Now that Iraq has not disintegrated into ‘endless civil war ‘, the anti-war camp should be feeling some confusion, at the very least. A year ago, the received view was that the situation in Iraq was hopeless. However the news coming out of Iraq over the past 6 months runs directly counter to this. It really is very clear now that the overthrow of Saddam will result in a democratic Iraq. And that’s something to celebrate! The first democracy in the Arab heartland! Wonderful for the Iraqis, and potentially something which can change the dynamic of the entire region. Hardly something to sniff at!
I’m wondering where the anti-war movement will go with this. Surely those who regard themselves as “on the left” will need to do some real thinking? It’s now undeniable that a fascist dictaorship has been overthrown and that its replacement has been an increasingly stable elected Iraqi government rather than an American puppet.
This was nothing short of a revolution in Iraq. The old order was completely overturned. This led to counter revolution in the form of deliberate instigation of sectarian violence by those who did not want a democratic Iraq. Fortunately it was fought and the outcomes we are now seeing demonstrate that it was not an unwinnable conflict. The surge worked, and it worked because the US really was on the side of democracy rather than engaged in a war against the people. If it had been … well the situation would have been a quagmire for them ! They’d have been mad to try it. Being pro-democracy (for a change) makes all the difference.
So now we can now see all sorts of good things happening as the situation stabilises. By and large the Sunnis have rejected both AL Qaeda and the insurgency, realising that their interests will be best served by making use of the democratic process. This was a tough lesson, learnt at the barrel of a gun. But it has been a real lesson nonetheless. At the same time the Shia militias have been reined in, both as a result of the Maliki government acting against them, and because the Shia population itself increasingly rejects their criminal aspect. The strengthening of the ISF has played a big role here. The growing strength of the Iraqi State apparatus means that neighbourhoods now feel increasingly able to refuse “protection” from these armed gangs.
Increasingly Iraqi politicians are acting like…well politicians…. wheeling and dealing, lobbying, spinning stories, playing groups off against each other, trying to garner support. This is a huge step forward, believe it or not. Iraq is moving steadily in the direction of liberal democracy and the rule of law (absurdities included). There are still many struggles to be fought, especially for women’s rights and a more secular society, but it is now possible for these battles to take place. Gone are the days when Iraqis were literally too terrified to open their mouths.
Given this outcome, does it still make sense to have opposed the war?
We (LastSuperpower/Strange Times people) argued from the beginning that this was a war that the Left should support. Knee-jerk opposition to US imperialism should never have been able to eclipse the desire to see a fascist dictator overthrown. And yet it did, which is very depressing.
The only remaining “left” anti-war argument is that the Iraqis could have overthrown Saddam themslves and moved toward democracy in a much less painful way. I’d like to see a case for how that may have happened! It sounds like abstract posturing, utterly divorced from the reality of the situation. All I can imagine, when I think about what may have happened if Iraq had been left alone, is a much longer period of fascist rule (with or without sanctions? with or without the US-British no-fly zone previously protecting the Kurds?) . Saddam’s regime would have imploded at some stage, perhaps upon his death. However even a successful uprising against Sunni-Baathist rule would surely have involved an horrendous Iraqi death toll, followed by far (far) worse sectarian violence than we have witnessed over the past several years. And there is little doubt that there would have been military intervention from the surrounding autocratic regimes, quite likely involving the outbreak of full scale war across the region.
Now that is a scenario which doesn’t bear thinking about.
So I’d like to know what the “left” opposition is thinking now. Are they ready to celebrate the coming into existence of a fledgling Arab democracy? Are they happy to see the defeat of the anti-democratic forces in Iraq, the growing acceptance by the Sunnis that they weren’t born to rule Iraq and that Al Qaeda is a false friend?
I think that most people who see themselves a leftists will eventually be happy about all this. Those who opposed the war did so because they (very reasonably) hate war and quite naturally suspected US motives. Given that the US started the war with lies about WMDs and attempts to maintain that Saddam had close ties to Al Queda and was a direct threat to the USA, it was fairly natural to be suspicious. The switch in US policy which came into effect after 9/11 was difficult to comprehend because those behind it were enaged in complex manoeverings within their own ruling circles, and made no attempt to win mass support for their full agenda before the outbreak of the war.
It’s still disappointing however that so many people were prepared to put opposition to the USA ahead of hatred for outright fascism, while at that the same time so easily forgetting that there are causes which are worth fighting (and dying) for. This has resulted in a resurfacing of appeasement policies from both right and “left”.
In September, 2006 I wrote an article for The Australian entitled “Drain the Swamps where Terror Breeds” . I think the ideas that I expressed at the time are being confirmed by current events.
