Sunday, April 01, 2007

An Open Letter to the Iraqi People

Dear Iraqi People,

Please accept our apologies for invading and still occupying your country. Probably we’ll stop soon. We hope so. We don’t really like occupying people. I mean, some people think we do that a lot. But as far as historical cycles go, we get tired of it pretty fast. Occupation of places where we’re really not wanted isn’t our bag.

We’re particularly sorry about all the Iraqi casualties. Iraq Body Count says 60,000. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health says 600,000. No one really knows. And though any glance at the news shows most people by far are being killed by someone other than U.S. troops, no one seems able to track the difference, and besides, to the dead and their families, it doesn’t much matter. We uncorked the bottle. That Iraq was a seething hotbed of murderous factionalism only kept in check by the brutal dictator we took out didn’t really cross our naïve American minds.

You’ll be glad to know that we’ve already started the process of pulling out. We don’t want to take responsibility for the carnage any more. We’ll let someone else do that. And to be sure, it will be stopped when Iraq has a strong government again. That’ll come in time. Meanwhile we’ve determined that our soldiers there are exacerbating the problem. All the Iraqis want us out and they are killing each other every day in order to make that clear. So we are well into the second stage of disengagement. The first stage was successful once public discourse became thoroughly dominated by the message that we were all hoodwinked by Bush and his evil imperialist colleagues. Now that everyone understands that, we are on to the second stage, which is to divide our government, blame each other for all the mistakes, and claim that to “support the troops” really means to bring them home. The third stage, actual physical withdrawal, will occur soon enough. Please be patient.

Needless to say, a strong government, the key to halting the slaughter, will not have been established yet. We’re sorry about that, too. That requires trust, and there just hasn’t been time to build that trust, especially after some of the mistakes we’ve made. Trust above all requires results in the security department and that in turn requires time. I mean, we are making progress now, having made changes to both our foreign and military policies. Our bull-headed VP is losing influence, we are talking more to your neighbors, and our military people continue to learn better ways to work with the Iraqi people and help them develop trained and experienced security forces. Given time, you will have a strong government, more security, less cause to turn to militias and gangsters for protection, and consequently a greater propensity to work together. But, um, sorry. We’re not giving you the time for that. American election cycles won’t allow it, and as you know, your next 600,000 dead are nowhere near as important to us as our domestic power struggles. But please look at the bright side: None of those next 600,000 will have been killed by Americans!

Lest you fear we’ll return, hey, no worries. We’re going to be far too busy pointing fingers at one another to invade you or anyone else for years to come. Besides, we’ll elect a new President soon. We’ll elect someone who would never, ever invade anyone. Of course, whoever we elect, there’s a chance he or she will be among those who once voted to invade you. But that’s okay because he or she has since changed their mind. Were flexible like that. Our best politicians change their minds all the time. It’s a strength.

As for having peace and stability again, well, it will come. All you need is a strong central government. With us out of the way and given a cycle or two of enormously bloody coups, you’ll end up with a dictator everyone is too exhausted not to agree upon. Then, so long as you’re not part of some relatively underpowered ethnic group (yet to be determined), everything will be fine.

So once again, sorry about the war. Nothing personal. And you know, if our withdrawal gives the appearance of an American defeat, thus lending the strength of perceived victory to other powers in the region, that’s okay. We don’t mind, we earned it. We have to face the fact, as you have already learned, that Americans just aren’t very good at global power politics. It’s too much like chess. We’re good at American football: Out-hit and out-run the other team, use feints and secret plans to get the ball into the opposite goal, and then use a clock or a rainstorm or something to tell us that it’s over, a surrendered sword so everyone can agree on who won. But your people play a different game, more chess-like. A longer view, moves of mind-numbing complexity, sacrificing one’s own pieces to achieve results, and it’s never over until one side actually concedes. We’re just no good at that. Fortunately for you, chess was introduced to the West through one of your own neighbors! The Iranians are really, really good at playing chess. Perhaps they will be helpful to you in the coming years. We certainly hope so.

Well, best of luck and, once again, we’re awfully sorry. We sure hope it works out for you in the end.

30 comments:

Paula said...

Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

I've decided to give up cupcakes.

Anonymous said...

As usual, hopelessly clueless.

