September 13, 2007
Al Qaeda Strikes Back
Sheikh Sattar, leader of the Anbar Awakening movement, was killed in Iraq today by a bomb near his house.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 11:17 AMWhy would this be al Qaeda instead of, say, a Sunni insurgent group who doesn't like the example being set?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 11:44 AMIt could be someone else, but Al Qaeda was Sheik Sattar's real enemy in Iraq. It is very unlikely that it was another group.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 11:47 AMLast week he shook hands with Bush.
Now he's dead.
Bush truly has the midas touch!!
Why would this be al Qaeda instead of, say, a Sunni insurgent group who doesn't like the example being set?
I saw this guy on television just last week. He made it very clear that the changes in Anbar were a direct response by Sunnis to "AQ in Iraq" killing many of their people. He was still against the Baghdad government and against the American "occupation". Remember, the Sunni in Iraq have never been friendly with Al Queda... no matter what we might have been fed. I highly doubt other Sunni would take out a Sheikh that was simply cleaning out the garbage.
This may well be a serious problem though. According to the people interviewed (Cops, Militia etc) everything that has happened in Anbar was due to Sattar. One cop interviewed said NOTHING would have happened or could happen without his leadership. With him gone, the Anbar province may go "back to sleep", unless another charismatic and trusted person steps up. Further, it may well be difficult, now, to encourage others to follow in his footsteps, since he couldn't be protected.
All in all, this seems bad for Anbar province. Maybe we'll get lucky and the Sunni will go on the warpath against AQ for this...
Posted by: Ratatosk at September 13, 2007 12:13 PMAll in all, this seems bad for Anbar province.
The ongoing problem in Iraq seems to be that it doesn't take much to upset things. In other words, it's consensus-based - unless there is total agreement, someone kicks over the dinner table.
A strategy based on everything working perfectly isn't a realistic strategy.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 12:37 PMI was so sad to read this news. I wonder if it will backfire, though, and make the awakening leaders that much more determined? Your thoughts, please?
Posted by: Sallyo at September 13, 2007 01:11 PMA strategy based on everything working perfectly isn't a realistic strategy.
Agreed, the concept that we were going to waltz in and hand the Iraqi people democracy demonstrated such a complete ignorance of the situation that I'm still surprised someone didn't take the fall for it.
Even so, I would much prefer to see a working local 'government' (even if its just that the Sheikhs take control of their areas and boot out the extremists) than a malfunctioning or (possibly) failed democracy.
The former may not be great, but a fiald Iraqi state at this point would probably be worse than the current disaster that we call "Iraqi Freedom".
Posted by: Ratatosk at September 13, 2007 01:14 PMfiald = failed (like my spellcheck ability apparently)
Posted by: Ratatosk at September 13, 2007 01:15 PMDPU: The ongoing problem in Iraq seems to be that it doesn't take much to upset things.
The whole Middle East is like that. Every time something good happens, there's a counterblow.
I am much more pessimistic about the region than I was a few years ago.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 01:20 PMAccording to Marc Lynch, the Anbar Salvation Council has blamed the Iraqi government for the assassination. Weird. What's that all about?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 01:22 PMDPU,
I chalk that up to yet another Arab conspiracy theory. Several US officers told me about the conspiracy theories in Anbar about the central government. They pre-date this asassination, and are likely bubbling up over the top now because of it.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 01:24 PMRatatosk,
Agreed, the concept that we were going to waltz in and hand the Iraqi people democracy demonstrated such a complete ignorance of the situation that I'm still surprised someone didn't take the fall for it.
That is not an argument, that is a hit. It must take a lot of sophistication to be able to overcome common decency and still throw dung at a funeral.
Well, I suppose this isn't a funeral. Your comment still stinks.
How much did you know about the internal politics of Iraq in 2003? I have friends who lived in fear in Baghdad that they might be arrested if they looked at one of Saddam's palaces. That kind of oppression and deliberate fostering of ignorance meant that nobody could know what would happen when Saddam was ousted from power.
But your 20/20 handwaving sure makes your position a lot stronger. I'm sure that you have a lot better plans and can do better with the army we had in 2003.
Here's the thing, do you want there to be a cabinet level post in charge of Imperial Conquest? That is the only way we could have been prepared to handle this war smoothly. Unless and until there is a serious effort to prepare the US to depose threatening governments, we will always be playing it by ear when we defend ourselves abroad by invading.
If you say that we never have to invade, that sort of makes us a sitting ducks forever. If a nation never has to fear invasion by the United States, they can do anything they want to our citizens and our interests abroad and even at home.
Invasion is part of our defensive strategy and people like you are why we are bad at it. You don't acknowledge the stakes and you don't let us prepare for what needs to happen. Even if you argue Iraq wasn't necessary, we weren't ready to invade anywhere to your standards.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at September 13, 2007 01:32 PMInvasion is part of our defensive strategy and people like you are why we are bad at it.
Uh, what?
You mean "War is Peace", right? And I'm sorely tempted to go after "Ignorance is Strength" for that second shot. Yeah, expecting competence is big part of the problem, he should simply salute and shut up.
Good grief.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 01:42 PMdpu - do you also believe that police or dea agents (and the like) should never perform raids? if having a strong/agressive military force breeds war/insurgency/terrorism, then having a strong/agressive police force must breed crime. and handguns kill. sheesh.
Posted by: heidianne jackson at September 13, 2007 02:04 PMDPU,
You mean "War is Peace", right? And I'm sorely tempted to go after "Ignorance is Strength" for that second shot. Yeah, expecting competence is big part of the problem, he should simply salute and shut up.
Having armed forces that in handcuffs is less of a deterrent than you appear to think. We rattled our sabers for more than a decade at Saddam Hussein and because we had not overthrown a major government since WWII, he was secure in his knowledge that we never would.
Perhaps you weren't paying much attention prior to 9/11, but there were several genocides because we failed to act. While there is a certain despicable truth to the argument that other people's genocides are not our problem, it ignores the repeated lesson that countries that perpetrate genocides strongly tend to attack the United States. Since a lot of people are unclear on the concept of conflict, not all attacks are invasions.
If you think we can continue to endure attacks without responding forever, you are delusional. We don't have to be a bull in a ring, but we do have to make it unprofitable to harm the United States or everybody will be doing so.
You can expect competence without funding training and planning all you like, it is not going to happen without a clear requirement and support from Congress. No money, no plans and training.
War is not peace, but pacifism is genocide.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at September 13, 2007 02:04 PMPatrick, you are indeed a piece of work. Blaming the incompetence of the post-invasion occupation on people who complain about the incompetence is staggering to see, even on the internet.
And, BTW, the self-righteous chest-thumping about preventing genocide would be a bit more stirring if you advocated, say, intervention in places like Central Africa. A few million have died there recently without so much as a peep from those shedding very public tears about the victims of oil-rich dictatorships.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 02:20 PMOn second thought, I'd like to reformulate that slightly:
War is not peace, but pacifism invites genocide.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at September 13, 2007 02:25 PMDPU,
Blaming the incompetence of the post-invasion occupation on people who complain about the incompetence is staggering to see, even on the internet.
Complaining is very important and a useful activity. Because dissent is the highest form of pretense...I mean inventing Thomas Jefferson quotes...I mean patriotism...
Seriously, if I had seen anything useful coming out of the anti-war movement activities since I started grade school, I would be a lot more willing to cut you some slack on this. The complainers are not honest or useful in their choice of complaints. Especially since we started having "Complaint Studies" chairs funded in our universities.
Central Africa is a basket of snakes for a lot of reasons and it will be for generations. I would certainly like it if the first world were willing to act responsibly when they don't have a gun to their heads, but that isn't going to happen in a democracy while there are so many ignorant people complaining about acting responsibly when there is a gun pointing at their heads.
Nations like Belgium pay more attention to the union representatives of their military hairdressers than they do to their expeditionary capacity. Until that stops, Belgium is going to be responsible for as many deaths in the Congo by sins of omission as they were sins of commission when they owned the place.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at September 13, 2007 02:39 PMPatrick, chill.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 02:44 PMMJT, did you ever meet with the Martyr Sheik Sattar, or any of his friends or family?
What did the Iraqis you talked to say about him?
I wish Martyr Sheik Sattar godspeed in journey to the beyond. We will miss him here on Earth. I pray his family and friends can derive some comfort, solace and wisdom from the many memories Sheik Sattar leaves behind him.
There is no God but God. Enjoy your journey to Him. And Sheik Sattar, see you when we too take the journey.
Posted by: anand at September 13, 2007 02:55 PMLawrence Wright, the author of the brilliant "The Looming Tower", pointed out recently that when we examined the documents and materials captured from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that there was nothing in them about a political agenda or blueprint to actually run a country. It was all about purifying Islam from the corrupting influences of this or that chimera (well, not always a fantasy; but you get the point).
I'm reminded of that famous line after Rousseau died: "He invented nothing; he set fire to everything."
Give them (grudging) credit; they sure know how to destroy things.
Posted by: SteveMG at September 13, 2007 03:14 PMFace it DPU, you DON'T WANT the present administration to succeed.
Posted by: John at September 13, 2007 03:39 PMgangleader,
Your mother was a goat and your father smelled of elderberries.
Posted by: John at September 13, 2007 03:43 PMCool it, John. I've been reading DPU's comments for years, and you have him wrong.
He thinks there should be a mega-surge in Iraq, and he opposes withdrawal.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 03:44 PMThen perhaps he should couch his rhetoric in less hopeless terms. Or rely on better sources...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
"No group claimed responsibility for the assassination, but it was widely assumed to have been carried out by al-Qaida, which already had killed four of Abu Risha's brothers and six other relatives for working with the U.S. military.
