The problem with your logic is that it has become so broad. The original justification for the invasion of Iraq was because it was a unique case. Because they were supposedly an imminent threat with WMD and because now was the time for action. Justifications like self-determination rights on the other hand are not unique in any way to Iraq. There are plenty of nations all over the world in which a minority is functionally oppressed by autocratic and sometimes even democratic governments. Embracing such a broad demand for self-determination seems almost non-sensical. Either Iraq is somehow a unique case (which I fail to see) or we're hypocrites and we'll support Iraqi self-determination but do virtually nothing for minority enclaves in say Russia (Chechnya, Yakutia, Nizhniy-Novgorod who have puppet governments installed by Putin), Fiji (where a substantial Indian minority was booted from government after legitimate elections and then proceeded to have many rights stripped by an angry nativist government), Turkey (where Kurds are still screwed day in and day out), Kashmir (where a UN mandated referendum never took place), or Indonesia (where there are tons of ethnic groups that are systematically denied basic rights by the government) etc.. etc.. Excessive self-determination guarantees two things. 1) It puts the US in the awkward position of having to actively support self-determination in all sorts of cases or else we're just being hypocritical 2) It risks drawing in neighbors into a wider regional conflict. Turkey sure as hell doesn't want a Kurdish state. Iran has and will continue to influence Shi'ite affairs in Iraq and even Syria's baath party could step in. Furthermore, there's all the more reason to believe that Al Qaeda would just turn its attention away from us and towards the Shi'ites who are just as detestable as Americans. And while you accuse Sishir of not "realizing the value of self-determination and freedom," you're forgetting the fact that most Iraqis don't want civil war. They want to be able to have a job, go to school, and live a normal life. The people who want civil war are a small minority in and of itself that are systematically killing innocent civilians and wrecking the country for their secessionist ambitions. This civil war IS NOT a referendum by the Iraqi people but rather a call to arms by a few militant members of each ethnic group that are by and large sabotaging the lives of basic Iraqis for aimless self-determination demands.
Sorry but I'm not seeing it. Bush isn't a despot. Far from it he was elected. And there is always recourse through impeachment if the public felt it was necessary. In the end there are also term limits. All of that makes the comparison pretty off kilter. Now, if your position is that despotic rule is the natural order of things that is different I guess. I would have to fall back to the position that there are universal rights and those include the right to self determination. There are so who will disagree, but I am not one of them.
It depends on whether you're talking about my logic and justifications for the intervention or the administrations. Those are not one and the same (I think my version was much more well thought out ). True. I think that is a illogical misstep on your part. For example - if I say "I gave a poor person a loaf of bread today," would a logic response be "if you didn't give EVERY poor person a loaf of bread then you are a hypocrite!?" I do not think so. Further, while we can pursue of policy that supports self determination, that does not necessitate military intervention in each case. In some places its simply unrealistic (China) and/or different policies with the same goal can bring about change to give people more say in their own governance (constructive engagement in China). For example, I think opening up with Cuba would do far more to open up the system than the embargo - same with Iran. In some cases where the oppression necessitates immediate action (like Bosnia) military intervention is called for, in some its not. I think the stance that 'you either have to intervene everywhere there is lack of self determination at the same time or you're being hypocritical' is nonsensical. It ignores the fact that different regimes have different levels of participation and that there are different methods to affect change in each. The US policy now is probably more consistently for self determination that it has ever been: see pressure on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Central Asian republics, Kuwait etc, criticism of Russia and China. If you want to move away from hypocrisy then you move away from realism, not toward it. What made Iraq unique was not the quest for self determination, although that is a benefit of the intervention. Iraq was unique for several reasons - because of the WMD issue - one I always said was inevitable, not imminent; the relation it had to blowback from containment (troops in SA and sanctions); the likelihood that an intervention there could spur reform elsewhere without intervention (we've seen that in Lebanon, SA, and Egypt); that Iraq was a state sponsor of terror (although this was on a low scale); those issues came together in a confluence of issues united disparate interests in the post-9/11 world. With sovereignty becoming more and more invisible and borders becoming more porous due to globalization, these issues are inevitable IMO. US policy in the past of supporting despots and turning a blind eye to oppression (while arguably necessary in the global battle against the Soviet Union) nonetheless did not make us many friends nor did it prevent regional conflict. It is easily arguable that it made regional conflict more intense as we fought our proxy wars in the third world. You put that in quotes but I don't think those are my words. Of course the Iraqis don't want civil war. I hope they can avoid it and as I said earlier there have been some positive developments lately that I hope will avoid it. But if the upheaval that comes with a civil war is inevitable, then the real choice is not IF it will happen but when. Is it better to live a few more years under a despot and then suffer upheaval in transition or have him removed and roll the dice that a civil war in transition can be avoided? I think its better to do the latter, but if it all goes to shiite and implodes then I don't know. I'm not saying there is a definitive answer but I do know that self determination demands are not aimless. Hundreds of thousands of shiites and hundreds of thousands of kurds have died for that goal because they CHOSE to try and overthrow Saddam. I think you vastly underestimate that fact. The majority of Iraqis seem to be consistently saying they are glad Saddam is gone and that they now want the US out too. That doesn't jive with some of the opinions expressed in this thread, IMO.