1/ Sorry implies that you did the wrong thing. Next time, figure that out before you do it.
2/ "We don’t really like occupying people." You only don't like it when they shoot at you. Otherwise, you've never had a problem with it.
3/ The Johns Hopkins figures are sound. Kid yourself that it has only been 60 thousand if you like. That's still a lot of blood on your hands.
4/ Iraq was not a seething hotbed of factionalism. That's a myth. You created the sectarianism!
5/ The stuff about "dividing our government" is hilarious. BushCo is to blame for Iraq. There's no way you can blame the Dems. Not that it'll stop you guys from trying.
6/ The Iraqi government is part of the problem, not the solution.
7/ There won't be another 600,000 dead. You've way underestimated how many are down to the Americans, btw.
8/ Changing your mind is a strength. The worship of obduracy has been a bad thing for America. If Bush wasn't convinced that stubbornness was a virtue, maybe you would have been able not to fight a longer war than WWII.
9/ You are wrong about peace and stability being an outcome of having a dictator. I'm afraid Iraq is likely to be settled differently. There will need to be a political solution. You know, the one thing your gov't has not been interesting in promoting.
10/ You are perfectly okay at global politics. You actually achieved what you aimed at in Iraq. That's why you're hated the world over.
11/ You should fucking apologise. You wanted it. If you had a conscience, you would be sorry at your small part in this. Of course, you're not. You think you have a right to have others killed on your behalf.

Geeky Tai-Tai said...

I disagree with AA...I do not believe that you're clueless!

Here's something you might find interesting, Maps of War

Anonymous said...

Diana, you're no judge.

The map thing is a bit simplistic. History is a bit more dynamic than it gives credit for. I don't see the American empire on it. Is that to come?

Geeky Tai-Tai said...

cat in a helmet -- Whoa Nellie!!! Take a deep breath and relax will ya?

Yes, I will grant you that the map is overly simplistic; that is the point of it, to help people understand the long history of the Middle East. I also agree that the U.S. empire should be shown on the map.

If memory serves, the British, French, Germans, Turks, and Arabs have also had much to do with the affairs in Iraq and Iran. As you rightly pointed out, history is dynamic.

I agree with most of the points you made above; I do not agree with the tone of your commentary. Why do you attack Don personally for the failures and blunders of the U.S.?
Who appointed you as judge?

Dr Zen said...

This is one issue on which judging is justified. Four years back, there were some who said invade and some who said no. The noes are entirely blameless. We get to judge. Besides, anyone who identifies himself as a patriot must accept the brickbats on behalf of his country.

Yes, lots of people had an influence on Iraq. It's a complicated place. Too complicated to be resolved by the simplistic thinking of the Dons of this world, neocons who believe the rest of the world needs only the opportunity -- brought in Iraq's case by a severe bombing -- to adopt unquestioningly Western "values" and modes of government and, by a miracle of capitalism, become practically overnight fully functioning liberal democracies with flourishing free markets.

Anonymous said...

Don- I think the chess/football analogy is entirely appropriate. I kind of wish I'd thought of it.

There have been a few times in the past that I've railed against America's "Star Trek" view of the world. Remember how the Enterprise was a mixed bag, with people of all colors and backgrounds. They had different views, attitudes, and opinions. The aliens, however, were usually of one mind, they looked alike, and they dressed alike. If you dealt with one, you dealt with them all. We see it all the time in our foriegn policy - the President of Iran says something, for instance, and we think "The Iranians think THIS." The French ambassador disagrees with something, and it's "those FRENCH." Well, it's nice to see that we Americans aren't the only ones afflicted. Evidently, there are people in this discussion who don't see Americans as individuals with differing opinions and goals for their country. They seem to think we have united under Bush's banner. This is, of course, the same thoughless assumptiveness and lack of consideration for other cultures that these same people would be happy to criticize us for.

Well, I don't agree with Bush's policies, and in fact have voiced opposition to them from the start. The first policy he had that I disagreed with was running for President. But I have to wonder what country has so clean a record that the citizens can throw stones without making hypocritical asses of themselves. History is rife with shitheads, and they come from all over. America didn't invent imperialism, lying, or war. We're just the best at it at this point in history. It wasn't so long ago that the British were the masters of the art, though they tend to forget that when the finger-pointing starts.