U.S. officials credit Abu Risha and allied sheiks with a dramatic improvement in security in such Anbar flashpoints as Fallujah and Ramadi after years of American failure to subdue the extremists. U.S. officials now talk of using the Anbar model to organize tribal fighters elsewhere in Iraq.
Abu Risha's allies as well as U.S. and Iraqi officials insisted the assassination would not deter them from fighting al-Qaida, and the tribal alliance appears to have gained enough momentum to survive the loss of a single figure, no matter how key. Late Thursday, Abu Risha's brother, Ahmed, was selected to replace him as head of the council.
Still, the loss of such a charismatic leader is bound to complicate efforts to recruit more tribal leaders in the war against the terror network. Two Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the matter, said the assassination sent a chilling message about the consequences of cooperating with the Americans.
"This is a criminal act and al-Qaida is behind it," said Sheik Jubeir Rashid, a senior member of Abu Risha's council. "We have to admit that it is a major blow to the council. But we are determined to strike back and continue our work. Such attack was expected, but this will not deter us."
Ali Hatem al-Sulaiman, deputy chief of the province's biggest Sunni tribe, said that if "only one small boy remains alive in Anbar, we will not hand the province over to al-Qaida.""
Posted by: John at September 13, 2007 03:51 PMLawrence Wright, the author of the brilliant "The Looming Tower", pointed out recently that when we examined the documents and materials captured from al-Qaeda in Afghanistan that there was nothing in them about a political agenda or blueprint to actually run a country.
Which may be why, after gaining influence in a place like Afghanistan, they simply sought more battle with another superpower. They thrive on conflict and conflict alone. They don't even have the most fundamental concepts of economics.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 03:54 PMThen perhaps he should couch his rhetoric in less hopeless terms. Or rely on better sources...
What rhetoric? You mean when I asked Michael why he thought it was al Qaeda?
Thoughtcrime!! Comrade double-plus-ungood dared ask a question!! Denounce his counter-revolutionary rhetoric!
***
Jeez, some people are natural Stalinists.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 03:57 PMAnand, Thank you for saying what I am thinking. I felt so sad when I read this today.
Posted by: Maggie45 at September 13, 2007 04:00 PMDPU: Jeez, some people are natural Stalinists.
I'm a natural Harperite.
Posted by: Edgar at September 13, 2007 04:02 PMI'm a natural Harperite.
That's okay, there's a cream for that now.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 04:04 PMWhy would this be al Qaeda instead of, say, a Sunni insurgent group who doesn't like the example being set?
Didn't MJT expound at length upon this in his previous post? Wasn't the reserve officer from Dallas the one who said that, like many Americans back home, he had no clue that the old Sunni insurgency had been defeated for quite a while now?
Posted by: Jeff S. at September 13, 2007 04:07 PMMy prediction: this assassination is going to backfire. Big time.
We're witnessing something major happen here. If this were going down in any Arab country not occupied by the U.S., the people would be desperately looking for some sort of strongman to stabilize the country.
That's not going to happen while the U.S. is in Iraq. So, if we just stay long enough, the Iraqis going to overwhelmingly choose their only good option--the Americans--over the terrorists.
Al-Qaeda is getting too murderous for its own good.
Posted by: Edgar at September 13, 2007 04:10 PMThe whole Middle East is like that. Every time something good happens, there's a counterblow.
I am much more pessimistic about the region than I was a few years ago.--MJT
Well that sums things up. A permanent hell-hole populated by the type of people hell-holes usually engender doing what people in hell-holes do.
The debate on the 'War' can go around in the same circles forever(and DOES) but at the end of the day, the hell-hole just goes on. It is NOT truly dependent upon any such external factors. There appears to be a misconception among 'some' that as soon as the Bush Regime is gone, things will be 'better' as if Bush were fully 'causative' rather than essentially 'accerlerative'.
They won't. They might and probably will be different but they won't really be better .
It's nice to babble with old 'friends' like Tosk and DPU here as they are invariably worth reading, but at this point, I think we are simply cast as the audience at the 3rd reel stage of a movie that cannot be stopped or rewound, or 'edited'. The 'ending' looks to be 'bad', but the scenario is not that of an interactive 'modern' play.
Yelling, whining, crying, shouts of advice from the audience, don't matter. The actors don't listen, and the film simply plays on. Sometimes there will be an intermission, or the projector will break down, the theater might close for renovations, and the audience can wander off for 'refreshments', but then the flic will resume like some ghostly nightmare.
Until its end.
Posted by: dougf at September 13, 2007 04:10 PMO Please...
"thoughtcrime"?
Though that post does serve to illuminate my point...
DPU,
I have found through much experience that when things are FUBAR, getting behind a push in the right direction usually straightens things out.
The whining and complaining of bystanders merely constitutes an irritating and distracting white noise that is ultimately counterproductive. Every single war in the history of the world has had such moments. This war is certainly no different.
Michael, thanks for bringing real insight into this very complicated situation. I am a long-time reader/first time poster. My question is are you seeing real revenue sharing from the central government into Anbar? Obviously that was one of the point of Crocker's testimony this week. And then how many of these tribes are making it onto the payroll of the central Interior ministry?
Both seem like critical steps to some level of reconciliation. Then finally is there a sense among the Sunnis that they really screwed up by boycotting the elections? Thanks in advance and thank you for bringing a much more nuanced conversation to this whole situation.
Posted by: Andrew D Sweet at September 13, 2007 04:19 PMMichael,
It could be someone else, but Al Qaeda was Sheik Sattar's real enemy in Iraq. It is very unlikely that it was another group.
But you don't imply this in your title. You imply that indeed it WAS Al-Qaeda and none other. Your main text is much better because you stick with the facts we do know, which is simply that a roadside bomb killed him. As to who planted the roadside bomb, at this point it is an unknown. Heck, I'm actually surprised conservatives haven't claimed this was the work of Iran!
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2007 04:22 PMPatrick
War is not peace, but pacifism invites genocide.
Really? Can you provide evidence of this assertion, please.
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2007 04:24 PMDan,
Ask any victim of conquest.
Pacifism is a luxury.
Are you a pacifist?
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 13, 2007 04:38 PMCG,
But genocide doesn't happen BECAUSE OF pacifism. The Turks didn't go killin' the Armenians because the Armenians were pacifists. The Serbs, Bosnians and Croats certainly weren't pacifist, yet participated in genocide. The Tutsis and Hutus were certainly not pacifist. I'm curious where Patrick gets his evidence from.
Posted by: Dan at September 13, 2007 04:42 PMMan. There's nothing worse than having to (effectively) defend my nemesis Patrick, but this annoys me.
Pacifism in people that can prevent genocide causes genocide.
Nobody is saying that being peaceful makes other people want to kill you.
It just becomes a problem when you need to save someone else and you won't act.
Posted by: Edgar at September 13, 2007 04:49 PMFrom CNN:
Police said Abu Reesha was killed about a mile from his home, but the deputy head of the Anbar Salvation Council, Sheik Hameed al-Hayyes, said the bomb struck the convoy 50 meters from his home in a heavily secured zone surrounding the house.
50 meters sounds like he was inside his compound.
Posted by: Tom in South Texas at September 13, 2007 04:52 PMDan,
Here's another variant on what Patrick is saying:
Weakness is provocative.
The wildebeest lying wounded on the Serengeti will be set upon by lions.
There are no pacifist wildebeests, but if they were, they'd get eaten, too.
Patrick's statement doesn't need proof. All it needs is that you expend a modicum of thought trying to understand what he's saying before you challenge it.
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 13, 2007 04:58 PMOk, that first post was pretty inarticulate.
I mean to respond to this statement : But genocide doesn't happen BECAUSE OF pacifism. The Turks didn't go killin' the Armenians because the Armenians were pacifists. The Serbs, Bosnians and Croats certainly weren't pacifist, yet participated in genocide. The Tutsis and Hutus were certainly not pacifist.
This is called deliberately misunderstanding. Dan just listed every possible stupid way to interpret the statement "pacifism leads to genocide" even though it's obvious what was meant by it.
Standing by and doing nothing leads to genocide.
Posted by: Edgar at September 13, 2007 04:58 PMMichael
I have been looking at all of my favorite blogs trying to find a post on this story. This is the first one I have found. I think this is going to be a pivotal event and I'm trying to figure out what it all means and how this is likely to play out. Any thoughts.
Posted by: joefrommass at September 13, 2007 05:00 PMmullah cimoc say all him collaborator to get the bullet in head unless so torture by ameriki, or him children so torture by ameiriki.
what aemriki him do if aemrika be occupation by chinese army and some whitie amerika collaborate with foreign chinese occupier?
mullah cimoc hoping honest and good ameriki to kill all collaborator and all him family even him second cousin. maybe now him ameriki so feminize and be bossed each day by the woman not having even the one gonad.
this sheik him just a bandit and kill for money so many generation. even him name kind of joking in arabic, call play on word.
abdul sattar abu risha when speaking by shia from south of iraq sound like: him eat dung of whitie until exploding.
this favorite joke now for all him sunni in baghdad.
Posted by: mullah cimoc at September 13, 2007 05:07 PMI don't know how this is going to play out, but it certainly doesn't mean Al Qaeda will take over Ramadi again.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 05:10 PMmullah: what aemriki him do if aemrika be occupation by chinese army and some whitie amerika collaborate with foreign chinese occupier?
Depends. Do the Chinese occupiers know Kung Fu?
Posted by: Edgar at September 13, 2007 05:10 PMMullah Cimoc isn't real, by the way. I think I know who it is (a well-known blogger who rarely posts here), but I'm not sure so I'm not telling.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 05:12 PMSo, if you're not a pacifist, you can still suffer genocide? But if you are, then you're, uh, hang on a second, I gotta loosen my tie for this one...
