What to Do about Iraq, III

“Third: Recognize that the main ‘benefits of success’ are not specific or tangible.  The United States went to war in Iraq not to seize territory, oil, or military bases, but to end the threat the Iraq regime posed to the region, the United States, and the world.  If this fundamental goal is achieved–if that regime is replaced with a reasonably stable government that poses no such threats–it would make the United States safer and improve international security.  Above and beyond this, if Iraq should one day build stable democratic institutions, it might spur political reform in the Muslim world–an even more valuable accomplishment that could help curtail the appeal of Islamist extremism.  Success in Iraq would also demonstrate that the United States is capable of persevering in a costly effort to defend its interests.  This would increase American credibility, making it easier in the future to win cooperation from other countries.

But the largest benefit of success is avoiding the horrific costs of failure.  Preventing calamaties is one of the most important and least appreciated functions of government.  When an evil is averted–perhaps as a result of insight, intensive effort, and administrative skill–the result is that nothing happens.  It is easy, after the fact, for critics to ignore or deprecate the accomplishment.” – Douglas Feith, War and Decision, p.523.

A New Phenomenon

“The 9/11 attack was a new phenomenon, and not just because it hit Americans on American soil.  It was not an act of political theater; rather, it was the first successful case of terrorism of mass destruction.  Though the al Qaida hijackers killed only–only!–around three thousand people, one had to assume that the terrorists would have been glad to kill all thirty thousand people who worked at the World Trade Center, and even multiples of that number. 

This was why keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists became, suddenly and inevitably, a far more pressing and higher-order concern than it had before.  It concentrated the minds of U.S. officials on the threat from states that both coveted WMD and supported terrorists.

Iraq was such a state.  Its singular history of aggression, and its defiance of the world’s many efforts to constrain it, made Iraq stand out even among such other WMD-coveting, terrorist-supporting states as Iran and North Korea.” – Douglas Feith, War and Decision, p.214.

“America Does Not Do Its Share!”

“America…is consistently chastised within the economic development community of experts for not providing foreign aid to poor countries at a level commensurate with its wealth.  We are told, ‘The whole developed world is more generous than the United States.  America does not do its share!’  Somehow, the fact that America performs virtually all the Core’s combat interventions in the Gap counts far less than other countries simply sending money, or–better yet–peacekeepers after the fact.” — Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map, p.359.

Why Overthrow Saddam?

“Why did President Bush decide to overthrow Saddam Hussein?  In short, it was to end a range of threats.  No other contemporary leader–and a few in history–had a record of aggression to match Saddam’s.  He had started major wars of conquest.  He had brutalized his citizens and killed them in enormous numbers.  He had given aid and support to terrorists.  And, in violation of treaty obligations, he had not only pursued mass-destruction weapons, but used them, on his foreign enemies and on his own citizens. 

The problem of Saddam Hussein predated 9/11.  It had become a principle U.S. preoccupation when he seized Kuwait in 1990.  Saddam survived the Gulf War, and Iraq remained a danger throughout the 1990s–one the UN Security Council had tried to contain by imposing economic sanction and weapons inspections.  In August 1998 Saddam generated a crisis by shutting down the UN weapons inspections.  Two months later, the U.S. Congress–concerned that the Iraqi hreat was growing, while the world’s resolve to ‘contain’ Saddam was weakening–passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for regime change in Baghdad: 

‘It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.‘“ – Douglas Feith, War and Decision, p.181-182.

Liberty Within Their Own Culture

“I hope the good people of Iraq will remember our history, and not pay attenton to the hateful propaganda of their government.  America has never sought to dominate, has never sought to conquer.  We’ve always sought to liberate and to free.  Our desire is to help Iraqi citizens find the blessings of liberty within their own culture and their own traditions.  The Iraqi people cannot flourish under a dictator that oppresses them and threatens them.  Gifted people of Iraq will flourish if and when oppression is lifted.” — Pres. George W. Bush, President Signs Iraqi Resolution, 2002.

America’s Retreat

“The end of the Cold War was…a unique moment in America’s relations with the world.  It was at the peak of its moral authority.  Almost all countries looked up at America.  And…America had accumulated enormous reservoirs of goodwill around the world.  With so much accumulated moral authority and political goodwill, America could have done so much more for the world.  Instead, it chose effectively to retreat and disengage from the world, especially from many of the burdensome commitments it made during the Cold War.” — Kishore Mahbubani, Beyond the Age of Innocence, p.28

“Only for Selfish Reasons!”

“But we are told, ‘America intervenes militarily only for selfish reasons!’  Apparently, these selfish reasons drive us to intervene in the world’s most disconnected and impoverished countries.  Then we are criticized for not converting a higher percentage of them into overnight democracies, which is like wondering why the oncologist lets so many of his patients die compared with the ear specialist.” — Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map, p.359-360

“Beyond the War on Terror”

“America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values [rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; religious tolerance] around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment.  We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.” — Pres. George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 2002.

 

The Notion of Empire Forever Banished

“…America may have forever banished the notion of empire because it has changed the whole grain of human history.  As a result of the values and principles that Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt embedded into the new international order after World War II, it has become both illegitimate and impossible to create empires today.  Illegitimate because current international law does not allow imperial domination….To put it simply, the people of the world have changed.  They have essentially accepted the American claim that each human being has equal rights and equal dignity.” — Kishore Mahbubani, Beyond the Age of Innocence, p.11

What Gives America the Right…

“We should all ask, What gives America the right to render judgments of right and wrong, or good versus rogue?  If America takes on the worst offenders in order to extend the Core’s rule sets, then why not take on all offenders?  Why not just admit we run an empire? 

What gives America the right is the fact that we are globalization’s godfather, its source code, it [sic] original model.  We restarted globalization after World War II and we have made it largely in our image.  After fighting in two world wars, this was our solution to great-power war, and it has worked amazingly well.  But we cannot abandon our ceation now that we have already picked all the low-hanging fruit and only the toughest cases, such as terrorism, remain.  This gift of gobal connectivity generating peace is one we must keep on giving, because to let the process stall is to risk its demise, to possibly lose all for which we have sacrificed so much in the past.” — Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map, p.301.