That said, AA said this:

"4/ Iraq was not a seething hotbed of factionalism. That's a myth. You created the sectarianism! "

Well, that's a crock, isn't it? Just ask your average Kurd how nice things were for them. Ask a Sunni why they got along so well with the Shiites under Saddam's rule. We made them hate each other? No. We just took away the impetus to make nice. I'm NOT supporting the war, I'm just stating that Iraq WAS factionalised, and that was held in check by Sadaam. It will probably take another Sadaam to re-cork that bottle. I don't think democracy will do it, since you need the consent of the governed to make that work, and you need a populace that respects the democratic process to get that consent. I don't see that happening in that culture anytime soom, although I'd like to be wrong about that.

Geeky Tai-Tai said...

Thanks Joe! :D

Don said...

It's difficult for me to see the U.S. as an imperialist country. Other explanations for our actions readily come to mind. Maybe you would call them justifications. But we do look and act like an empire in many ways, so I don't blame people for referring to us as one. My understanding of the base motivations, however, does not lead to seeing empire-building so much as, for example, preventing the sort of power imbalance that led to World War 2, or protecting large capital investments from the arbitrary policy changes of local strongmen. That is a huge over-simplification of how I see things, and I don't mean to ignore the countless wrong turns we have taken.

Especially we must remember that nothing ever really gets done except as motivated by greed or self-interest. That last point is crucial. I only know of ONE major positive (i.e. non-reactive) event in all of history that was not, and that would be Britain's emancipation of its slaves in 1838 -- and since that was followed by four years of involuntary unpaid "apprenticeship", the altruistic angle is questionable. (It was also followed by a serious dip in the British economy, which may in turn have led to other adventures to make up for it.) So, given the as I say countless justified criticisms of our actions and Kennedy's admonition that if it looks and smells like an empire ... I don't expect ever to convince anyone that we are not. But even while my understanding of the flow of history continues to evolve, I will stay true to that understanding and try not to jump on anyone's bandwagon. I'm conservative like that.

Diane, Zen the many-named is quite right not to give me a pass. I supported the war. But though it's all gone wrong and it turns out I swallowed a great many lies, I'm not one of those to abandon my original thinking just because it's become unpopular. There is much more afoot that an oil grab -- though oil is at the heart of it, I have no problem giving zero access to American oil companies.

The important question is, what to do now for Iraq? I believe strongly that abandoning it to its factionalism and its neighbors' machinations would be very bad for that country. We have an ameliorating force in place -- it's absurd to claim Sunni and Shia are killing each other because Americans are there too. That force should be used to train and equip and hand over power gradually, as Iraqi capabilities meet the challenge and not according to a timetable cooked up by partisan American political strategists.

Anonymous said...

"partisan American political strategists."

I do hope you realize that this description fits everyone in Washington, not just those on one side of the aisle. I suspect you do.

Don said...

Yes.

Falling on a bruise said...

I read this as though written through a fug of thick sarcasm. After reading the comments i think i may have to remove dons tounge from his cheek in my mind and read it again. That or just go and make a coffee, it got far too complicated to figure out.

Paula said...

I thought it was an April Fool's joke, Lucy, given that Don was very anti-apology over at your place, but now I dunno.

Don said...

I feel very strongly that we should try to do the right thing rather than give in to shortsightedness and leave the Iraqis to a bloodbath. There is only one honorable choice for the U.S. and that is to see a government installed that can provide the one thing the people want above all, a sense of security, followed by a responsible use of the country's oil wealth (NOT surrendered to the Americans or anyone else). Much of the trouble comes from the fact that so many of these violent groups see the possibility that they might "win". This is a predictable result of our own domestic finger-pointing (a whole bunch of it justified, but when tied with an impulse to cut our losses, very dangerous). I may be alone in this, but my concern is to reduce violence and allow Iraq to become the great country it can become. This is impossible with talk of ridiculously short timetables designed to coincide with American election cycles, and that smarmy support-the-troops-by-pulling-them-out nonsense. So, I dunno. As it says up in the corner there, "I'm too serious". It all just came out better as tongue in cheek and that it was posted on AFD was sort of coincidental.

