I know. It absolutely boggles the mind that a country could be “run-down and dysfunctional” during a hated occupation by aggressive foreign forces who’ve utterly destroyed the infrastructure of the country and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of its innocent citizens. I mean seriously how lazy can these people be? Bury your children, rebuild everything we destroyed and tidy this dump up!

You do understand that your attitude leads inevitably to “There’s nothing we can do for them, we’ll just nuke them all.”

Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is kinda counterproductive.

We can either drag the Islamist world, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century, or they will pull us back to the 7th. And nuking the lot of them will cause far more problems than it could hope to solve.

It’s funny, prior to March 2003 the Democrats and Sean Penn were willing to dash over to Iraq when Saddam was in power. They said their diplomatic prowess wold mean peace.

Now, the only ones who go there are freshmen Democrat Congressmen who ran against the war but now want their picture taken in kevlar and body armor.

Didn’t Kerry have a plan for peace in Iraq in 2004? I guess he just forgot about it after he lost.

The military has won the war. The Democrats (and Europe) are now standing by like dollards with no leadership or vision.

What you describe doesn’t surprise me. I’m not sure what degree of despair (fatalism?) is attributable to anticipation that our next President will make good his promise to pull 1-2 “combat” Brigades monthly beginning February until all are out, but the way things are looking right now that won’t happen. He “endorsed” the SOFA via subtle changes in wording on his web site and comments when introducing Bob Gates as SecDef, and the document itself is a bit softer than some among the punditry would have us believe. Still, and unfortunately, If I lived in Baghdad I’d consider Jan 20 +/- a few days as a good time to avoid crowds…

I’m not certain there won’t be other spikes in violence and other reasons for that (provincial elections there wonderfully timed to coincide with innaugeration here) but honestly the Iraqis have surprised me (not to be read in the sense of “delighted” or “shocked”) over the past year, even beyond just Sadr City, Basra, etc. (Though I’m looking forward to your promised longer report). They’ve moved further faster than I expected, and I thought myself an optimist.

I don’t think Obama wants to be the guy who “blows it” in Iraq – regardless of whether he shoulders any blame in the media or from the public should that happen. I really think he wants to do the right thing. The question is, can those who desire otherwise sustain themselves byond his personal limit? Such things define us great or small.

Take care, Michael. And thanks.

Also, the U.S. became something more like a democracy by virtue of a very bloody civil war fought to exhaustion and then followed by long term military occupation – and even that didn’t work to change the status quo in the South. Real change took another hundred years.

Are we really prepared to exercise that sort of patience in Iraq even if it would work without the kind of freedom of action that McArthur had in Japan? Looking closer to home we have failed numerous times at reforming and democratizing Haiti, a tiny country that we can completely overawe with trivial force and dollars.

“What is Israel’s legal status with the Iraqi government/Are they close to recognizing Israel’s right to exist? Are the citizens of Israel believed to be part of the human race according to the Iraqi rulers?”

Can two gay guys get married in Baghdad? Setting the bar too high is as bad as setting it too low. In America’s early days, Indians and Africans were not considered part of the human race. Some things take time. The fact that the court ruled that all Iraqis can visit Israel if they so choose is the first step toward the kind of recognition you’re talking about.

Like someone else said: Has Totten been to Michigan? I’m sure you could to to Detroit or NYC and easily find people worried about security. How about Los Angeles where gang violence is commonplace?

Morocco, Tunesia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Jordan and none of them were independent countries until WWI or even later.

Few of the Arab countries were independent of foreign occupation or control prior to WWI they were under Ottoman or European colonial rule, as was most of Africa. The Gulf Arab states Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, UAE and Qatar were not officially British colonies but were part of a British Protectorate until WWI broke out in 1914.

Most of Saudi Arabia was under Ottoman control becoming a unified independent country in 1927. Italy invaded Libya in 1911 and occupied it until WWII. Egypt won its independence from Britain in 1936. Lebanon became free of French occupation in 1943, Syria in 1946. Tunesia was granted Independence by France in 1954. Morocco in 1956, Algeria in 1962.

Few Arab countries had identifiable historical based borders or historical reasons for being a country except those decided upon by the colonial powers.

Now do you understand why Pan-Arabist’s, such as Usama bin Ladin refer to Westerners as Crusaders? The Crusades didn’t end in the 17th century.

America didn’t free the slaves until 82 years after it won independence and women didn’t win the right to vote for another 55 years after that. Why did it take so long for America to become a democracy?

The fact that there really is no strategy other than that outlined by the neoconservatives is problematic because there are no defenders for the strategy other than the neoconservatives, and no one wants to be identified with the losing side of such a potent argument. It’s petulant beyond belief, but I think one might as well get used to the possibility that the takfirists will be able to secure at least one Muslim country for their purpose, and that we’ll only end up taking the threat seriously when we’re more “evenly matched.” That is, as long as takfirist Islam is merely an ideological threat it’ll be regarded as both unassailable and trivial. The irony is that such incompatible perspectives have essentially merged. Once the takfirists become a military threat by virtue of controlling a nation state, and clearly ties it’s future to the success of a military venture (aided by WMD no doubt) it will be seen as both a genuine and vulnerable opponent.

We’ve currently entered a kind of twilight world where nothing seems real, and so we can take neither victory nor defeat without a flavoring of cynicism and a pretense to being on the “inside.” I really don’t know what comes next, but as a sociologist it’s one of the strangest political reactions I’ve ever seen. it represents a profound demoralization, in both senses of that term. Perhaps the secret is buried in the nature of competition itself? We can’t see the antisocial ten-year-old as a serious threat, on one hand, and the very existence of a ten-year-old with murderous intent creates a kind of reactive impotence. Takfirist Islam is just such an immature opponent.