If you're a pacifist and will not defend your self, then you might suffer genocide?
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 05:24 PMI don't think that pacifism nessesarily invites genocide, although you can certainly find more than a few examples in history where failing to act leads to larger wars and genocide. Chamberlains appeasment of Hitler comes to mind. It seems to me that Americas role as worlds police was thrust upon us as a result of the European wars and the cold war that followed. It isn't a role that we relish because our country has a wide isolationist streak. However, far fewer people die each year since the USA has become the dominant player in the world 62 years ago, because the wars of today are kept small due mainly to American might.
Posted by: joefrommass at September 13, 2007 05:26 PMI think a better way of putting this is that pacifism is illogical in a world where conquest and genocide have not been abolished. Pacifism only makes sense if it is universal.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 05:34 PMDPU,
So, if you're not a pacifist, you can still suffer genocide? But if you are, then you're, uh, hang on a second, I gotta loosen my tie for this one...
Your idiot impersonation isn't very convincing. I've seen much better.
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 13, 2007 05:46 PMI'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton, but he used American might to end genocide in Bosnia. Security and stability is in our interest, that means not allowing small conflict to grow into large conflicts.
Posted by: joefrommass at September 13, 2007 05:47 PMYour idiot impersonation isn't very convincing. I've seen much better.
You're too kind.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 05:48 PMI think a better way of putting this is that pacifism is illogical in a world where conquest and genocide have not been abolished.
With the current fad for nukes, that may well be required at some point not too long off.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 05:49 PMWonder what Bush is going to say?
Bring home the troops tomorrow? Send in more?
Or... what HE said!
[It's like I'm right back in my dorm room...]
Pacifism is only viable under the aegis of a central authority with a monopoly on the use of force. Is it really pacifism then?
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 13, 2007 06:01 PMMJT, I must differ on pacifism, at least according to the Eastern (Hindu/Buddhist/Jain/Taoist ) or Gandhian tradition.
Pacifism or nonviolence is far more about nonviolence in thoughts than non-violence in actions.
Gandhi said on many occasions said that it was far better to fight without anger than to not fight but think hateful thoughts about someone.
A true pacifist will love their enemy with all their heart and all their soul regardless of what their enemy might do, not because they might benefit from it but because it is the right thing to do and in keeping our own true self.
That is why a pacifist will love someone even if they torture and kill everyone a pacifist knows or cares about. A pacifist will keep loving a sadist even if their own country, culture, tradition and religion is completely destroyed and lost to all posterity.
A pacifist recognizes that pacifism might fail to stop genocide or other atrocities (just as Gandhi recognized that his nonviolence might lead to the death of every Indian).
A pacifist loves everyone, the aggressor and the victim, equally.
A pacifist is an extremely courageous and saintly person. All pacifists deserve the greatest respect and admiration from all of us.
Just imagine how terrible the world would be if we lost our pacifists. If we all lost our innocence and naivety. Imagine if we couldn’t wake up in the morning and see Dennis Kusinich. That would be terrible beyond imagining.
As MJT has said, Dennis Kusinich is a harmless (even lovable) and naïve person. Uninformed and naïve pacifists should be engaged with, and informed about things they are unaware of.
Some on the left are pacifists, others are not. But we should always treat everyone with respect.
Posted by: anand at September 13, 2007 06:17 PMBill Roggio has some thoughts on this story. Some interesting comments also incuding a guy who recently had dinner with Sattar and his family
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/09/sheikh_sattar_leader.php
Posted by: joefrommass at September 13, 2007 06:26 PMIn another era, when those on the left weren't so consistently obtuse about such things, and when some of them still unashamedly preferred Western liberal values to barbarism, the socialist George Orwell condemned pacifism:
"In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism."
Posted by: Richard G. Combs at September 13, 2007 06:54 PMImagine if we couldn’t wake up in the morning and see Dennis Kusinich. That would be terrible beyond imagining." anand
Well I will have to wait until tomorrow to test out the full proposition, but I'm imagining the lack of Kuchinich as we speak, and it doesn't seem so bad at this point in time. Maybe it's just a morning thing and we could overcome this by waking up later in the day.
Posted by: dougf at September 13, 2007 06:58 PM...the socialist George Orwell condemned pacifism...
This is one of my favorite Orwell quotes: It is sometimes a comfort to me to think that the aeroplane is changing the conditions of warfare. In the next great war, we may see that sight unprecedented in all history, a jingo with a bullet-hole in him. For those who don't know, a "jingo" is what we would call in modern times "a war hawk."
From the invaluable Wikipedia: In practice, it refers to sections of the general public who advocate the use of threats or of actual force against other countries in order to safeguard a country's national interests.
My man George.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 07:03 PMJust imagine how terrible the world would be if we lost our pacifists. If we all lost our innocence and naivety.
That's so true. Pacifists are like fluffy kittens. The world would be a sad place without them.
But the world would be a much, much sadder place if they were in charge of anything more complex than a squeaky toy.
Posted by: mary at September 13, 2007 07:13 PMMy man George.
I'll hazard a guess that the war hawk definition fits the majority of Americans.
Posted by: Dogwood at September 13, 2007 07:14 PMMullah Cimoc isn't real, by the way. I think I know who it is (a well-known blogger who rarely posts here), but I'm not sure so I'm not telling.
Could it be - Puce..?
Posted by: mary at September 13, 2007 07:16 PMDo Gandhi and other pacifists deserve respect? Are they just cute fluffy kittens? Not in my book. Gandhi condemned the Jews who resisted the Holocaust. "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife," he said. "They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs." "Collective suicide," he told his biographer, "would have been heroism."
I find that utterly contemptible and vile.
As for dueling Orwell quotes -- well, DPU, Orwell's Pacifism and the War and Reflections on Gandhi are available on line.
Posted by: Richard G. Combs at September 13, 2007 07:36 PMI'll say this for pacifists: mature democratic societies always have them. Barbaric societies don't.
Germany, for instance, is a better society now that it has too many pacifists than it was when it had too few.
The United States would be a different society without them, and their existence disproves some of the worst propaganda about us. But I do not want them in charge.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 08:16 PMIs it possible that a large pacifist population can exist in our society only through the security that our military provides for them?
Posted by: joefrommass at September 13, 2007 08:28 PMAs for dueling Orwell quotes -- well, DPU, Orwell's Pacifism and the War and Reflections on Gandhi are available on line.
Read them. Read them in my teens, for that matter, which is now a long time back.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 08:44 PMIs it possible that a large pacifist population can exist in our society only through the security that our military provides for them?
Well, there's even an Orwell quote for that: Those who "abjure" violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.
It's easy to be a pacifist when you don't have to pay much of a price for being so. But there's a considerable difference between being a pacifist, and objecting to both the execution and reasons for a war.
I think that because there are some pretty easy arguments against pacifism, many opposed to the war are being painted with that brush. It's easier to mock supposed pacifists than to face up to the fact that many of the criticisms of the war four years ago were right on the money.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 13, 2007 08:49 PMI'll say this for pacifists: mature democratic societies always have them. Barbaric societies don't.
True, but not because pacifists make societies less barbaric. Barbaric societies don't tolerate pacifists. Free, democratic societies make it possible for pacifists to exist, not the other way around.
Pacifists are the parasites of liberty.
Posted by: Richard G. Combs at September 13, 2007 09:02 PMThe United States would be a different society without them, and their existence disproves some of the worst propaganda about us. But I do not want them in charge.
Southpark put forward the theory that Pacifists serve the purpose of deflecting blame from our country as a whole, just as Hawks serve the purpose of keeping us from getting rolled like a bum. That way, by having a system based on saying one thing and doing another we can have our cake and eat it too.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at September 13, 2007 09:10 PMYou could say that pacifists act as a "conservative" anchor and prevent democratic countries from going militarily off the rails.
Not sure if that's really the case, but they do have a role as long as it isn't an outsized one.
I'm thinking, here, of the Quaker types, not the International ANSWER crowd, which is something else.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 09:14 PMThe longer I watch this, the more I come to believe that the worst thing to happen to Western civilization in the last couple of centuries was the British capitulation to Gandhi and his followers.
Modern capitalists aren't imperialists, despite the myths of the Left, because in a modern economy conquest doesn't pay, it costs. The truth of the matter is that the Brits, exhausted by WWII, couldn't afford to keep India, but they didn't want to admit that, and Gandhi offered them a face-saving out. Nice People® respond to pacifists by giving in, and the British wanted to be (and think of themselves as) Nice People®. Gandhi didn't win. England downed bats and forfeited the game.
But that's not how the propaganda goes, and the result is a severe distortion of the debate. The only people that respond to the appeals of pacifists are the ones who shouldn't be targeted by pacifists in the first place. A genuine warmonger need not be troubled by pacifists. If they get in the way, just shoot them -- they're guaranteed not to shoot back.
Regards,
Ric
"I'm thinking, here, of the Quaker types, not the International ANSWER crowd, which is something else."
I doubt anyone really hates quakers even if they are pacifists. Without law most people would probably rape the guys from ANSWER (not in a gay way...like Vikings).
Posted by: mikek at September 13, 2007 09:44 PMI wish Iraq's biggest problem was too many pacifists.
Warmongers -- real ones -- are those who cause the most trouble in the world, and those who force people like me to support wars against them.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 13, 2007 09:47 PMWithout law most people would probably rape the guys from ANSWER (not in a gay way...like Vikings).
I so rarely actually laugh out loud when reading comments.
"Not in a gay way...like Vikings," I wonder what your history classes were like.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at September 13, 2007 10:30 PMIsn't "cimoc" spelled backwards something really funny? Me thinks the Mullah HaHa him mo' betta name.
Posted by: LIZ at September 13, 2007 11:03 PMRick Locke,
With respect, the UK “AND” India won in India. India today is a united, plural, diverse, free democracy with a rapidly growing economy.
