Payback Time

Read, if you haven’t already, Barbara Lerner’s important piece in last week’s NRO. Lerner is indispensable to understanding the string of troubles that have hit the US in Iraq over the past few days, from the stalemate in Fallujah to the photos of abused Iraqi prisoners that have so badly damaged America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world. At bottom, the US government seems paralyzed between two contradictory approaches to the reconstruction of the country.

Approach number one is advocated by the US State Department, the British Foreign Office, much of the uniformed military – and most of the best-known foreign policy pundits. According to this view, Iraq is an impossibly unstable country that can only be held together by authoritarian methods. Again according to this view, the most important group in the country is the Sunni Arab minority: They are only 20% of the population, but they have the largest sense of what they are entitled to and the greatest potential to make trouble. And the trouble they can make is region-wide: Sunni Arabs may be a minority in Iraq, but they are a majority in the Near East/North Africa region as a whole – and the fate of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq excites Sunni Arab opinion from Morocco to Saudi Arabia.

Advocates of approach number one may concede that Saddam Hussein went too far, both in his authoritarianism and in his persecution of Iraq’s non-Sunni non-Arab population. But the basics of his rule have to be retained. That’s why you hear so much complaining in the press about “de-Baathification” and the disbanding of the Iraqi army – the Baath party and the army were the fundamentals of Sunni Arab dominance in Iraq. That’s why you hear so much scorn for democratization and Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress – indeed this very week another round of anti-Chalabi stories are being spread through Washington. That’s why there is so much pressure to rehabilitate old associates of Saddam’s, including the Republican Guard general who may or may not be leading the counter-insurgency in Fallujah.

There’s a lot wrong with this approach, as Bob Kagan effectively argues in yesterday’s Washington Post - and not least that it enflames paranoia about American intentions. The abuse photographs would have inflicted a terrible propaganda defeat in the US in any case. But this week! To see images of Americans abusing Iraqis inside Saddam Hussein’s old prison appear at almost exactly the same time as (some) Americans are promoting Saddam’s former generals – well, it raises suspicions. And the Iraqis were suspicious to begin with.

That brings us to approach two. This is the approach advocated by the Vice President’s Office and the civilian leadership of the Defense Department. It is the approach that has been denounced as “neoconservatism,” “Wilsonianism,” and generally impractical. This approach argues that the old methods in Iraq and throughout the Middle East incubated the terrorism that threatens us now. It argues that we needed to bring real transforms the region – before the region transforms the world. (See for example this typically brilliant essay by Mark Steyn in last week’s Spectator. Steyn asks: If Muslims are thought to be incapable of democracy, what does that portend for democracy in Europe, where Muslims form an increasingly important and active minority?)

For that reason, the “neocons” argued, it was essential that there be from the very start an Iraqi face to the liberation of Iraq: Iraqi soldiers fighting alongside American, an Iraqi provisional government. But that would mean a role for Shiites and Kurds –and it would mean upsetting the Saudis. A detail from the Woodward book that rings true: The Saudis from the very start conditioned their support for the Iraq campaign on a promise that their interests would be consulted in the new Iraq. And so it has been. While the democratizers won most arguments over the war, the traditionalists have won most of the arguments over the postwar.

Unfortunately, Saudi interests and American interests do not coincide. And now we are seeing the consequences.

"string of troubles that have hit the US in Iraq over the past few days, from the stalemate in Fallujah to the photos of abused Iraqi prisoners that have so badly damaged America’s image in the Arab and Muslim world."

Going back as far as I can remember in my lifetime, and penetrating into history, I cannot find a time when Christians, Westerners or any other non-Muslim people were held in high regard by the 'Muslim World'. The entire Islamic history can be summed up in three words; hate, attack, and conquer.

