Pacific Views

Thank you, thank you, Mary ... I appreciate your "getting the word out" about the Iraq deaths. But I have to tell you, it didn't take very long for the word "matches" in your write-up to become outdated. The first thing I found when I woke up this AM was two more deaths over on CENTCOM ... both U.S. troops killed in separate hostile fire incidents. So we have definitely "exceeded" the count from before May 1st.

And I can see no end to it, Mary. We will continue to be picked off, one by one, for the forseeable future. So hearing the news about Doctor Dean's fundraising efforts was especially heartening. Relief may not come as soon as we need it ... but relief may indeed come one of these days ...

Howard Dean’s interview in the Washington Post yesterday was an enormous disappointment for the anti-intervention movement.
In The Dean Deception, Justin Raimondo has this to say:

Dean, the alleged "anti-war" candidate, agrees with Condi Rice's concept of a "generational" project to bring "democracy" to Iraq, and joins Bill Kristol in questioning the depth and endurance of the President's commitment.

It’s time to look elsewhere.

I don't agree. The fact of the matter is that unless we want an Iraq that looks like Afghanistan, those people better get some kind of help. You are aware, aren't you, that before the decades of war Afghanistan was actually even a nice place? Maybe not our idea of a vacation spot, but relatively civilized, green instead of a pockmarked moonscape?

But it's become a festering sore, a hotspot for every kind of lawlessness and brutality. All because it was destroyed in a long guerilla war and no one stepped in to help pick up the pieces.

Governor Dean didn't invade Iraq. But the fact of the matter is that our country now bears a huge responsibility for helping them rebuild, just as we do in Afghanistan. And I believe that Dean will work with the international community in such a way that it will no longer appear to be the US standing alone over the Iraqis. That he can bring the other Arab nations in to help, and gain their cooperation.

He said in his speech this last weekend that we can't have a foreign policy based on petulance. And the kind of petulance that got us into this war would become a double disaster if an opposite petulance led us to pull out in such a way that it caused more harm than good. It's too late to unmake what's happened there. Too late by a long shot.

Your faith in the U.S. is touching. But I fail to see how the best interests of Iraq depend on the incompetence and rapacity of the U.S. occupation.

The occupation is not the solution. It's the problem. And now the only options left after our unjust and unnecessary war are bad ones.

The least worst option seems to be to grant regional autonomy to the various ethnic and religious factions under some kind of international (UN) supervision. (Not to mention our moral obligation to provide billions for Iraq in reparations.)

Why is it is so hard for Americans to believe that our country is not often a force for good in the world?

Dean said on multiple occasions that the occupation of Iraq needs to be internationalized and brought under the auspices of the UN. And no, as you mention, this still doesn't let us off the hook.

"Why is it is so hard for Americans to believe that our country is not often a force for good in the world?"

Erm, had you noticed the links to Z Magazine, Mother Jones, Narco News, The Nation, and the Iraqi Body Count on the sidebar? They're not just decorative. I'm perfectly capable of recognizing that this nation's power (military, economic, what have you) has on many occasions been used to bad ends. I can see very well that many US policies are extremely damaging.

But that doesn't stop me from maintaining the hope that *it need not always be the case.* There are things we've gotten right in the past, and if things have gone downhill (and the long record in Afghanistan is only one of the most glaring and tragic), why can't they get better?

I won't insist that you share my optimism, but I would ask you to not interpret it as a set of blinders that forbid me from seeing mistakes past and present.

Pat - You should know that last night on CNN, they displayed the full count of our dead soldiers both before and after the announcement. They were compared to each other right there on a full screen, and it was explained that the body count has now matched what it was on the day of Bush's speech. And then they showed the clip of the speech where he said that major combat operations were over.

You aren't alone in getting this news out to the public. The press has started taking the task upon themselves.

that the occupation needs to be internationalized

The question is really one of optimism about Dean. What kind of "internationalization" is he talking about? He seems to be moving in the neo-liberal direction of a Thomas Friedman. Not only is that not good enough, it is a prescription for disaster -- not least for the Iraqis themselves.