The UK’s institutions and positive traditions lasted and succeeded in independent India. The Indian high quality Indian civil services, armed forces, and older educational institutions are a positive legacy of Britain and its partnership with India.
The UK’s role was to facilitate India’s transformation into a prosperous free democracy with strong institutions, traditions and the rule of law; and then leave. It took way too long, 89 years, but the Brits and Indians jointly succeeded.
The UK and the rest of the world has greatly benefited from India’s success.
The UK made a mistake to wait until 1939 before holding Indian elections. They should have introduced plans to hold free and fair elections, build and strengthen Indian institutions, increase Indian freedoms, as well as accelerate Indian economic development far sooner. They should have also sent substantial real transfers to India to facilitate India’s economic growth and success. They didn’t (unlike the US in the Philippians for example.)
The UK imposed a terrible form of socialism and state control called the “Licence Raj” that stifled India’s private sector and economic growth. They made many other mistakes.
Still, you have to judge the UK’s record by what happened in India after independence. By that measure, the UK won.
Gandhi wanted the UK to win. He very much wanted the UK to leave India as friends. Close friends in fact.
By the way, India fought against Germany quite willingly in WWI and WWII (and Japan as well in WWII). Most of India's freedom fighters backed the UK in both wars.
The UK and the free world could not have won without substantial Indian help.
It is the British Indian Army that fought with and stopped the desert fox Marshall Rommel in North Africa.. The British Indian army marched through Italy.
The British Indian army defeated the Japanese army in 1942, and tied down a huge percentage of the military resources of the Japanese empire between 1942 and 1945.
Rick Locke, in what way was India’s independence a defeat for Britain? I don’t get it.
Posted by: anand at September 13, 2007 11:50 PMI have listened to ANSWER regarding Iraq many times. I still don't know what they want in Iraq.
Does anyone get it?
I think they want to impose some type of communist dictatorship. But then they strongly oppose the Communist Party of Iraq, and President Talabani (the leader of probably the world's most important communist party today).
Their long term targeted end state often seems deeply confused and inconsistent. They seem deeply internally conflicted. Perhaps what they seek is to establish some type of global communist dictatorship led by them (a set of communist states around the world linked together in some way). The rest is only tactics, and the ends justify the means.
Like true revolutionaries they are willing to destroy Iraq, America or any other country to achieve global revolution, and successful global communism.
The destruction of Iraq might be seen as a terrible and sad sacrifice towards a far larger goal. Sacrificing the few (Iraqis) for the greater good of the many.
Another possibility is that they are woefully uninformed about Iraq and as a result support random, contradictory, and seemingly irrational policies regarding Iraq.
For example they strongly believe that Iraq should not pump much oil out of the ground, despite the fact that most of Iraq’s GDP and the vast majority of the GoI’s revenues come from oil. They appear to believe that the GoI should dramatically cut spending (do they believe that smaller government and slightly ordered chaos is in Iraq’s interest?).
They also believe that the GoI should cut spending on the ISF, and only use them in strange and seemingly irrational ways. They strongly believe that the GoI should accept no help from any country (except North Korea, and maybe Cuba and Venezuela if that) in training and equipping the ISF. They also believe that the GoI should disband in favor of what kind of government? In addition, Iraq shouldn’t trade, interact with or do business with the vast majority of countries in the world.
The more I try to listen to and understand them, the more confused I get. Maybe I am not smart enough to understand what they really want and what they believe in.
They do seem very hawkish and militaristic. Their hawkish instincts scare me more than most other hawks.
Posted by: anand at September 14, 2007 12:14 AMLogic dictates that ANSWER must be a front group. They support North Korea, right? No one on the planet would support that horror out of principle. The only explanation is that NK had some pocket money to spend on grass-roots public relations and these were the losers willing to take their money.
Really it's a certainty isn't it? Dictatorships always have money to spend on propaganda, front groups and the like, and it's a certainty that there will be a bunch of horrible losers willing to take their money.
Oh and the "end racism" in their name, what have they ever done about racism?
Quick look at Wikipedia:
As of December 2006, ANSWER's Steering Committee consists of:
* Alliance for Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines
* Free Palestine Alliance — U.S.
* Haiti Support Network
* Kensington Welfare Rights Union
* Korea Truth Commission
* Muslim Student Association — National
* Mexico Solidarity Network
* Nicaragua Network
* Partnership for Civil Justice — LDEF
* Party for Socialism and Liberation
* IFCO/Pastors for Peace
Only three of those groups are real enough to have wikipedia entries of their own.
Posted by: Josh Scholar at September 14, 2007 12:32 AMLet them kill each other and blame the Americans, Zio-Cons etc. They can't take responsibility for their own deeds !!!!
Posted by: Abe Bird at September 14, 2007 02:34 AMTo anand.
1) Not only Indian Army fought in North Africa and Italy in WW II, not even mainly, it is more complicated than that.
2) Never cross my mind and I dont very much like it when I put it on the screen. But is it possible that a main reason for the great success of India (which seems to have almost a majority of Muslims) lie in the fact that some body took care to separate very nationalistic and religiously fanatic Muslim Pakistan and Bangladesh from India (compare the economy of the three) and what will happen when one day the Muslims in India will get the wrong idea? I hear that strange things are hapenning to the 2nd and 3rd generation Turks in Germany, not to mention the Muslims in the rest of Europe. Notice the very unpleasant way by which China is taking care of the very many Muslims there. Not very political correct thoughts, but can some body show me I am out of my mind here?
3) To Dan, practical Pacifism is associated with genocide, think about Tibet now, and the European Roma (Gips.) in WW II.
Independence for India was high on Attlee's agenda before WW II. It was a great success for Britain, except for the appalling number of deaths involved in the partition.
It was bound to come. The US had to fight for its independence, but Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand had been given theirs. India had to follow.
Now it is the world's largest democracy - not without problems, but what country doesn't have problems? Perhaps if China had been a part of the British Empire, it too would be a democracy today.
Posted by: Don Cox at September 14, 2007 04:39 AMEdgar,
Standing by and doing nothing leads to genocide.
But standing by and doing nothing is NOT pacifism. Pacifism is actually quite active. Pressing for peace, and doing all you can to ward off violence is NOT standing by and doing nothing. I think you guys misunderstand what pacifism really is.
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2007 05:39 AMBut standing by and doing nothing is NOT pacifism. Pacifism is actually quite active. Pressing for peace, and doing all you can to ward off violence is NOT standing by and doing nothing.
What have pacifists done to stop the ongoing war in the Congo? What actions have they taken to stop the genocide in the Sudan? Where are the pacifists who are willing to become human shields to protect Israeli children from terrorist attacks? They could use you in Sderot right now.
Posted by: mary at September 14, 2007 05:54 AMDo Gandhi and other pacifists deserve respect? [...]
-Richard G. Combs
Only for their courage, not the practical results of their philosophy, or their understanding of history. It takes a certain amount of guts to face an opponent who employs the use of force without allowing yourself to respond in kind, especially considering the historical precedents (which I suspect most pacifists are ignorant of).
With that said, Gandhi was very, very lucky. If India had been a possession of just about any government other than the British, he would have been killed and the rest of the planet never would have heard of the guy.
-----
You could say that pacifists act as a "conservative" anchor and prevent democratic countries from going militarily off the rails.
-MJT
People who won't resort to force even in extremis can be safely ignored.
What keeps democratic countries from going off the rails is that the important positions are filled by elected officials accountable to the electorate, and those officials are thrown out of office if they make too many bad decisions, which is what happened in the 2006 elections.
-----
"Not in a gay way...like Vikings," I wonder what your history classes were like.
-Josh Scholar
Google 'klámhogg'
-----
Re ANSWER-
Their long term targeted end state often seems deeply confused and inconsistent.
-anand
Their desired end state is completely consistent- they want the US to lose. Everything else is negotiable.
They do seem very hawkish and militaristic. Their hawkish instincts scare me more than most other hawks.
They believe the ends justify the means, and groups like ANSWER are trying to build a utopia. Philosophically, they have a great deal in common with the jihadis, and that may explain some of the affinity between far-left radical groups and muslim extremists.
Posted by: rosignol at September 14, 2007 06:39 AMSheikh Sattar's leadership style will soon be unfolded for all to see when his successor is chosen. The succession will be pivotal, not just in who is chosen but how he is chosen. If the successor is chosen peacefully then the Awakening will strengthen and there can be more hope for the future of Iraq. If it becomes violent.... Talk about setbacks.
On another note, Mr. Totten, did you by chance catch a story about Qaddafi's son either yesterday or the day before? The love affair with junior seems to continue. Anyway the story was about junior's desire to start up eco-tourism. Would like to know your thoughts on that, don't remember if the eco-tourism came up in your "Brother Leader" article.
What have pacifists done to stop the ongoing war in the Congo? What actions have they taken to stop the genocide in the Sudan?
Probably the same as the war hawks. Diddly Squat.
My goodness, everyone is full of themselves these days.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 07:29 AMDPU,
Using the Wikipedia definition of war hawk, it is very unlikely that war hawks would support using military force to stop genocide unless doing so directly served a national security interest.
For example, I opposed sending troops into Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia for such a reason.
Pacifist, on the other hand, like to claim the moral high ground by opposing the use of force, but then seem to ignore genocides perpetrated around the world while focusing their ire and attention on the actions of the U.S. or other western governments.
Such behavior undermines their credibility.
Just my .02 cents.
Posted by: Dogwood at September 14, 2007 07:52 AMrosignol:
The only end state for islamists is their way or six feet under. There is no negotiation. UBL's last two videos make that clear.
