A paleo-conservative view of the upcoming Iraq war

[Pannonian]

Two articles from the March 24 2003 issue of The American Conservative, one looking at the cause and the other looking at the results.

http://www.amconmag.com/2003/03_24_03/cover.html
http://www.amconmag.com/2003/03_24_03/taki.html



Baghdad will fall quickly, Saddam will die amid the rubble, and the Arab world will sink into despair, grow still further in hostility towards the United States, and terrorists the world over will find thousands of young men ready to die as long as they take an American with them. Otto von Bismarck once famously said that a certain region was not worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier. I don’t think all the sofa Samurai are worth the life of a single American soldier, or for that matter, a single innocent Iraqi.

How prevalent was this view in the US at the time? Over here the consensus was that the war would be a walkover, but the aftermath would be a mess.

[whyidie]

Two articles from the March 24 2003 issue of The American Conservative, one looking at the cause and the other looking at the results.

http://www.amconmag.com/2003/03_24_03/cover.html
http://www.amconmag.com/2003/03_24_03/taki.html


How prevalent was this view in the US at the time? Over here the consensus was that the war would be a walkover, but the aftermath would be a mess.

The opinion that winning the war would be easy but winning the peace would be hard was one that did exist here and was definately in the mainstream media. I'd say it gained momentum as the invasion became more of a when and less of an if.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The opinion that winning the war would be easy but winning the peace would be hard was one that did exist here and was definitely in the mainstream media. I'd say it gained momentum as the invasion became more of a when and less of an if.


I believe that it was assumed, after major conflict and the initial occupation, that the insurrection would be moderate to severe for a while. Planners for the 2nd Gulf war recognized that the fight was not entirely against Iraq, but also against numerous bordering factories of extremist ideology that would support insurrection in the wars' aftermath. After the occupation, the aim was to set up a working and self sufficient government before the opposition was able to tear it down. Few other U.S. occupations would have predicted such a large insurrection because during conflicts such as WWII, the Allies totally eliminated any states that would have supported insurrection in and around Europe - i believe that this point was recognized from the beginning and that planners simply dealt with the idea that they couldn't attack everyone at the same time who would pose an impediment, but that to take them one at a time was more prudent.

Most signs pointed to a severe contest between rival factions due to internal differences as well as extremism from abroad.

I used the easy victory by the allies over the mild insurrection in post-war Germany as one example of how, without eliminating the breeding grounds for extreme opposition, the insurrection would have a constant life support system. The opposition would be much harder to root out because the roots were not in Iraq.

But i am a hawk as far as American foreign policy is concerned and, rather than push against an Iraq war because of these things, i would push for quick occupations and more aggressive diplomacy against all surrounding nations not playing by our rules. This in the hopes that a functioning democratic republic could be set up fast enough in Iraq that it would show a positive alternative to the existing types of states in the region as well as the seriousness and relentlessness of the American agenda.

I am pretty sure that I felt this way well before the war began and I am hardly surprised at all at the current level of conflict in Iraq or of the events of the past 3 years.

[whyidie]

I don't know how bad the situation is in Iraq. Is the going tougher than I thought it would be ? For the US military and for the Iraqi population, I honestly have no idea. I knew it would be hard, but didn't really get into details in terms of deaths, years, and money.

I'm doing great though! Would have loved to see some of the capital (both monetary and political) thats going into the war redirected into industry here. Paying higher gas prices I suppose, but other than that I'd say things are going fairly well in whyidiville.

[Pannonian]

I don't know how bad the situation is in Iraq. Is the going tougher than I thought it would be ? For the US military and for the Iraqi population, I honestly have no idea. I knew it would be hard, but didn't really get into details in terms of deaths, years, and money.

Current assessment is that Iraq is more likely to descend into a (more intense) civil war than turn into a working democracy.

[whyidie]

Current assessment is that Iraq is more likely to descend into a (more intense) civil war than turn into a working democracy.


What are the options ?

[Pannonian]

What are the options ?
Separatist groups are looking to provoke a civil conflict by staging sectarian attacks. Criminal gangs are taking advantage of the chaos to assume official guises and carry out their robberies, kidnappings, etc. often focusing on particular groups as a matter of prejudice. People afraid of these false officials - who may even be properly appointed officials gone bad - won't trust anyone from the government who don't have American troops accompanying them. This presence of Americans inflames patriots who want foreign influences out of Iraq, who subsequently stage attacks on anyone associated with the Americans (the other partners of the coalition are insignificant in this regard), not to mention the Americans themselves. American troops responding to these attacks kill both insurgents and civilians, which further inflame anyone already disposed to resent these foreigners, and lead to an even deeper insurgency. Which fuels the chaos in which the criminals thrive. Separatists also attack to drive out the coalition blocking their civil conflict, in the manner of Jewish attacks on the British in Palestine.

Basically, there are an extraordinary number of groups with an interest in chaos, who want different results and hence approach it differently. Not only do we not know how to deal with them, we don't even know who they all are, since new groups spring up, split away, coalesce, etc. all the time. Hence my warning in another thread that a hostile petty dictator should be treasured, since his reactions are at least predictable and you know who to deal with.

What should we do? I don't think anyone really knows.

[Lemur]

How prevalent was this view in the US at the time?
Just ask George Bush Senior, who had this to say about invading and occupying Iraq in 1998:


Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

[Navaros]

All reporters should be throwing those Bush Sr. comments in Bush Jr.'s face every time he makes a public appearance and forcing him to respond to them.

Why aren't they?

[AntiochusIII]

All reporters should be throwing those Bush Sr. comments in Bush Jr.'s face every time he makes a public appearance and forcing him to respond to them.

Why aren't they?It's the liberal media, I tell you. ~;)

[Ice]

Bush Sr. was a smart man.

Indeed. It's funny how so many more countries are more threatning than Iraq.