There is still the question of a Palestinian State, but I feel fairly confident in predicting that we will see one before the end of Bush’s term. If Marwan Barghouti is among the prisoners released by Israel on August 25, that will be a very good sign!
Meanwhile, the majority of “mainstream Left” sites have had little, if anything to say on Iraq recently. For example Lavartus Prodeo has published nothing on that topic for over a month. Currently they seem to have switched to talking mainly about the weather, interspersed with attacks on Noel Pearson (etc).
I’m not really surprised at the silence, it takes time to process events which contradict expectation. Some thinking time is required. If anything, the silence is a good thing.
May Day 2007, in Iraq:
Supporters of a democratic Iraq must resist the temptation to gloat at the confusion of the pessimists, who feared (or, worse yet, secretly hoped) that Iraq would disintegrate into bloody chaos.We must distinguish among these people. Some are inveterate enemies of democracy who will continue to hope for a reversal of the democratic trend. Others are hopeless pacifist muddleheads who cannot be expected to think rationally. Others are basically uninterested in Iraq, or the world, except insofar as events in it can further their narrow domestic political agenda.
But there are others who are not so bad as this. There are those who opposed the war, or who supported it initially but then became disheartened, who will be genuinely glad to see Iraq begin to move along the democratic path.These people must be approached in a friendly spirit, and encouraged to add their weight to arguments against a premature abandoning of Iraq. It is no shame to change your mind when the facts change. This is especially important now that the United States has a Democratic Congress, and may soon have a Democratic President.
If there were an international organization of “Friends of Democracy”, now would be the time to mobilize its forces in a coordinated propaganda campaign designed to pressure the governments of the democratic world (not just the US) to throw their weight behind the emerging democratic state in Iraq. Sadly, there is not such an organization, so those of us who support the advance of democracy must act on our own.
Keza I think that the anti war position still stands up. One because you never come across people who say “look I was anti war but now the results have forced me to change” where as you can find people who will say “I was pro war but the results have lead me to change my mind”Secondly people must ask themselves what they thought they were supporting and whether the cost was too high. Conservative estimates put the civilian death toll at a tad under 100,000. Ive not heard anyone object to the estimate of 4 million refugees. This is a big cost compounded by the death squads, the torture centers, the shooting into unarmed crowds, mass incarcerations, letting Al Qaeda into the country. On the positive side Iraq does have a crack at democracy and I think its proper to question people who object to a democratic outcome. Having said that I don’t think we should announce mission accomplished on democracy. There has been one general election but people did little more than entrench parties that reflected the sectarian divisions. The largest party elected to the parliament still sees IRAN as the democratic model.As to an independent Palestine before the end of Bushes term. It only has 2 months to go before it heads into caretaker mode for another 2 months or should we put the Palestinian state prediction into the same pile as the Condoleezza for President, the Condoleezza for Vice President and the M.B. release by 25 August predictions.
Steve, the fact that the expressed opinions of those who opposed the war (or supported it and then changed their minds) have not yet changed, isn’t an argument against what I said.
Your other argument that perhaps the cost has been too high, I covered in my piece above. It would have been wonderful if the Iraqi people could have thrown off Saddam an proceeded toward democracy at a much smaller cost in human life and suffering. I’ve yet to see anyone present an account of how this could have happened (with less bloodshed) I mean a real account – one that takes into account the actual conditions in Iraq and the surrounding region.
That leaves you in the invidious position of arguing that perhaps it would have been better for the Iraqi people to have remained under the yoke of fascism. Do you want to spell out a case for that?
As for your statement that we can’t yet announce “mission accomplished for democracy in Iraq”, my response is that Iraq still has a long way to go. The establishment of a “fully democratic norm” will involve active struggle by the Iraqi people.
Your pessimistic suggestion that the current Iraqi government intends to model itself on Iran, is just wrong. The Iraqi Shia, despite its clinging to a whole slew of extremely reactionary social attitudes is not enamoured of the clerical regime in Iran. This is due to a range of factors … the Persian-Arab divide, Sistani’s doctrinal differences with (the less highly esteemed) religious Establishment in Iran and a general desire for dmocracy and modernity among the iraqi people. The far more likely outcome will be that a Shia based Iraqi democracy will undermine the authority of the Mullahs in Iran.
Yes, the currently elected parties represent sectarian influences, but in the current situation, it’s in their interests to play the democratic game.
Yes, Patrick (and I) were wrong about Barghouti being released on September 25. The Israelis really are dragging this thing out. But it’s all a matter of saving face now. Everyone knows that they’ve lost the War for Greater Israel. A settlement of some sort before the end of Bush’s term would be wonderful and I still hope that it will happen.
If not, it will happen next year. The point is that it must happen.