To borrow from Star Trek:TNG - "Resistance is futile". Hey, a new motto for the islamists.lol
Appropriate I think since those familiar with TNG knows what happened to the Borg.
dpu - Sorry, but when Dan talked about pacifists efforts, as he said - "Pressing for peace, and doing all you can to ward off violence.." - I thought he was talking about pacifists pressing for peace and doing all they can to ward off violence. Silly me.
Now that you've thrown some verbal (or pixelated?) poo at the "warhawks", who had nothing to do with Dan's argument in the first place, I can see how I was mistaken.
Never underestimate the value of a poo-flinging response. Thanks for clarifying things.
Posted by: mary at September 14, 2007 08:01 AMrosignol - "What keeps democratic countries from going off the rails is that the important positions are filled by elected officials accountable to the electorate..."
that and an armed citizenry.
Posted by: heidianne jackson at September 14, 2007 08:58 AMI'm familiar with the arguments surrounding Indian independence, and even agree with some of them.
At the end of the process Gandhi and his family were In Charge, and the Brits weren't. Gandhi therefore won and the Brits lost, regardless of "nuance". Pacifists have been using that triumph as a way of asserting that pacifism can win ever since. It even appears partially true, in the sense that pacifists can win if the cost to the non-participants is neglected (vide Cambodia).
Regards,
Ric
Does anyone here actually know a real pacifist?
I don't personally know one and I live in one of the bluest regions in the country, and no, being critical of our foreign policy for the last seven years does not constitute a pacifist, even if you're ANSWER. I think a Quaker would qualify, but c'mon, they are so irrelevant to anything. As Dan pointed out above, real pacifism is poorly understood. I can totally connect with how Anand explained pacifism in the Ghandian tradition and it's distinction between pacifism in action and pacifism in thoughts. The key is to not responding to hate with more hate, but finding the most apropriate and compassionate response. Being involved in some martial arts for awhile, I can totally see how this principal could be applied. My teacher is good enough to respond to a hateful, malevolent attacker with the worst intentions and dispose of him with swift efficiency without an ounce of hate arising in his heart. I'd say he could even do it with a certain amount of compassion, taking care not to needlessly punish the attacker by severely injuring him. It's about learning to tame the ego. He's probably the closest thing to a pacifist that I know and he could probably kill someone with his bare hands if he really wanted to. This pacifism is to be respected.
I think we can all agree that if the prisoners at Abu Grhaib had gotten the Comfy Chair treatment instead of the electro-shock-rape-attack-dog treatment things may have been a little bit smoother from the beginning in Iraq.
Posted by: John at September 14, 2007 09:17 AMOh.. and Don Cox, Ireland didn't fight for it's independence? Huh?
Posted by: John at September 14, 2007 09:20 AMDoes anyone here actually know a real pacifist?
What does it matter? It's Pacifist Dog-Pile Day. Pile on the latest whipping-boy of the prattlesphere, filthy fifth-columnist back-stabbers nowarnicks.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 09:33 AMI've never been able to understand how the principles of pacifism can be squared away with the very core of existence, ie, survival. Dan's version is warding off violence. Ghandi's version, if the above reference to the Holocaust is true, advocates lovingly embracing the violence. The former equates to pushing chairs in the killer's path, the latter quietly sitting down in the chair.
Suicide in the face of extraordinary pain, whether physical or psychological, is understandable. But advocating submitting one's life to a killer's desire to kill bears no resemblance to even that.
Another quandry is the rationale of embracing killing in order to cease future killing. In real life on this planet, killers stop killing for what reasons? Lots. Nothing left to kill always holds a top slot. But a few more...they tire of it, they are running low on food providers, wealth providers, servants, slaves, and people to pleasure them. Or someone simply steps in and kills them first, takes away their ability to kill, or makes it worth their while in some fashion to cease the killing. It might have occurred, but I just can't recall someone ever saying...oh, man, I can't kill that guy because he wants to be killed because I want to kill him. Dying to survive. I gotta be missing a key piece of the puzzle.
Posted by: allan at September 14, 2007 09:33 AMThere are no true pacifists anywhere, ever. Not Jesus. Not Ghandi. None. A true pacifist is a universal appeaser.
Posted by: John at September 14, 2007 09:38 AMallan,
The very nature of the world precludes the survival of a true pacifist. Much like altruism, there is no such thing except in the imagination of men.
Kevin,
I think Sheikh Sattar's brother was chosen to replace him locally, but I don't know if he will be replacing him at the head of the council.
Libya would be a good place for ecotourism, actually. The desert is amazing, and blessedly not oppressisve due to its remoteness from the capital.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 09:45 AMDogwood: it is very unlikely that war hawks would support using military force to stop genocide unless doing so directly served a national security interest. For example, I opposed sending troops into Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia for such a reason.
Well, somebody supported sending troops to the Balkans, and it wasn't the pacifists.
I was one of those people.
The last thing Europe needed (not to mention the Yugoslavs) was another metastasizing genocide on the continent.
That action may not have served our national interests narrowly defined, but we are human beings, not just Americans. Would it have been okay to leave Hitler alone during World War II if he promised to leave us alone and we knew he was serious? That's what Pat Buchanan thinks we should have done.
I support the use of force to prevent, stop, and punish genocide wherever possible. The U.S. military can't do everything by itself, obviously, and it would be nice if more civilized countries acted a little less selfishly once in a while.
One of Barak Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, wrote a very good book about this called The Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 09:53 AMWell, somebody supported sending troops to the Balkans, and it wasn't the pacifists.
Obviously.
I opposed U.S involvement in Bosnia because I believed then and believe now that a conflict of that size and nature could have and should have been handled by Europe.
Would it have been okay to leave Hitler alone during World War II if he promised to leave us alone and we knew he was serious?
Hardly, since German occupation of the European continent and north Africa was not in the national interest of the U.S., but there was little chance that Bosnia was going to morph into the next continental-wide war. The analogy seems a bit overwrought.
That's what Pat Buchanan thinks we should have done.
He's an isolationist, I'm not.
That action may not have served our national interests narrowly defined, but we are human beings, not just Americans.
True, but we also have limited financial and military resources, and a public that is reluctant to wage war. Therefore, the military should not be used to intervene in every low-grade military conflict or ethnic genocidal campaign, but used for genuine threats to national security or interests.
The U.S. military can't do everything by itself, obviously, and it would be nice if more civilized countries acted a little less selfishly once in a while.
Other countries will not begin to act less selfishly as long as Uncle Sam is quick to respond with the 82nd Airborne or a carrier battle group.
If Europe and other countries have to choose between 1) Oh shit, we better take care of this, or 2) Call the U.S. for assistance, then they are going to choose number 2 because it is easier and cheaper, for them at least.
Posted by: Dogwood at September 14, 2007 10:27 AMI support the use of force to prevent, stop, and punish genocide wherever possible
One thing that's going to come out of the Iraq boondoggle and that's going to be a trend toward isolationism for the next generation or so. I welcome it.
America is not the default cleaner of other peoples' messes. There are 196 other countries in the world. Let them get off their sniping bums and do something productive for a change.
Posted by: ZZZ at September 14, 2007 10:47 AMPerhaps we need to add another category to this discussion.
War Hawk: supports the use of military force in the pursuit of national security or interests
Humanitarian: supports the use of military force to limit or eliminate human suffering caused by famine, genocide, etc.
Pacifist: opposes the use of military force in favor of non-violent alternatives.
Posted by: Dogwood at September 14, 2007 11:08 AMOne thing that's going to come out of the Iraq boondoggle and that's going to be a trend toward isolationism for the next generation or so. I welcome it.
I think ZZZ is right about that. I've read Fukuyama worrying about this as well. This war may turn out to be the worst possible thing for the neoconservative cause. Though I don't welcome this, because like Fukuyama, I think the US has the potential to be a humanistic force in the world.
Posted by: John at September 14, 2007 11:09 AMThank you Micheal.
Hopefully his brother is politically cut from the same cloth and a national leader can be effectively chosen.
Provided that what we have seen is genuine of the Awakening leadership. Duplicity is unfortunately the name of political alliance.
Pat Buchanan is/was wrong about Europe not being in our interest during WWII. Our economic ties with Europe were far stronger then than now. We needed their markets and goods and vice-versa desperately. A Nazi Europe would have closed those markets, more so than the Depression. The U.S. Depression would have dragged for generations possibly ending up in a fascist takeover.
Posted by: Kevin at September 14, 2007 11:16 AMThough I don't welcome this, because like Fukuyama, I think the US has the potential to be a humanistic force in the world.
I'm in complete agreement with this. There was real hope for a while that we were seeing a new age of humanitarian intervention with the US at the forefront, and that this would bring about some important change. That's pretty much gone now, and I don't see much hope for revival for at least a decade.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 11:25 AMZZZ,
John is right in that the US has the potential to be a humanitarian force in the world.
But on purely (more cynical) national security and quality of life grounds: Isolationism has been tried before here in the US (both before the World Wars and in the 1990's by and large). It has been proven to not work out well for the benefit of Americans in so many ways for so many reasons.
The world is getting smaller. Isolationism was only quasi-possible with largely negative consequences in the early 1900's. It is virtually impossible now, period. It's something you'll just have to accept and live with.
Isolationism has many aspects that sound appealing to many, but it is a phantom cause regardless of whether the effects truly ever ended up being positive, because it is a cause which has aims that are plainly not possible (I happen to personally put Pacifism in this same category given the time-proven Human Condition).
"It's the kiss of death," said Turki al- Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched Sunday's elections closely. "The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win."Not a good prognosis for future developments, IMO. Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 11:31 AM
An isolationist America will cease being a sole superpower and will have to make room for whichever other nations that want the job. In theory this is fine, but look at who else wants the job. It is not Britain or any other nation whose values we share.