Anonymous said...

Joe, you are simply wrong. Learn some fucking history, man. The real stuff, not what you see on Fox. The vicious intracommunal hatred is new to Iraq. If you look around, you'll find plenty of Iraqis saying so. Many Iraqis have mixed families, and many more contentedly lived in mixed areas. This is not to downplay the southern Shia rebellion, but you can clearly distinguish this from what we are seeing today. To a large extent, today's factionalism is driven by economics. Of course, you could argue that Saddam's economy put the lid on sectarian sentiment but I think that would be missing the point.

Don, America's motivation for empire is much the same as Rome's. Rome too indulged in a rhetorical smokescreen. It's an instructive comparison. Avoiding a power imbalance is nonsense, Don. You'd have invaded Iran if that was a worry. Oh...

You should not abandon your original thinking because it's unpopular. You should abandon it because it's plain wrong. Oil is a major element, doubtless not the whole story. No one who wants to get elected ever again is going to shut out the oil companies, and particularly not the Republicans, who are bought and paid for by Exxon et al.

Don, your thesis really falls down on the notion that the US is an "ameliorating force". Sorry, but it isn't. You are arming and training one of the factions in a civil war. You are currently *one* of the factions in that war. The most honourable course you can take is to (rather belatedly) come to understand that Iraq is none of your business and get the fuck out of there. The fallout is going to bad, but dude, it's bad there now. Without a comprehensive political settlement, there is no hope for its becoming good.

As for the politics, I think you are being harsh on the Dems, and Pelosi in particular. She wants the troops out now and the schedule was a compromise. Dude, I think that you are not "supporting the troops" by urging them to stay to give insurgents target practice. They aren't achieving anything else, and they're not likely to start to do so any time soon.

I'd also suggest that Iraq is not likely to become a "great country" any time soon, regardless what America does. It could though become three reasonable ones, if we can induce sanity on the part of Turkey and if the forces for reform finally gain the upper hand in Iran.

Anonymous said...

"The real stuff, not what you see on Fox"

Fox? I don't watch Fox. I'm not a neocon, as anyone who actually READ what I wrote above, or takes the time to talk with me, can see. Since it is obvious that you are happy to consider your baseless assumptions to be facts, I think it's fairly safe to dismiss the rest of your "facts", fuck you very much.

I've been against my government's POLICIES, and that opposition stems from from information taken from several sources, none of which are Fox. You seem to be starting with a "hate America and everything about it" stance, and finding ways to support that. Rather disingenuous if you want to be taken seriously. Once again, if Iraq wasn't factionalised before we got there why were the Kurds being gassed?

Once again, I don't support the Iraq war and never did, but I don't support spreading bullshit just because it suits your thesis. If I did, I'd probably support the war because that's what it was based on from the beginning.

You can't fight bullshit by simply asserting opposite bullshit. Everyone in the world would be better off if more people, especially in Washington, learned that. And if they learned that the ability to ASSUME something does not make it true.

Looney said...

Um, wotever.

Don, I'm so unobservant that I didn't realize until TODAY that you were blogging again.

Linking you, you asshat! LOL...

Don said...

much the same as Rome's

Destiny is irrevocably bound up in access to resources. But we want partners, not colonies.*

none of your business

According to you, we broke it. Don't we own it until it's fixed?

Kissinger may be right and it's unfixable. Then at least we should depart with some sort of recognized majority rule in place.

Apparently three Iraqs are off the table, but I'm not sure why. Suits me, so long as they don't go Balkans and war on each other. Ehh, maybe that can't be helped.

* - I know this opens the discussion right up again. I'm not going there today.

Kos said...

Woo hoo!

Just wanted to do that. Carry on.

Granny Snark said...

[ducked in, turned on a dime, and raced back out]

Harry said...

I have an extremely close relative who worked inside the defense/intelligence/political establishment for many years on many levels tactical and strategic, with access beyond top secret, and that person's opinion is either we go on a nationally moblized war footing, which some might be surprised to find we haven't yet, and absolutely shut down Iraq, or we leave. What's happening now is half way and leading us halfway to nowhere.