Notice the "interesting" distinction between outside intervention that seeks to *stop* conflict and the neoconservative kind that *starts* wars for US national interests. Anyway, which outside power will clean up a post Iraq civil war that you seem to be so in favor of? The UN? Iran? China? Russia? The USA certainly hasn't demonstrated the ability to build any substantial (that is, troops on the ground in large numbers...Fijian truck drivers don't count) coalitions in Iraq beyond the UK. US credibility under this adminstration is shot already. Kaput. If Iraq erupts into a large scale civil war (the bands of roving insurgents and rouge government shock troops assassinating their religious and political rivals makes me think the civil war has already been underway for a while) things only get worse for everybody. I find it stunning and bizarre that you don't consider the problems a Balkanized and inflamed Iraq would cause in Turkey, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, especially. I will continue to join you, HayesStreet, in ignoring the human dimension of civil war in Iraq for a moment and discuss what I believe is the main flaw in your argument. Civil Wars don't necessarily lead to democratic and stable societies. If history is any indication, the opposite is true. The British Civil War in the 1600's resulted in Oliver Cromwell's dictatorship that usurped more power from Parliament than any king since Henry VIII. Cromwell's brutal reign is still cursed in England and Ireland. It was only after the death of Cromwell, years of instability and a bloodless, peaceful revolution in 1688 that Britain was able to reach equilibrium. Civil War and revolution certainly didn't lead to democracies in France (Robespierre, the Regin of Terror and Napoleon and a terrorized Europe followed their revolution), Russia (the two Russian Revolutions of 1917 brought Lenin and Stalin and the legacy of the Gulag Archipelego, collectivisation, the ethnic cleansing of the Ukraine and a brutalised Eastern Europe), Spain (Franco and four decades of repressive rule), China (Mao Zedong and the disasters of the Great Leap Forward and Cultureal Revolution that literally killed millions), Cuba, Greece, Cambodia and the Balkans and on and on. It seems to me that wishing *more* destruction and death and chaos on Iraq in the name of some nebulous call for "freedom" is cruel and puzzling. I will close by saying this: if the premise of neoconservatism is to use aggressive American action to promote American interests, how is it in the American interest to have the most important strategic location on earth engulfed in civil war? Do you want to pay $9.00 a gallon for Kurdish independence? If self-determination means *another* Islamic theocracy on top of the second largest oil reserve on earth are you still erect for an Iraqi civil war of "self-determination?" What about Taiwan's independence? Would you support a war with China for their freedom? With all due respect, HayesStreet, you haven't thought this theory through too well. It just doesn't stand up.
There are some former splinter countries today that continue to prefer conflict with each other than making peace. I also think there's a Western slant of self-determination that isn't easily translated to a Middle Eastern society. I'm not well read in Arab/Muslim culture to assume what social contract they would prescribe to, but in Asian societies, most are willing to cede their freedoms for economic security and social services. To a Westerner, the draconian measures enacted by these Asian governments would look like a form of authoritarianism. Civil wars in China and Japan wrested control of one power onto oligarchies. Public support hinged on promises of security and national ascendency without ceding back that much power to the people. This doesn't mean that Mid-Easterners are choosing authoritarian despots, but they aren't flocking to American style republics either... So you're right Hayes, I don't like the question. It's not a one-size-fits-all answer. P.S. I don't think the US will just leave even in the event of a civil war. Iraq is too strategic a location. Knowing that other countries are eyeing its assets and location, it's going to take a humiliating and potentially catastrophic event for us to tuck our tails and run.
In every case of civil war you mentioned the people inside the nation managed to start a civil war. In the revolutionary war in the U.S. it was started by people within the U.S. In the civil war in the U.S. it was started by people within the U.S. The fact is that the Iraqis did not start a civil war, to remove a despot. I haven't seen evidence they were moving towards it either. success is a different issue. Nobody knows if it will be successful until it is attempted.
Funny you would bring up Taiwan. The independence-seeking Taiwanese "President" Chen Shui-bian has seen his approval ratings wandering in the teens for months -- a level so low that I am pretty sure even the Decider won't be able to stoop at for the rest of his presidency.
Still the same old Hayes for others, fought by others. If it iis war can't be all bad-- or at least fun to contemplate..