Our values are dominant in the world because we have the power and money to make it so. I'm not saying I want America to rule the world. (Good Lord, please no.) What I am saying is that I don't want the values of a nation ruled by a dictatorial regime to become dominant in the world, which is what would have happened if (for example) the Soviet Union won the Cold War.
Raise your hand if you want Russia and China to throw their weight around the world more than we do. Would that be a better world? Iraq is a mess, but look at what happened to Tibet and Chechnya.
If a superpower replaces us that values liberal democracy and human rights even imperfectly (as we do), that will be fine with me. I'm tired of us being the "boss" of the world. But that will not happen, not yet.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 11:36 AM"One thing that's going to come out of the Iraq boondoggle and that's going to be a trend toward isolationism for the next generation or so. I welcome it."
With apologies to Leon ---- You might not be interested in the WORLD, but the WORLD is interested in YOU.
You can run but nowadays you literally can't hide. At the very best a neo-isolationist would be in the position famously illustrated by Michael Corleone.
" Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in."
Every Time.
Isolationism is dreaming in technicolor. On crack.
Posted by: dougf at September 14, 2007 11:48 AMJoe;
We have been generally isolationist when it came to Africa's endless conflicts. There have been no negative consequences for Americans. Most Americans sure don't regret staying out of Rwanda.
At any given time there are something like 15 conflicts raging around the globe. Most times it's better just to let these wars burn themselves out. Our soldiers lives should be not be taken so cheaply that they should be tossed in every third world mudpit. Foreigners do have to learn to solve their own problems. War is painful but some folks have to learn that the hard way.
Posted by: ZZZ at September 14, 2007 11:50 AMFor all you "do-gooders" out there that live in the U.S.; why not take care of people in your own country first instead of other countries?
Or, volunteer your time and YOUR tax money for those people/nations/regions/races/other groups that you care so much about.
If it is not in our National Security Interest, however that might be defined (and the more narrow and restricted, the better), I do not want our troops lives or tax money being spent on it.
"...humanitarian intervention with the US at the forefront, and that this would bring about some important change..." Please. Again, you are welcome to spend your time and YOUR money on this venture, leave the U.S. and my tax dollars out of it.
Here is a thought; get the U.N. out of my country, stop wasting our money on it, and you could probably talk me into spending a good portion of those saved monies on your "feel good" projects.
I do not care about Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran, Afhanastan, ........ except as it affects our National Security Interest. Nor do I believe I have a right to spend your tax dollars for those countries. If I want to do something for those countries I can give my time or my money.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at September 14, 2007 11:57 AMPlease. Again, you are welcome to spend your time and YOUR money on this venture, leave the U.S. and my tax dollars out of it.
Are you under the assumption that I have any control over it?
I was glad top see the US at the forefront because, as Michael commented, I appreciate the values of the American culture, and as a liberal democracy the US has a vested interest in both humanitarian intervention and stable democracies. Russia and/or China may not share those values.
As far as my own time and tax dollars, well, we already do a fair bit of peacekeeping and democracy promotion, and I contribute to international causes that do the same.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 12:08 PMOh man, the thought of Russia or China taking over the US role in the world sends shivers that not even bathing in lava could remove.
Unfortunately one day the US will cease to be the "boss". And talk about a power vacuum.
As for isolationism, fortunately plenty on both the liberal and conservative "see the light." They just don't agree on which map to use.
Posted by: Kevin at September 14, 2007 12:28 PMWith the spread of islamofascism, it's all involves national security interests. A region in chaos with no threat of western(US) intervention will naturally draw the radicals of the world
Posted by: Kevin at September 14, 2007 12:33 PMJohn,
How can any nation afford to be isolationist? Especially the USA! Our interests are literally everywhere. The USA is the keystone to the arch of the global political and economic structure. Isolation at this point would be backwards and weak. The whole world would suffer in the shake-up and history shows it would likely invite a maniac to take power. Perhaps down the road when we have robotic labor and an abundant, secure energy source, we can sit back and laugh at the rest of the world like its on TV. But not likely...
Ron Synder,
The problem with your take on this is that you don't always know which country's problems will metastasize and how.
Imagine if Al Qaeda chose Bosnia and Kosovo as the next big thing after Afghanistan. A few Al Qaeda guys did go there, but NATO was there in force and AQ wasn't able to do much. The locals rejected the offers of "help" because they were already getting real help from the West. They might not have rejected Al Qaeda if they were more thoroughly ground down by the Serbs and desperate for whatever assistance showed up.
We didn't think about this at the time, but we do know from history that festering wounds on the planet often spread far beyond their borders. Who would have thought Afghanistan would be the point of origin for the worst attack on America ever?
We live in one world, like it or not. The desire to save others is partly "do gooderism," but there is more to it than that.
The world "woke up" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, but everyone should have gotten a clue when he gassed the Kurds three years earlier.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 12:50 PMThe world "woke up" when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait...
No, they didn't. Iran and Iraq had been fighting a literally hellish war for a decade prior to that, and no one gave a damn one way or another other than foreign policy wonks. As far as Hussein invading Kuwait, few had heard about it before, and few cared about it, particularly since Kuwait itself was a dictatorship as well.
It became a bit more important after Saudi Arabia and Syria invited the US to do something about it. And as Hussein apparently thought that he had been given the green light by the US for the invasion, he probably wet himself at that point.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 12:57 PM"No, they didn't. Iran and Iraq had been fighting a literally hellish war for a decade prior to that, and no one gave a damn one way or another other than foreign policy wonks.--dpu
Of course people other than 'foreign policy wonks' cared about that war. And as was said at the time the prevailing outlook was on the lines of "too bad they can't both lose". You are confusing not giving a damn in general, with not giving a damn about the particular combatants in a specific conflict. If someone were to invent a time machine so that we could go back to those days of Iraq/Iran quagmire, it would still be ' too bad they both can't lose". What else could you really say about it?
Grim but true.
The Saddam in Kuwait problem was merely realpolitik in action, and not the dawn of any sort of 'new era'. Saddam in control of that area would have been seriously 'problematic' so he got the boot under the guise of 'protecting' the Kuwaitis, who in actuality no-one really overly cared about. They were never very 'sympathetic' victims.
The only wake up call involved was 9-11. Absent that deus ex machina no-one would give a rat's a** what the Middle East did to itself. The concerns arise solely because of what the pathologies bred therein might do to us. It is the lack of a 'quarantine' ability that is the motivating factor for 'interventions' of any sort of nature. Were it just a matter of the inmates trashing ONLY their own asylum the attitude would STILL be ' too bad they both(or all) can't lose'.
It's the export of those 'losses' that underlies the 'awakening'.
Posted by: dougf at September 14, 2007 01:25 PMThe only wake up call involved was 9-11. Absent that deus ex machina no-one would give a rat's a** what the Middle East did to itself.
As a huge amount of a precious non-renewable resource is found in that region, I would hope that quite a few people in positions of influence would give a rat's ass about the region.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 01:31 PMThe problem with your take on this is that you don't always know which country's problems will metastasize and how.
That's still no reason to get involved in every conflict on the chance that it may metastasize into something bigger. We are limited in resources and money, and our troopers' lives have value.
If it doesn't affect our security, we should stay out of other peoples' problems. The public is moving toward that conviction. Not too many Americans are clamoring for US intervention in Darfur.
Saving Kuwait resulted in American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia. That action put Osama in a very bad mood. What the do-gooders aren't mentioning is that interventions can sometimes have negative consequences for the intervener.
Posted by: ZZZ at September 14, 2007 01:38 PM"As a huge amount of a precious non-renewable resource is found in that region, I would hope that quite a few people in positions of influence would give a rat's ass about the region.--dpu
Yeah but ONLY in the sense that the OIL must keep flowing. That is hardly 'humanitarian' in any sense of the word. If the OIL could be extracted while the whole place was tearing itself apart, that would probably be considered as 'acceptable'.
Of course people care in the 'must have OIL' way, but that is quite different than 'caring' about the region for some 'elevated' reason.
At some point the OIL will be gone. So will the 'caring'. Well apart from that annoying 'quarantine' thingy.
Posted by: dougf at September 14, 2007 01:39 PMThis is a bit, well, a lot, off topic, but does anyone know the skinny about the Israeli warplane-Syrian confrontation last week. They are all being uncharacteristically hush-hush about it. Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Kummin at September 14, 2007 01:52 PMAQI has claimed responsibility for the assassination.
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2007 01:56 PMBut you don't imply this in your title. You imply that indeed it WAS Al-Qaeda and none other. Your main text is much better because you stick with the facts we do know, which is simply that a roadside bomb killed him. As to who planted the roadside bomb, at this point it is an unknown. Heck, I'm actually surprised conservatives haven't claimed this was the work of Iran!--Dan
AQI has claimed responsibility for the assassination.---Dan
How apt.
Posted by: dougf at September 14, 2007 02:09 PMMichael,
Raise your hand if you want Russia and China to throw their weight around the world more than we do. Would that be a better world? Iraq is a mess, but look at what happened to Tibet and Chechnya.
Are you saying that things are worse in Tibet and Chechnya than they are in Iraq? I can see Chechnya competing with Iraq for being one of the worst places in the world, but Tibet? Interestingly, the reason Tibetans haven't been as violent against the Chinese as the Chechens have against the Russians, and the Iraqis against the Americans is because they believe in non-violent forms of dissent and change.
We think having Russia or China "rule the world" is somehow one of the worst things possible in this world, but is that really the case? I'm not making a case for them to replace America, far from it, but I'm trying to debunk this fear, (along with the fears that keep us in Iraq). We don't really need to police this world; it really isn't going to go to hell in a handbasket if we somehow stop interfering in the internal affairs of this or that nation. In fact, things might actually be better off if we stop interfering and let other nations do what they want.
