For once in his life, Charles Krauthammer actually says something that makes a lot of sense.
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer — a Martian — and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein’s rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
No one is suggesting that Iraq is not a catastrophe that imperils American interests in the region and that makes us less safe at home. And no one is suggesting that Afghanistan is actually a bigger threat to American interests than our failure in Iraq. But there are differences. Our mission in Afghanistan is much more limited and manageable, and there is a clear exit strategy. We have legitimacy for being there and we have allies to help us. And, while things have been deteriorating in Afghanistan, there is nothing built into the make-up of the country that makes it impossible for us to maintain our mission there or that forces us to take sides in a civil war.
The problem in Afghanistan, as Krauthammer rightly notes, is that we are not fighting for natural resources, but for the stability and decency of the Afghani government. And that sort of do-gooderism doesn’t interest people like Charles Krauthammer. He wants oil and natural gas. My first advice to Krauthammer is to diversify his portfolio to take advantage of the unique opportunities that Afghanistan provides. If he doesn’t want to join Dennis Hastert in the Herat-Istanbul poppy-mule trade, he can just invest in Kellogg Brown and Root or the Bechtel Group. The money is almost as good and it is still (barely) legal.
A second piece of advice I have for Krauthammer is that he sit down and realize a few things. First, Iraq doesn’t have an ‘advanced military’. It has a bunch of rifle-wielding militias, some RPG’s and mortars, and a couple of helicopters. Be serious. Second, the country is irrevocably broken and isn’t likely to pose a direct military threat to anyone, probably for a couple centuries, and then as part of some other empire. Third, if our main concern is to kill Sunni radicals, then job well done. Once we leave, the Shi’ites should take to that job with great and ruthless efficiency. Our staying in Iraq is only providing al-Qaeda types with protection, propaganda, and first-rate military training.
If you want to play the great game of empire, Charles, it would be best to let the Shi’ites win and then start working on getting them to turn on their Iranian patrons. But I think we have kind of played out the era of American mastery and dominance of the Middle East. It was always a cynical and nasty business that couldn’t stand the light of day. The Iranians figured that out in 1979. We have no one to blame but ourselves for that one. And we have no one to blame but ourselves for Iraq. In tennis it is called an unforced error. It’s like impaling yourself with a nail gun when the job required a screw.
I know the big boys have to stabilize the Middle East somehow. We can’t have the whole region turn into Mogadishu without freezing in the winter. But your neo-conservative wet dream fucked up an already fucked status quo. And the people are getting more interested in shafting Americans, if not killing them, every day.
You want to fix this? Forget everything you think you know. Wait. Scratch that. Start advocating the opposite of everything of you think you know. After all, if every instinct you have is wrong, the opposite must be right. Right?
who cares who attacked us?
yeah…I forgot about that, but it doesn’t really matter for Krauthammer’s point.
he keeps thinking these are our decisions to make
what the Iraqis have been saying is no, for better or worse Iraqis are going to make those decisions
what happened in Somalia has a lot to do with the aftermath of the cold war and how big powers can muck things up and make everything worse
we need to think in terms of turning away from imperial hubris and towards international solidarity with freedom and democracy
solidarity does not mean interference, it means supporting local elements
imagine if we had offered air support to the Iraqi uprising at the end of the first Gulf War. Not gone to Baghdad, just offered air support for the Iraqi uprising, yeah, it could have ended up as one big civil war, but we don’t KNOW that. We could have taken a chance. By failing to support the local uprising we forfieted any moral authority we might ever have had.
well, this is an immensely difficult topic. It would really help if we could discuss it honestly, but that never happens.
The basic problem is that, with the exception of Egypt and Iran, none of the countries in the region are likely to be stable without an authoritarian government. So, we’ve never really had the option of pushing for democracy like we did in eastern Europe. Eastern Europe transitioned well, but it did have to contend with the break up of Yugoslavia (which went badly) and Czechoslovakia (which went very well).
But, Iraq would have broken up in 1991 pretty much the same way it has now. Of course, the blame for that would have been allocated differently. And Jordan and Saudi Arabia would break up in nasty ways too.
So, for a long time we’ve been happy to work with the authoritarians there because stability was the major goal, along with denying Soviet influence and access to energy supplies. But, in doing this, we became complicit with the authoritarianism. And, you can see now that Saddam is gone, authoritarianism is not the worst situation you can have. But you are never going to make friends by dabbling with it.
The real hubris wasn’t the kind of cynical realpolitiks of FDR thru Clinton. It was the idea that we could actually democratize the region. It isn’t really Islam that is the problem. Turkey has a fitful democracy. Egypt could probably pull it off. But other countries have too many tribal, ethnic, and sectarian problems to attempt it.
There are no easy answers. Disengaging from the region is easily said, but harder to actually accomplish. I think what we really need to do is force thru a settlement to the Israeli-Palestine question, work as diligently as we can on other energy solutions, and to facilitate some kind of path away from tyranny, possibly including the re-writing of maps. It’s such a mess I don’t really have much hope. But, we have to stop pissing people off. And we have to pursue an affordable policy.
The basic problem is that, with the exception of Egypt and Iran, none of the countries in the region are likely to be stable without an authoritarian government.
very possibly so, but there are ways to support democracy that don’t involve being interferring Nosy Parkers. When Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to Sakharov hit the whole of the Soviet bloc like a thunder bolt. Simple gestures such as that can have a profound impact. That is the difference between imperial hubris and solidarity.
Just imagine that we had a President who spoke about about individual prisoners of conscious in countries like Saudi Aribia, Pakistan, and so on. Just imagine if he, or even our Ambassador was photographed meeting with trade unionists or women’s rights activists. It would be huge.
But none of that appeals to the jingo lobby.
Geez, Booman, why not just take the man’s wheelchair and beat him to death with it?
That’s not snark actually, I really DO want you to do that. The written smackdown wasn’t enough
your righteous anger and sneering contempt are pleasing.
Let’s strap Kraut to a rocket and blast him to, say, Mars. Venus could also serve, as would any of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn.
Pin a note to his chest, asking the inhabitants of whatever body he lands on to pose a series of rhetorical questions to him – “thought expiriments,” in other words. It’s OK to supplement the questions with maps, pictures, music, or other audio/visual aids.
When Kraut scores a perfect 100% on their tests, they have my permission to send him back, at which point he can regale us with his exploits on the pages of Time, WaPo, and the National Enquirer.
Calling him a “Wanker” is too kind. He’s a psychopath in the truest sense of the word (see my sig).
And to think that he once had responsibilities for the psychiatric assessment and care of patients…