For myself, I think it's time to leave. If we lost, we lost and we go from there and better retain the lessons, blah blah blah. My other belief is that we still have never been told the real reasons for the invasion, and we never will. If we have, then let's just hope the administration doesn't fuck up the rest of its term like it did the effot in Iraq. God help us all.

Dr Zen said...

Joe, for a "troll" you make one fucking easy mark. Simmer down, trooper, and don't be shouting "bullshit" unless you can actually spot some. It is simply true that Iraq was not a simmering pot of sectarianism. The issue with the Kurds is too complicated for you to understand and I don't have the time or energy to try educating you. Needless to say, it had nothing to do with sectarianism (Kurds share a religion with Sunni Muslims and cohabited with them quite unproblematically).

Don, I think you are clinging to a last straw of dogma with this bullshit about "partners". No wonder you don't go there. It's plain silly. You want people to trade with, yes (on your terms), but the word "partners" implies a choice that you do not give those you trade with at all (and it implies fairness, which you are not offering -- a bit like massa claiming Rastus was a partner in the cotton business). In any case, frankly, Don, Saddam was willing to do as much trade with you as you liked. He was very keen on it.

Dude, you did break it but you ain't fixing it! Far from it. You're just making it worse. Even Harry's solution wouldn't work. You can't *force* Iraq to be better. That's a clue to where you and the rest of the neocon warmongerers have gone wrong.

Why do *you* think three Iraqs are off the table? How about Joe the Troll? You're wised up with the facts, Joe, so you tell us. Why?

Anonymous said...

"The issue with the Kurds is too complicated for you to understand and I don't have the time or energy to try educating you."

There you have it folks, the first clue that someone doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about and doesn't have sufficient imagination to hide it. Just insult the other person's intelligence and say you don't have time to explain. After that "Fox news" assumption, I think it's easy to see who's full of shit here.

Harry said...

Doc Zen, the bit about shutting down Iraq was not my solution. My solution is to leave, asap, watching our lines of communication in the region, keeping our weather eye on the real bad guys, and improving on this administration's abysmal style of international relations. Or trying to.

At the same time, we have to keep an eye on terrorists, and run them into the ground when possible, with every weapon at our disposal (including diplomatic and economic), not just the military. That's where these people have chiefly gone wrong, in my view.

I think the idea of shutting down Iraq, and Afghanistan really, with full mobilization may come from some frustration with the way the military has been abused in this effort. In other words, if you're gonna do it, do it all the way, not on the cheap, and don't give anyone a chance for a foothold to continue to take you down piece by piece for years on end. Not sure that's right either, but it was an alternative I've heard discussed by someone in the business who has no real attachment or respect for the administration or neocons in general.

Don said...

Don, I think you are clinging to a last straw of dogma ...

You do have a way of making one want to keep talking. There is so much to say to just that paragraph. However, I don't do this for a living so I just want to take this ...

10/ You are perfectly okay at global politics. You actually achieved what you aimed at in Iraq. That's why you're hated the world over.

... and assume it's correct. We used 9/11 as an excuse to smack Saddam, because he wouldn't play the Bush League game. We didn't care what happened to Iraq otherwise. We talked of Democracy and so on as covering rhetoric. We woke up the factionalism so that when we pull out, no one else will be able to pull in. It will remain a point of weakness in the Oily Crescent for years to come, and that's what we wanted. We most wanted to pull out with a weak but stable government in place, but will take the current state if need be. Bush is worried about his legacy but it's too late for that. The Democratic rush to evacuate plays into the plan just fine except perhaps on some details of timing.

Close enough? Truly, I wouldn't be surprised. I didn't quit the GOP over gay marriage, you know, and the U.S. hasn't had an honest man in power since G. Washington.

The trouble is, I can see where great things could have been done by this effort, contrived as it was. The talk about a tough job worth doing resonated, because almost every good turn in history was more difficult than anyone imagined and often looked like the wrong thing to do at the time. Oh fucking well. We cracked the crystal -- but still it isn't our doing that we found Lebanon underneath.

(I've known both Lebanese and Iraqis. All are sad that their once cosmopolitan nations are now riven with factionalism. That you cannot blame on the Marines.)

Anonymous said...