A few Al Qaeda guys did go there, but NATO was there in force and AQ wasn't able to do much. The locals rejected the offers of "help" because they were already getting real help from the West. They might not have rejected Al Qaeda if they were more thoroughly ground down by the Serbs and desperate for whatever assistance showed up.
I don't know. I don't think the Bosnians or Albanians would ever link themselves to radical Islamists like Al-Qaeda. First of all, their goals are completely different. Secondly, Albanians and Bosnians really don't have an interest in creating Islamic states as Al-Qaeda sees them. Culturally speaking, they are far closer to the Europeans than Middle Eastern cultures.
And this is where I just don't get this whole fear that many conservatives have towards Al-Qaeda. They compare Al-Qaeda to real powers of old, like the Soviet Union and the Nazis. But Al-Qaeda is an ant next to a lion when comparing them to the Nazis or the Soviets. Can Al-Qaeda ever mobilize an army as powerful as that of the Nazis or Soviets? Never. Because they will never be able to control their own state. This is their greatest failing as an organization. They act outside the state, and as such, will always be extremely weak. Their power comes from instigating fear in the populace of large or small states, but beyond that and a few killings here and there, they don't have much power beyond organized crime syndicates.
Real power lies in the state, not in NGOs. Look at the battles between Germany and Russia during both World War I and World War II to see real power, to see real destruction. Where else can you find wars that claim lives in the millions and still not end a war? This is a power that Al-Qaeda will never have. Why do we treat them as if they will?
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2007 02:10 PMDan states a world dominated by Russia or China isn't so bad, and asks why so many people would view a terrorist organization as a grave threat that needs to be responded to & taken as seriously as other grave threats in the past.
I really don't think much of a counter-argument is even really needed here.
As for his curiosities on why we get so hyped up about what destructive capability terrorists possess: I don't know why Americans take the threat of 3,000 civilians being targeted and murdered here at home so seriously. I guess we're just funny that way.
Posted by: Joe at September 14, 2007 03:27 PMDan: "And this is where I just don't get this whole..."
Enough said...
Posted by: John at September 14, 2007 03:49 PMDan,
And this is where I just don't get this whole fear that many conservatives have towards Al-Qaeda.
Amen. So long as Al Qaeda doesn't get its mitts on any nukes, it is a weak force.
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 14, 2007 04:15 PMDan: And this is where I just don't get this whole fear that many conservatives have towards Al-Qaeda. They compare Al-Qaeda to real powers of old, like the Soviet Union and the Nazis. But Al-Qaeda is an ant next to a lion when comparing them to the Nazis or the Soviets
I don't know, Dan. I'm not a conservative, but I saw, up close and in person, an entire city of 450,000 people chewed to pieces by Al Qaeda. You saw the pictures.
We are not talking about an Islamic version of the Irish Republican Army here.
The reason they aren't able to take over states is because we prevent them from doing so with military force.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 04:20 PMAl Qaeda would have a statelet in Iraq if the United States withdrew its armed forces last year.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 04:22 PMDan-
"Real power lies in the state, not in NGOs"
Who won the war last year between the "NGO" Hezbollah and the state of Israel?
Who would you decribe as winning the war in Iraq-the United States of America or the insurgents?
Power that cannot be exerted for political or other reasons isn't real power.
Warfare between armies is not the 21st century way of doing things. Instead, our enemies find other ways to wage war against us and our allies. Iran is doing it through proxy against us and Israel; Saudi Arabia is doing it through Wahhabi teachings. CAIR and other Islamic advocacy groups do it by claiming Islamophobia whenever they can.
We will not lose the war against Islamic terrorism to a conquering Army-at leasst, not anytime soon. We will lose it because the conflict changes our character for the worse, to the point where we would not recognize ourselves.
We have already ceded ground when our newspapers refuse to print the Mohammed cartoons, or when the Washington Post refuses to publish some innocuous Opus cartoons. We cede ground when people reporting suspicious activities are threatened with lawsuits. We cede ground when boys and girls are separated in public schools and granted prayer time. We cede ground when veiled women in Canada can vote without showing their faces. We cede ground when a German judge rules that a woman cannot divorce her husband because that is Islamic law. We cede ground when adult Muslims rioters in France are identified as "Asian youths." We cede ground every time we make an accomodation to Islam that contradicts fundamental Western values.
So one way we can lose the war is by creating a "separate but equal" circumstance for Muslims in the West that is essentially dictated by Muslims. Europe, then Canada is at more risk than the US because of the demographic trends in those countries.
The second way to lose the war is through a victory that changes our essential character. Imagine a successful mass casualty NBC attack in the future-the outcry for a response would be incredible. The response may be external, but one lesson from Iraq is to make sure US troops do not stay involved for long at all. That may mean a nuclear repsonse; it may mean carpet bombing; it may mean a tsunami like invasion and then pullback. Whatever the external resposnse is, the American public will not worry about "winning hearts and minds"-we already tried that in Iraq.
If the response is internal (for example, because an "NGO" pulled off the operation and we cannot trace it back to a sponsoring country) then our civil liberties will be sharply curtailed in order to prevent an event like this from happening again. Cameras may be everywhere; license plates may have RFID in them so the movements of cars can be tracked; communications may be routinely intercepted; international commerce may grind to a halt.
That's how we lose to Islamic terrorism-by changing from an open, optimistic, humane society to an isolated, fearful, and callous one.
Posted by: MartyH at September 14, 2007 04:23 PMAnd Al Qaeda had effectively taken over Afghanistan. And we all know what happened as a result.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 04:23 PMMJT: Al Qaeda had effectively taken over Afghanistan
Huh? I know the Taliban had control over Afghanistan for a few years. But that's not the same thing as Al Qaeda. They might have been harboring terrorists but weren't letting Bin Laden run the government.
Posted by: Edgar at September 14, 2007 04:34 PMBin Laden didn't run the government, but what's the difference between the way Al Qaeda ran Ramadi and the way the Taliban ran Afghanistan? None that I am aware of. They were practically one and the same, and they still are. Bin Laden didn't need to run the government in Afghanistan because Mullah Omar ran it precisely the same way he would have ran it. Afghanistan was the same place whether Bin Laden himself was in charge of garbage and tax collection or not.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 04:42 PMMJT: The reason they aren't able to take over states is because we prevent them from doing so with military force.
Just us Americans? Other people don't seem too enthused about being conquered by Al Qaeda, either. And some of them do a pretty good job holding them off. Saddam Hussein, for instance.
Al Qaeda only gets openings in failed states... like the one we just created. And the only reason it gets so many recruits is because we're there. We didn't create Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but we created the conditions for the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 14, 2007 04:51 PMCreamy: we created the conditions for the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Fine. Should we just leave and let them have it then?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 04:59 PMMartyH,
The terrorists win... when you define victory downward.
Terror is a tactic, and it's never going away entirely. It's a fact of life in many countries around the world already. We've been adapting to it for decades -- we didn't even have baggage inspection in the US until after DB Cooper's stunt in 1971. We'll continue to adapt.
I call that a good life. You call that defeat.
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 14, 2007 05:22 PMCreamy,
So your answer to Michael's question is yes? Or no?
Posted by: Dogwood at September 14, 2007 05:26 PMI didn't mean that question above to be as snarky as it appears. I just find it slightly exasperating to be told that Al Qaeda isn't a serious threat because they don't have a state when I just got home from a place that would be their "state" if Dan had his way last year.
Fair enough that AQI wouldn't have taken over Ramadi if we never showed up, but it's just as true that they would have held onto Ramadi if we left too soon.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 05:30 PMMJT: I just got home from a place that would be their "state" if Dan had his way last year.
Er... weren't you just chiding people for saying Dan was a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda?
Posted by: Edgar at September 14, 2007 05:35 PM
If the United States is not the dominant power in the world, another country (or countries) will replace her.
For those wishing for a withdrawal of the US from the world (broadly speaking), the question arises: What country do you wish to replace the US as that great power?
Because again, as history illustrates, someone will replace us.
Posted by: SteveMG at September 14, 2007 05:40 PMWhat chance does Western values have when Michael is seriously debating with the likes of Dan while telling Patrick to cut it out? This comment thread epitomizes the destruction of the United States.
Posted by: Kenneth at September 14, 2007 05:46 PMKenneth: This comment thread epitomizes the destruction of the United States.
Make yourself a mock-chicken sandwich.
Posted by: Edgar at September 14, 2007 05:55 PMShould we just leave and let them have it then?
Leave? Maybe. Leave and let Al Qaeda have Iraq? Not the same thing. They're one of many players and they have a lot of enemies. I wouldn't put my money on them.
Iraq has its own dynamic, and we are less in control of events there than we would like to believe. That's one big reason I think your dispatch on the The Future of Iraq stands out. It's rich and readable, like all your work. It's singularly coherent in support of its theme. It's also your most perceptive piece and I believe, prescient.
Posted by: Creamy Goodness at September 14, 2007 05:58 PMEdgar: Er... weren't you just chiding people for saying Dan was a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda?
Yes. There is a world of difference between advocating a counterproductive policy and being a terrorist propagandist. But you know that already.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 06:24 PMKenneth: This comment thread epitomizes the destruction of the United States.
You have obviously never been to a ruined country.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 06:26 PMCreamy: It's singularly coherent in support of its theme. It's also your most perceptive piece and I believe, prescient.
Thanks. But I didn't create any deliberate theme. I just described what I saw and heard, like I also did in Ramadi. I would do the same for every part of Iraq, but Iraq is big.
I'm not done writing about Ramadi, though. I have four more pieces coming, plus a video.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 06:28 PMThis comment thread epitomizes the destruction of the United States.
Drama queen.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood at September 14, 2007 06:32 PMMichael,
You said that Dan would have wanted al-Qaeda to take over Ramadi. And that's only a advocating a "counterproductive policy"?