As for the humiliation and degradation the terrorists and Fedayeen Saddam thugs and goons suffered as American P.O.W.'s, it doesn't keep me awake at night. On the other hand, the way these animals treat OUR P.O.W.'s is really appalling. Given the massive difference between being humiliated, (as the Iraqis were), or being raped, tortured, shot, beaten, starved and humiliated, (as our POW's often are), then America doesn't look quite so bad anymore, does it? What exactly is this "Muslim world" that judges American behavior whilst their own behavior is infinitely more barbaric? The anti-American leftist news machine just all out refuses to report the news in its proper perspective.

Approach no.1 and 2 have failed. What is approach no.3? Does anyone in the State Department under approach no.1 have a clue? Does anyone in the Defense Department under approach no. 2 have a clue? Does the President have a clue, other than we must stay the course? Do we stay the course under approach no.1 or no.2 or both no.1 and no.2? What are our objectives? Are we going to set up an authoritarian rule as prescribed by the State Department in approach no.1 or are we going to set up a democracy as envisaged in no.2? Do we have enough troops and force projected at the present time to establish authoritarian rule? Do we have enough cooperation from the Iraqi people to set up a democratic Iraq? Does anyone know what they are doing?

Has there been a joint meeting between DOS, DOD, and the White House to come up with a plan based on the reality of the situation? The situation is serious, we have approximately 700 American lives, 2000 wounded, and 10,000 Iraqi lives invested in the outcome plus 200 billion dollars of American taxpayers money. It is time for some answers instead of theory. It is time for Congress, Cabinet, and the President to start making some decisions.

the problem with your reasoning is that you are judging yourself relative to them... if they are 80% evil then us being 20% evil should be ok, right? right?

hold yourself to the highest standards and then you have the right to judge. using others behaviour to justify your own means you cant have the pretence of moral superiority because youre just doing what you can get away with because the 'bad guys' are so much worse.

Such reasoning may work in business disputes, playground brawls, and the like.

But in a war such as this, with an existential enemy, one must realize that EVERYTHING is permitted.

In passing through this world, we must never attempt to purchase cheap moral superiority by keeping our hands clean when circumstances dictate otherwise.

In short, we shouldn't worry so much about keeping or ethical hymens intact; not the time or the place to argue maotives, etc.

For that reason, the “neocons” argued, it was essential that there be from the very start an Iraqi face to the liberation of Iraq: Iraqi soldiers fighting alongside American, an Iraqi provisional government. But that would mean a role for Shiites and Kurds –and it would mean upsetting the Saudis. A detail from the Woodward book that rings true: The Saudis from the very start conditioned their support for the Iraq campaign on a promise that their interests would be consulted in the new Iraq. And so it has been. While the democratizers won most arguments over the war, the traditionalists have won most of the arguments over the postwar.

If only we would allow, in Frum's words, the 'neocons' a bit more time and the ability to finish what they started (knowing how well none of the original goals for this war have gone), it would have all worked out.....

The so called abuse of these Iraqis isnt even half of what they themselves would dish out given the chance,dont forget
they celebrate the deaths of infidels its part of their religion the so called moderate Muslims are just lying like rugs theirs isnt a religion of peace at all! Its a religion
of death they are instructed to seek a path of struggle to attain to paradise and to spread Islam through any means
possible.

"In passing through this world, we must never attempt to purchase cheap moral superiority by keeping our hands clean when circumstances dictate otherwise."

Remember that most of the Nazi party felt similarly about the Final Solution.

I completely disagree with your post. How can we claim to be bringing anything different to Iraqis' lives if even a small number of our troops are torturing POWs? Or is it OK to use methods similar to those of Hussein?

"There's far too much emphasis on rehabilitating people who will never be rehabilitated essentially relegating them to permanent status as terrorists and anti-humanity agents."

Who said anything about rehab? Just keep 'em in prison without resorting to the tactics of the Gestapo or Hussein himself.

If we're going to condone this type of behavior, we should just start making our troops give the Nazi salute to each other.

"Remember that most of the Nazi party felt similarly about the Final Solution."

True, and most marines at Iwo Jima felt likewise about taking the island; most of the rebels in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising were equally committed to their goals as well. The question is not one of pure ethics or motives - the Almighty will judge.

