a tricky balance and I wonder if we're as willing to compromise to achieve it as the moderate Islamists.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

The one where I think we monkeyed the most was Italy, where we decided to support the Mafia against the Commies. Look what that got us.

Italy strikes me as rather better off than its Adriatic neighbors nonetheless. Ditto Greece (the official starting point of our containment policy and an even less subtle intervention than Italy, with less edifying results in the medium term), when compared with its neighbors to the north. In any case, if Iraq winds up exactly as bad as Italy in terms of corruption, civil violence, and economic performance, then its people will be safer, better governed, and vastly richer than anyone in the region.

Can you give me examples where the Communist government was freely elected and not imposed by force (as it was in all of Eastern Europe)?

Not offhand-- we were fairly successful, after all. (Allende managed to tank Chile's economy surprisingly quickly, but whether he would have gone more repressive than simply stealing property is unknown, where Pinochet's brutal repression is a matter of historical record.) There are examples of Communist governments getting in after widely popular revolutions, though, which aren't exactly encouraging. (You'd think that the popular hero of the revolution would trust his ability to win a contested election.)

As a general rule, I think it's reasonable to cast a weather eye on the democractic election of political factions which are known to be generally hostile to democracy or basic rights. If the faction has power in other places, and those places are invariably tyrannies (or if the only exceptions are subgovernments which couldn't in fact impose tyranny without the cooperation of the national government), I think we're justified in taking that as a bad sign.

Actually, I think it's a damn shame our idealogical stance prevents us from working with the Communist Party in Iraq, who are about the only functioning secularist organisation of any size there.

One might well say that it's a damn shame that their ideological stance prevents them from abandoning Communism and working with us. Continuing to be a Communist Party in 2003 strikes me as prima facie (albeit not incontestable) evidence of either bad motives or an inability to recognize reality (or both), neither of which strikes me as especially desirable in a partner.

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think it's a damn shame our idealogical stance prevents us from working with the Communist Party in Iraq, who are about the only functioning secularist organisation of any size there.

One might well say that it's a damn shame that their ideological stance prevents them from abandoning Communism and working with us. Continuing to be a Communist Party in 2003 strikes me as prima facie (albeit not incontestable) evidence of either bad motives or an inability to recognize reality (or both), neither of which strikes me as especially desirable in a partner.

FWIW, a member of the Iraqi Communist Party has been included on the 25-member Governing Council. I think acknowledging their existence in this way without singling them out as our special buddies or anything is probably just about the right note to hit. I don't share lhn's suspicions of their motives; it seems natural to me that the reform-minded in that region would be attracted to Communism for a variety of political and historical reasons.

But I do share his doubts about their worth as a political party. Communism is really, really not popular in the Middle East (except among Western-educated elites), not only because it is so aggressively anti-religious, but also because it rather obviously fails to promise the type of prosperity and military power associated with Western capitalist democracies that appeals to people who are not entirely committed to the idea of secularization, democracy and human rights for their own sake. Besides, the Iraqis are fully aware of our anti-Communist history; what would they make of any attempt on our part to increase the influence of a political ideology which we would obviously never accept for ourselves? I think it would look very rum to them if we started playing footsie with Communists solely on their turf.

[nibadi.livejournal.com]

Der sofortige Abzug ist natürlich Unsinn. Aber ich habe große Zweifel an Umfragen, die besagen, dass ledilich 13 % der Iraqis den Abzug der "Besetzer" wünschen. Selbst wenn diese Zahl die Realität abbilden würde, würde keinesfalls der Umkehrschluß gelten, dass 87 % den status quo begrüßen.

Ich meine auch, dass sich die amerikanische Administration den Vorwurf gefallen lassen muss, dass sie sich gegen die Wahnungen der Weltgemeinschaft hinwegsetzte, sich nicht ausreichend um die Logistik einer Nachkriegsordnung kümmerte (stattdessen anhaltendes Chaos) und dass sie fälschlicherweise davon ausging, der Sturz Saddams hätte perse Demokratie nach westlichem Vorbild nach sich gezogen.

Mich persönlich interessiert nach wie vor die selbst erteilte Legitimation zum Angriffskrieg. Der Grund waren Massenvernichtungswaffen, die die westliche Welt und vor allem die USA bedrohten. Der Segen, dass Saddam abgesetzt ist, sollte nicht davon ablenken! Wo sind die Waffen?

Die Verbindungen zwischen Al Qaeda und der irakischen Führung wurde bisher auch nicht belegt. Im Gegenteil, Bush räumt selbst ein, dass es solche Beweise nicht gibt. Trotzdem fährt er fort bei jedem Attentat im Iraq hinweise auf internationalen Terrorismus in die Öffentlichkeit zu streuen. Ohne Beweise! Es ist doch viel nahe liegender, dass es Widerstandsakte sind von Gruppen, die der alten Regierung nahe standen.

Bei aller Liebe zu den USA, die Bush-Administration hat durch ihre Politik dazu beigetragen, dass es unsicherer wird auf der Welt.