Sounds more like being on the enemy's side, if you ask me.
Posted by: Edgar at September 14, 2007 06:35 PMMichael:
Complex question but I'm sure many of us would like any of your thoughts/views on it.
Part of the debate here in the US is how much AQI is connected to or operating on behalf of AQ. The NY Times, for example, calls them Al-qaeda in Mesopotamia and (generally) explains the movement as being (largely) independent of al-Qaeda central.
Is AQI essentially a "franchise" of AQ? Or is the relationship much closer?
Posted by: SteveMG at September 14, 2007 06:37 PMEdgar: You said that Dan would have wanted al-Qaeda to take over Ramadi.
I'm saying Dan isn't thinking his position all the way through, not that he's pro-terrorist. Come on, Edgar, you get the difference, right?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 06:42 PMSteveMG: Is AQI essentially a "franchise" of AQ?
Yes.
All Al Qaeda groups are "franchises." That's how Al Qaeda has been structured all along.
The "liberals" are correct in this argument, but it does not mean what they think it means.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 06:44 PMOh. "Had his way" as in the policies he wanted put in place were put in place (i.e. withdrawal).
Sorry.
Posted by: Edgar at September 14, 2007 06:49 PMAll Al Qaeda groups are "franchises." That's how Al Qaeda has been structured all along.
Well, how much do they act independently of AQ?
Recall the intercepted messages from Zarqawi to Zawahiri? At that time, it seemed to me that much of what AQ in Iraq was doing was under the (general) direction of Zawahiri/AQ.
If, for example, AQ told AQI to leave Iraq, would they leave?
Thanks for all your terrific work.
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG at September 14, 2007 06:51 PMSteveMG: If, for example, AQ told AQI to leave Iraq, would they leave?
I don't know. Some of them, probably.
?
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 06:58 PMEdgar: Oh. "Had his way" as in the policies he wanted put in place were put in place (i.e. withdrawal)
Yes.
I wonder if this sort of statement is misunderstood often.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 06:59 PMAnd this is where I just don't get this whole fear that many conservatives have towards Al-Qaeda. They compare Al-Qaeda to real powers of old, like the Soviet Union and the Nazis. But Al-Qaeda is an ant next to a lion when comparing them to the Nazis or the Soviets.
It's very strange to be agreeing with Dan (especially given his horrific attitude towards Israel), but he's right here. Although terrorism does have the ability to destroy societies, militarily, al Qaeda is an ant compared with a powerful military fascist force like WWII Germany.
Look at our current enemies - Ahmadinejad is a shabby punk who wouldn't qualify for a job as a pizza delivery guy. They're making fun of Osama's beard on CNN. The Saudi sponsors of 9/11 weave a web of lies that a 5 year old could see through - and our government believes every word. As Mark Steyn says, the force of the Arab armies combined makes Belgium look butch.
The fact that we haven't been able to defeat this pitiful enemy so far says more about our own tactics than theirs. They're fighting a war in earnest. We're hoping to win a war by 'reforming' our enemies, a policy that has never worked in the past and is unlikely to win in the future. If we weren't so committed to this 'win by reform' strategy, and if we weren't relying on our Saudi allies to fight our former commie enemies, these terrorist/gangsters would never have become as powerful as they are.
Dan says - We don't really need to police this world; it really isn't going to go to hell in a handbasket if we somehow stop interfering in the internal affairs of this or that nation. In fact, things might actually be better off if we stop interfering and let other nations do what they want.
Right now Europe doesn't want to defend itself, but they are slowly waking up to the fact that many al Qaeda-like gangs, with smuggled weapons and al Qaeda-like attitude are setting up camp within their borders. Europe has the money and they have the ability to build up their military. It's about time that Europe grew up and got their own place.
However, Dan is wrong when he says that real power lies in the state. If the European nation-states don't do something about the Hezbollah-esque camps that are being quietly set up within their borders, if we and the Russians and the Chinese continue to allow the Saudis, the Iranians and the Sudanese to play us like fools, nation states will prove that they are incapable of fighting these weak gangs of zealots. If the state can't protect people, people will seek other means of protection.
An interesting thing to note is that Columbia has solved a part of its drug-gang problem by hiring 'security companies'. These security companies are a fast-growing industry worldwide. If nation-states and their armies can't protect people, someone else will.
Posted by: mary at September 14, 2007 07:02 PMMary: If nation-states and their armies can't protect people, someone else will.
That's a big reason why Iraq has militias.
These gangs are weak compared to states, yes. But they can and do destroy cities as well as buildings.
Do not underestimate them.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 07:11 PMMichael:
One more from me, please:
John Burns of the NY Times pointed out that when he covered the Iran-Iraq war that many Iraqis - including vast numbers of Shi'a - openly fought for and supported the Baathist regime against Iran. And not just because they were afraid of getting shot. There appeared, to him, that an Iraqi identity or sense of nationalist pride was fueling that support or the regime against the Persian outsiders.
And from that he made the miscalculation - and he says that this was one of his great errors - that a post-Saddam Iraq would have a measure of nationalism that transcended the sectarian and tribal identities.
Can you sense in any way a re-emergence of this nationalism? Or is it still tribalism and local awakenings? Is a larger sense of being - an Iraqi identity post-Saddam - somehow emerging? Or still too early?
SMG
Posted by: SteveMG at September 14, 2007 07:18 PM
SteveMG: Can you sense in any way a re-emergence of this nationalism?
Only small glimmers of it. Largely, no. But John Burns knows Iraq a lot better than I do, and this is not something I investigated. So my real answer has to be "I don't know."
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 07:47 PMFriday, September 14, 2007
Iraq Invades Washington
The American capital is going to witness intensified Iraqi presence and political activity in the coming few weeks.
First there are Sunni leaders who have been invited by members of Congress. The Sunni leaders are likely to make this visit coincide with former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi expected visit to Washington since the Sunni alliance with the Shia Allawi became more evident recently, especially after the latter confirmed that he had meetings with former leaders in the Baath Party to persuade them to join the political process.
A Sunni delegation at the level being reported wouldn’t go without a countermeasure from the current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who represents the Shia-Kurdish coalition of four. In order to avoid any threat for this ruling coalition, the government announced that Maliki is going to head a big delegation to Washington later this month as well. I am certain that it will include important leaders that have good relations and contacts in Washington, such as Mowafak Rubaie and Hoshyar Zebari.
The Sunni-Allawi visit seems to be an effort to give more momentum to the emerging Sunni-American friendliness following the progress that has been made on the ground in several Sunni-dominated regions, and the dramatic change in attitude among the Sunni who turned from fighting the American presence to fighting al-Qaeda.
Add to this mix the dialogue between Allawi and former Baathist leaders, which actually diluted the enmity that some Sunni groups had towards America and made them think deeply about the end result should they keep up the fight against America and the Iraqi government. This proximity was crowned by Bush’s visit to Anbar and the praise he gave to its people.
Returning the visit aims to take advantage of what we just mentioned: it would serve the case of the opposition represented by the Sunni and Allawi, and to convince the American administration that it should cut the support for Maliki whom they’re going to undermine by describing him as a sectarian leader who puts Iran’s interests above anything else.
Tracking the statements coming from Sunni leaders we find a huge difference in the tone between the past and nowadays...
Continue Reading...
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
My fingers are crossed that something can come of this. Can (would?) the Demos torpedo this
somehow?
Michael,
The reason they aren't able to take over states is because we prevent them from doing so with military force.
But don't you see, they would never have been in Iraq anyways if we did not invade the country! Saddam never had connections to them. Saddam turned down their requests. The only reason Al-Qaeda even has a presence in Iraq is precisely because we invaded the country and dismantled the country. We did NOT prevent Al-Qaeda from taking over with military force, Michael. In fact, our actions got them closer to gaining land and a "country of their own."
We had Al-Qaeda cornered in Afghanistan. We opted to shift most of our resources to a country that had nothing to do with our fight against Al-Qaeda. What do you think Al-Qaeda was going to do? Sit back and watch us take over one more Arab country, or get in the fray themselves? They came into Iraq AFTER we invaded Iraq. They were not there before trying to take over the country from Saddam.
So we really have not yet prevented Al-Qaeda from taking over a state.
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2007 08:07 PMMichael,
Fair enough that AQI wouldn't have taken over Ramadi if we never showed up, but it's just as true that they would have held onto Ramadi if we left too soon.
No they wouldn't, because all those Sunni insurgents who kept fighting us would turn their guns on fundamentalist Sunni Al-Qaeda. The Sunnis of Iraq are far more secular and cosmopolitan than the fiery fundamentalists like Bin Laden.
In either case, we're both speculating. Neither of us knows what would really happen. But I'm getting the feeling that Sunnis turned on Al-Qaeda starting last November when Democrats won. They saw that the threat of the Americans leaving was real, and they had to stop using us as a crutch.
Posted by: Dan at September 14, 2007 08:10 PMDan,
The Anbar Awakening movement preceded that election. You're thinking too parochially.
People in Iraq (including Americans) don't pay much attention to Democrats and Republicans. That's too provincial an American obsession for people being shot at eight time zones away. Iraq is practically its own planet. All that stuff fades away over there and turns into static.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at September 14, 2007 08:17 PMSteveMG:
"If the United States is not the dominant power in the world, another country (or countries) will replace her.
For those wishing for a withdrawal of the US from the world (broadly speaking), the question arises: What country do you wish to replace the US as that great power?
Because again, as history illustrates, someone will replace us."
Excellent. There is an old saw, "power abhors a vacuum". If America does not project its military power in the Middle East, someone else will. What are the odds that this will be better for the people of the Middle East, or for us?
I don't glory in this. It is a burden on o