No, really, Joe. Despite appearances, I really don't have all day to educate you on why the Kurdish thing cannot be characterised as sectarian, nor on Kurdish-Arab relations, which you are clearly entirely ignorant of. But it's kinda cool to have so easily reduced you to whining about it.

Anonymous said...

Harry, yes, I meant the solution you mentioned, not the one you support!

The solution you support is very much the one I'd follow. I think that the best we can do is try to help broker a real political solution.

I think Iraq is "unshutdownable" in that sense. It's too hard to tell good guy from bad guy. And it wouldn't be a solution. How long could you maintain it for? The amount of troops needed would be truly massive and it would be openended.

Anonymous said...

You should have tried the "last straw of dogma" thing. It's one of the areas of politics in which you are *so* wrong that it blinds you so that you can't actually be right anywhere. Correct your notion of what we're about and the rest would fall into place.

I'm not sure about your characterisation of "the plan". Yes, you were looking for an excuse to take out Saddam. That's fairly obvious. And it's obvious that 9/11/WMDs/democracy were not genuine reasons for doing it. I'm not sure you purposely awoke the factionalism. That, I think, was a surprise. I don't think you necessarily reckoned on a fullscale insurgency. I'd say it's more likely you thought the Shia would line up behind your boy, viciously repress the Sunni and leave the country a simmering pot of hatred. That's subtly different. I don't know about not letting anyone else pull in. I guess you mean Iran. It already has great influence in southern Iraq, but I think that so long as Iraq is kept united, it's more a burden on Iran than a positive. Create a southern Iraqi state though and you have a different picture. I think even teh Bushco knows the current state is a nonstarter. It would probably like all-out conflict between the Shia factions and then anoint whoever's left standing. That's after all what it's trying to achieve. It's well aware that the government is not legitimate and that it is involved in the civil war that's going on.

You are wrong about withdrawal in my view. I think that teh Bushco probably sees the occupation as a reasonably low-cost way to posture in the region. Yes, I did say low-cost. It's not actually harming its interests, except for the people who are pissed off by it, but let's face it, they're going to be pissed off by *something*. It's probably a worry that the Saudis are now saying fuck off out of it. Bush would probably be quite happy to let the Dems pull the troops out. He isn't really interested in what becomes of Iraq, of course.

I can't imagine what "great things" you think can be achieved by destroying a country's infrastructure, murdering many of its inhabitants and then allowing your mates to loot the reconstruction money. You're seeing Germany in 1944 but I'm seeing Somalia, only worse.

And dude, you encouraged the factionalism. Take a closer look at how you approached the occupation at the start. Take a look at your policies and their outcomes. As I noted, much of the conflict has economic roots. As ever, it's teh economy, stupid!

Anonymous said...

It's REALLY amusing that someone would try to prove his right not by making a point and backing it up, but by simply being snotty about how right he is. Yes, that proves a whole lot, especialy when it comes from someone who's either too much of a fake or too much of a pussy to use the same name on a regular basis. Too busy to remember who you are?

Dr Zen said...

Okay, joe, fellah, calm yourself down. Put some water in your radiator. I use ludicrously transparent names, all linked to my blog, because on some blogs, some of the time, I cannot use this ID and stay logged into gmail, which I use for my day-to-day mail. I'm not hiding, not trying to fool you. Although my apologies for not crediting you (as part of the wider readership) with the common dog to check the link out if the ridiculously obvious nym didn't give it away for you.

I don't have to prove I'm right. I know I am, and you claim to be informed and yet are too dumb to know why you're wrong. I'm willing to give you a clue though. Two clues. One, the Kurds have been living practically autonomously for more than a dozen years, and Kirkuk did not see any factional violence until after the invasion. It's for you to disprove, motherfucker. Links, if you try, not bullshit, which is all you've brought to it so far. Two, you only need to read the many, many accounts by bewildered Iraqis from mixed neighbourhoods, who say this is a new phenomenon, to confirm that your simplistic view is wrong. Saddam was not a "Sunni-ist", if that makes any sense, although of course the people he trusted and promoted tended to be Sunnis (the reasons for Sunni ascendancy in Iraq are historical, not solely to do with Saddam). Dude, if you are going to talk about a subject, I implore you not to mouth what you've read somewhere without passing it through the old thinking centre, because your position is simply nonsensical.