With regard to our generally (if not specifically) correct predictions about Iraq over the past 5 years, Doug (comment 1, above) is right. People take time to change their views and the bulk of people who opposed the war did so out of a genuine concern for the Iraqi people. You’ve debated the point with us for several years. Despite the hostilities between us, perhaps given current developments, you might consider changing your mind? I say that in the friendly spirit that Doug suggested.
Not sure what the evidence is for this claim: “The largest party elected to the parliament still sees IRAN as the democratic model”. One of the strengths of the new Iraqi democracy is precisely that it makes it very difficult for any one party, including the largest one, to govern in its own right. The federalism of the new Constitution does the same. Iran and Iraq are poles apart in terms of democratic institutions and I agree with keza when she says that the success of democracy in Iraq will undermine the authority of the clerics in Iran. Iraq’s parliament is the ultimate law-maker and the people elect it in competitive multi-party elections. No-one can override the will of the people as expressed through the parliament. Iran is the opposite: a Guardian Council can veto laws passed by the parliament, make final decisions on interpretation of the Iranian Constitution and approve (and disapprove) candidates for election. The Guardian Council consists of 12 men, six of whom are clerics and six Islamic jurists. They are selected by the Supreme Leader ( currently Ali Khamenei), though the six jurists are elected by the Majlis (Iranian Parliament). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Council Iraq’s Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in parliament and a popular majority in a referendum before it can be amended, so I think it highly unlikely that Iraq will opt for a version of the Guardian Council regardless of what the largest party may or may not want. More likely, the Iraq model will inspire the oppressed in Iran to have hope for the future. In standing in solidarity with the new Iraq, we also stand in solidarity with the Iranian people.Barry
I only read the first sentence of this post and realised that the author had no idea what the anti-war argument was. Of course there wasn’t going to be hell-on-earth forever. That was never the argument.I thought the war would go much better, and I was still against it. Because the benefits were never going to exceed the costs under any reasonably imaginable scenario, even the best-case scenario. That is already the case. If Iraq becomes perfect tomorrow and never has another problem, the costs have already exceeded the benefits.I’m glad that Iraq is improving. I hope it continues to improve. I hope that America is able to achieve it’s remaining goals and leave with it’s head held high… because having a weak America is not good for long-term stability. But I don’t think you should do things that have more costs than benefits.And I can’t see where you get your optimism from regarding Palestine. But that’s a different issue.
Temujin: What do you think about this part of my post in which I attempted to counter the view that the cost has been too high. You didn’t address it directly, so I’m curious.
Keza..Tentu saja demokrasi Irak telag tercapai.Tapi itu semua bergantung kepada kemauan yang kuat dari elemen masyarakat dan pemerintah Irak.Tapi dari berita-berita yang saya liat dari televisi bahwa suni dan syiah memegang peranan yang mengakar dalam kepentingan demokrasi itu sendiri. Tentunya dalam demokrasi, kebebasan dalam mengeluarkan pendapat dan mendapatkan informasi adalah suatu hal yang pokok sebagai suatu syarat keberhasilan demokrasi itu sendiri.Menurut pandangan saya Demokrasi di Irak masih masih memerlukan topangan yang kuat dari elemen masyarakat dan pemerintah untuk mewujudkannya.Intinya harus ada kebersamaan dalam pandangan akan demokrasi itu sendiri. Semoga negara Irak bersatu dan teguh dalam kedamaian.
Translation: Indonesian » English
..Tentu saja demokrasi Irak telag tercapai.Tapi itu semua bergantung kepada kemauan yang kuat dari elemen masyarakat dan pemerintah Irak.Tapi dari berita-berita yang saya liat dari televisi bahwa suni dan syiah memegang peranan yang mengakar dalam kepentingan demokrasi itu sendiri. Tentunya dalam demokrasi, kebebasan dalam mengeluarkan pendapat dan mendapatkan informasi adalah suatu hal yang pokok sebagai suatu syarat keberhasilan demokrasi itu sendiri.Menurut pandangan saya Demokrasi di Irak masih masih memerlukan topangan yang kuat dari elemen masyarakat dan pemerintah untuk mewujudkannya.Intinya harus ada kebersamaan dalam pandangan akan demokrasi itu sendiri. Semoga negara Irak bersatu dan teguh dalam kedamaian.
.. Of course, democratic Iraq telag tercapai.Tapi it all depend on the willingness of the strong elements of community and government Irak.Tapi from the news that my tough from the television that Suni and Syiah that it play a role in the interest of democracy itself. Of course, in democracy, freedom of opinion and get the information is a matter of principal as a condition for the success of democracy is sendiri.Menurut my view democracy in Iraq still need a prop from a strong element of community and government to mewujudkannya.Intinya there must be togetherness in the view will be democracy itself. Hopefully the state of Iraq united and resolute in peace.