"Or is it OK to use methods similar to those of Hussein?"

Depends on what we are trying to do. A reductio ad husseinam is a p*ss poor substitute for a rational argument.

Now, ideally, we would use humane means in the pursuit of humane ends; but, under the circumstances....

and furthermore, I am not recommending a policy of torture; rather, I merely suggest that those of us on the sidelines be a bit more realistic in our expectations.

If we're going to condone this type of behavior, we should just start making our troops give the Nazi salute to each other.

I disagree. The incident being aired in the press just illustrates how naive Americans are about warfare. Iraqi prisoners were hazed. Big deal ! Simply issue administrative punishments and move forward. No need to lament about it . unless your looking to use it as a symbol for undermining the national resolve.

What I am upset about ... is that this incident was released to the press and they published it. Not only did this undermine our Iraqi alliances, but it weakened our own troop morale. This lapse illustrates why full censorhip of all news from the region must be initiated immediately, and all news broadcast concerning the war be approved by the DOD. Any news station trying to make sweeps by aiding the enemy will be charged with treason.

if they force us to forego the ideals to which we claim to represent then THEY HAVE WON A KIND OF VICTORY.

one of the major objectives of terrorism is to provoke us. they want to see us act inhuman. the recent pictures are a GREAT VICTORY FOR THE OTHER SIDE.

every time someone ok's this kind of wrong from our guys then we are more and more lowered towards them. we must stay above it and prevail because if we let it change us then we have lost something. we must win, but we muct also stay true.

Yes, and if too nice an observation of the rules by which we are suposed to live ties our hands and prevents our winning against our enemies, then they have won. period. no 'kind of victory' or 'moral victory' or 'propaganda war'. I mean they have won: we all speak Arabic or are killed, all convert, or die.

These, my friend are hard facts. moral discussions are much easier when one ignores them, but they have a nasty habit of coming back again and again.

as for the barbArabs thinking us inhuman: tell me, do you really believe that the photos in question have done anyhting to lower these savages' opinion of us? i think not.

Indeed. Were any Iraqi prisoners murdered? Incinerated? Then dismembered, disemboweled? Were their genitals cut off and displayed? Oh, excuse me, that was what the Iraqis did to civilians in Fallujah. And . . . did the U.S. press show those pictures? Was there a "60 Minutes" episode showing that horror . . . ? No, of course not. Those images were . . . "too horrible" for the American public to see. They might have actually incited the American public to really support this war. And CNN/CBS/ABC could not STAND for THAT!

Iraqi prisoners were hazed. Big deal !

Which fraternity did you attend where they shoved a broomstick up your ass and/or raped you? Actually come to think of it the whole thing sounds reminiscent of what we've found the brave men in blue do in a New York City precinct jail.

"using others behaviour to justify your own means you cant have the pretence of moral superiority"

A more careful read of my post would, of course, show that I did not 'justify' the behavior of the few American soldiers who humiliated some Iraqi POWs; but rather, I compared the difference between U.S. treatment of POWs and Iraqi treatment of POWs to show that the media are totally biased or completely insane to carp of this comparatively minor issue day after day while conveniently allowing the world to forget that an Italian civilian POW was just murdered on videotape, an American civilian POW just escaped with his arm rotting off from lack of medical treatment after they shot him, Jessica Lynch was raped and busted up like an old cardboard box and left to rot in a phony 'hospital', the Iraqis massacred four of her wounded comrades, the Iraqis just captured four American civilians, killed them, burned their corpses and hung their remains by their necks under a bridge.

As for any pretentious Iraqi complaints, let's not forget that these POWs are the same men, (Fedayeen Saddam, Republican Guard), who helped to murder roughly 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians under Sadam, and tortured untold millions of others. Given the reality of the barbaric, inhuman and utterly shocking nature of Iraqi behavior towards towards each other and towards POWs, the humiliation of some Iraqi POWs by a few Americans is a NON STORY.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.