Hmmmm....i'm not sure if we're on the same page as far as neoconservatism goes. Bosnia was a decidedly neoconservative intervention. It didn't have anything to do with US national interests - a more realist perspective was why we weren't in Bosnia already. Further, it's a misnomer to assert Iraq was peaceful and stable pre-intervention - a third of the country had already risen up and had been in a constant state of war with Saddam for more than a decade. I am in favor of the new coalition working out, as I have stated many times in this thread and other places. Don't go glynch on me and start exaggerrating my position. I'm not sure why you'd say I don't consider those problems. In fact, if you'll look back to when SC brought up the exact same issue my reply was 'well thought out post.' This is more unnecessary strawman building. Its not necessary. If this discussion somehow angers you then I suggest you go for a walk. I'm not sure I ever used the word 'freedom,' feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - but I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making it appear you're "quoting" me when you aren't. Further, I don't 'wish more destruction and death and chaoes on Iraq' for any reason - so again I ask you to stop with the strawman arguments. It isn't productive. As for the idea that civil wars don't necessarily lead to democratic outcomes - you're right, they don't. There is a greater chance of that with a split state than in the examples you offered, however, IMO. The answer to your question is that in the short term it wouldn't be in our interest to have Iraq in a civil war. In the long term it would depend on the outcome of the civil war. $9 gas would be ok with me - no doubt is would spur our own movement off of oil importation. But generally I don't like putting a $ amount on things like this - who's being crass now? 'Erect' is an interesting choice of words. If the people of Iraq choose an Islamic theocracy I would feel bad for them, but if they chose it then that is their exercise of self determination and is fair enough. As I indicated earlier - it is faulty logic to assert each case must be a military intervention ala Iraq. I do support continuing to protect Taiwan from PRC aggression, which is in itself a form of military intervention. If the people of Taiwan did declare independence - it appears most still prefer to keep the status quo, then yes - I would support stopping a PRC invasion of the island. With all due respect, you can disagree - that is fine and I respect your voice. But save the off the cuff assessments about what has or hasn't been 'thought through' - it's just personalizing what can be a great discussion.
Absolutely - this is a big problem. Are 'universal rights' really universal? Do we believe that only Americans have 'universal rights?' That seems silly. If we believe that everyone has a set of rights, do we stop asserting that because someone else says they don't? I'm not being glib, its a real conundrum. Do we become true cultural relativists? Is it ok to have slavery, to be cannibals, or to engage children in prostitution because a particular culture holds that to be true? I don't think so although I will be very up front in saying that it is a huge problem to tackle. Fair enough. Thanks for the input and some good thoughts! I guess a country formerly being whole and then a full third of it rising up and being at war with the centralized government is.....uh......peace? As for success, yeah - this is what rimbaud was pointing out.
I’m waaaaay behind on this thread so I don’t know if this has been raised, but yet another false dichotomy Hayes is using here is the suggestion that the only choice for Iraq before the war was between the status quo, a corrupt food for oil program and the existing sanctions, or war. This is, of course, not the case. When Bush was proposing war a number of other options were being suggested. At that point the corruption problems had been uncovered and new proposals were being made for various ways to clamp down further on Saddam. Again, this is why this administration developed the WMD angle. It allowed them suppress all other options and push forward under the excuse that Saddam posed an immediate and extreme danger to the rest of the world. I think this administration wanted to invade and to invade alone so they could determine what was to happen afterwards, namely to effectively gain control of Iraq.
Saddam was offered exile - which he refused. That pretty much disproves the last part of your assessment. As for the 'false dichotomy' - the choices were to continue sanctions (even you argue that the option was to tighten sanctions) which was the status quo or intervention. When I put those as the choices I am not saying if you, grizzled, were President that you couldn't have done something else - I am saying those were to two options that were on the table at the time. We would have done one or the other.
The offer for exile was bogus. Bush didn't even give him the allotted time. I know Saddam said he would not go into exile already, but he could have had a last minute change of heart or not. Either way Bush's actions show the offer was not going to be upheld by Bush.
I don't know how that is true. Saddam was offered exile and given a deadline - he refused - we intervened. Nothing about that shows the offer wasn't going to be upheld.
Saddam was given a 48 hour time period. Prior the 48 hours being up, the U.S. had a supposed attack of opportunity and took it. Giving someone 48 hours and then bombing before the time period is up shows that it wasn't a serious offer in the first place.
Oooops hayes if US does this, it is going against the self-determination of Chinese people -- that's 1.3 billion Chinese on the Chinese mainland, 6 million more in Hong Kong, in addition to the 23 million Chinese citizens on the island of Taiwan. The Civil War in China is not over. There has never been a truce officially declared between two warring fractions. Moveover, neither side has ever given up its claim of sovereignty over the other entity. I have an advice to anyone who wishes to bring up the divided China issue to a serious discussion: learn some friggin' history first. While the US can always be prepared for more body bags, it should also ask itself this question: what do you tell American GIs to die for? A few Quisling separatists in another country?