He stated that he wanted to get the UN involved, and I would guess, the neighbors. And I don't know what more anyone needs than the axample of Afghanistan to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that you can't allow a country to lay around in a wrecked state which begins to resemble nothing so much as stone age living with kalashnikovs.

That country, now destroyed, cannot be left to founder. It's neighbors won't allow it, if only because Turkey and Iran will not ignore the Kurdish state that would develop in northern Iraq sitting on top of the rich oil deposits in Kirkuk and Mosul. The war might not be over for another decade if that happens.

Do you have any idea the number of incredibly ****ed up things that could happen if this goes badly wrong? I do, because they're the same reasons that I and others were saying for many months were the best possible case against letting the gang that couldn't shoot straight take over in Iraq. Those things may or may not happen if we stay and try to fix it, but many of them will almost certainly come to pass if we summarily pull out.

Can you even imagine the sh*tstorm that would occur if Turkey invaded the north to take Mosul and Kirkuk? Can you picture Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait being able to sit still for that? Does it occur to you that it might draw Europe into this in a big way, and that various Saudi factions might really send out the call for jihadis from all over? That it would be a free-for-all for Al-Qaida? Does it occur to you how many people would die in such an event, and how much of our priceless world cultural heritage would be destroyed?

I can understand your sentiment to want peace, but pulling out of Iraq at this time won't get us there. It would be a bloodbath, and it would make Rwanda look like a picnic. A picnic in the sense that was described in 'Good Omens' by Gaiman and Pratchett: "hot, nasty, and eventually given over to the ants."

Theologicus,
I must assure you that Natasha, Mary and I really share your misgivings about the abuse of US military power. My site (Hobson's Choice) was set up explicitly to alert readers to precisely this. Natasha, in particular, has been very insistant on accountability and skepticism about the motives of any administration when intervening abroad.

Dean, moreover, objected strenuously to the invasion. He's not in a position to re-write the past. He had to move from having an opinion about the invasion of Iraq to having an opinion of what was to be done next. Dean, if quoted for information (rather than polemics by his opponents "on the left") demonstrates he has learned a lesson sadly lacking in US policy over the years: problems are solved with perseverence and public accountability, not with a radical maneuver.

There's no parallel between Dean's views and the neo-cons. The neo-cons, please note, think that destroying countervailing power then leaves countries like Iraq naked to the hurly-burly of the market. Neo-con rhetoric was strong on teaching Arabs/Muslims some sort of lesson about their states having failed. One of Bush's applause lines in 2000 was, "I'm disturbed by a candidate who uses the words 'military' and 'nation building' in the same sentence."

Do you see the difference? A country which takes on the business of rebuilding the countries it invaded is ideologically on the other side of the map. It is far more likely to embrace the logic of social democracy as well, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

Thanks for the post, Mary!

...Now let us sport us while we may,
And now, like amorous birds of prey,
Rather at once our time devour
Than languish in his slow-chapt power.
Let us roll all our strength and all
Our sweetness up into one ball,
And tear our pleasures with rough strife
Thorough the iron gates of life:
Thus, though we cannot make our sun
Stand still, yet we will make him run.

(Andrew Marvell, "To His Formerly Coy Mistress")

Thanks, James. I don't want to beat this into the ground. Personally, I don't think the U.S. has any legitimacy in occupying Iraq or in dictating the terms of its reconstruction. I think this means I disagree with you -- and with Howard Dean.

If you're interested, I have posted a longer version of my views over at Left Coaster under the Aug. 26 thread for "Dean's Going National ..."

I think it would be a failure of imagination to suppose that the only alternatives are either (a) an abrupt U.S. pullout or else (b) a continuation of the current occupation, only with a greater level of U.S. financial and military commitment along with a modicum of international involvement.

I take (b) to be Dean's announced position, and I believe that it would only lead to a greater level of disaster.