If Obama can somehow restore faith and a sense of purpose through some sort of political/ideological legerdemain he’ll genuinely deserve admiration. Or perhaps there’s some other miracle occulted in some dark or invisible corner of the human condition?

The most important thing is that the Iraqi Army and police continue being arms of the Iraqi state and not venture into politics. There definitely could be leaders who could challenge Maliki but it is up to him to keep his power – he has strengthened is hand by agreeing to SoFA.

The big test for the Iraqis will likely be when they are “tempted” not to give in to the terrorists but some seemingly easier and more secure form of sectarian or military rule. Will they want to, and know how to, defend their freedom and devise their own means for overcoming sectarian strife? We can provide them with the space to find, nothing more. But we do have a lot at stake in giving them that chance.

Overall though I learn quite a bit from the knowledge of many of the solid commenters on this blog. What a treat.

But can anyone suggest why Basra isnt a legitimate model to point to? The endgame was always a central government strong enough to monopolize the use of force (which is essentially the definition of a government) at least eventually. Whether the government remains responsive to the will of the people is the real trick, and the US CAN exert a good deal of influence in that, as can the rest of the international community. Essentially the best case scenario is an Iraqi government able to enforce its writ within its borders, and also held to continue elections and growing democratic institutions at the risk of losing Western financial and military support (the carrot) and risking international condemnation, boycott, embargo etc if authoritarianism emerges (the stick). No central government will be able to hold to power (certainly not outside its rulers’ tribal boundaries) without massive international support for many years if not decades to come. Soft power will ultimately be our best method of balancing security with liberty.

Why should this matter to non-Iraqis? Because as the ordinary Iraqi gets poorer and poorer while the corrupt grow richer and richer, the crooked rich and their dependents will seek to deflect blame from themselves onto others. That leaves them two choices: persecution of a domestic sub-group, or external war. That has been Iraq’s history of the past ninety years.

What can help? Korea has had similar problems. The North Koreans established a starvation state ruled by one family, whereas the flourishing South Koreans resort to locking the creators of school exams in prison so they don’t give their relatives tips. Perhaps the Koreans can help…

Shouldn’t something close to 100% of drastically revolutioned nation-states who have recently survived near-genocidal bouts of violence only through massive foreign intervention, contain very large numbers of people who expect it to revert to form after troops leave?

That seems to me like reversion to the norm. That’s exactly how you’d expect the experience to shape the people involved.

Sure, it could be right. But there has to be more analytical depth to be had here.

They were also a severely racist, technologically backwards, monarch-worshipping population. In some ways they were better off than the Iraqis are now, in some ways they were worse off.

However, the Marshall plan worked because all organized fascist groups had been dismantled. Iraq shares a border with the still-thriving twin pillars of Islamofascism, Iran and Saudi Arabia. That’s probably the biggest threat to peace in Iraq.

You write: “But the Japanese were a very homogenous population in 1945 and still very much are. The inter-tribal/ethnic conflicts that plague Iraq, the Caucus region, former Yugoslavia, etc…”

You have the right idea but the wrong (I think) larger picture. It is not “ethnic” problems that tear the regions you mention apart but religious/civilizational problems. Multi-ethnic states can do just fine (see Brazil, America, Canada, parts of Europe, India, the list goes on) The problem is states that have people from disperate civiliations. See Chechyna (Orthadox Christian vs. Muslim), Nigeria (Muslim (sufi?) vs. Christian), India (Muslim vs. Hindu). The more disperate the religious faiths the bigger the problems.

“If the Japanese could learn these concepts, it’s possible that some form of working non-tribal government could be established in Iraq.”

But the Japanese were a very homogenous population in 1945 and still very much are. The inter-tribal/ethnic conflicts that plague Iraq, the Caucus region, former Yugoslavia, etc… were not present in Japan, which needless to say was a great benefit to the US and the Japanese themselves during post-war reconstruction. The Iraqi model will bear very little resemblance to Japan.

I can think of good reasons to dislike an individual for acts that they may have committed, but I can’t think of a single “very good recent reason” to hate a person (or a group of people) based on ethnicity. We’re not going to fix irrational ideas by sympathizing with them.

Our democracy is based on the idea that all people are created equal. We managed to teach this idea (to some degree) to cultures that had never experienced it before. If the Japanese could learn these concepts, it’s possible that some form of working non-tribal government could be established in Iraq.

That’s great Dave. What is Israel’s legal status with the Iraqi government/Are they close to recognizing Israel’s right to exist? Are the citizens of Israel believed to be part of the human race according to the Iraqi rulers?

Not only that, but over 400 Iraqi intellectuals published a signed statement in an Iraqi newspaper supporting the decision.

The only other country in the region where one might expect to see that kind of tolerance is… Israel.

That’s what different in Iraq now, and why Iraq probably has a brighter future than its neighbors.

Look across the whole Arab world and try to find a real democracy. Then consider Iraq and reflect that it has the additional issue of three large ethnic groups that hate one another viscerally and with very good recent reasons. The smart Iraqis are the ones laying low and hiding weapons and ammo for the sectarian war ahead.

What were we thinking? Killing Saddam and his sons and toppling his government was the mission; but we let it grow into a fantasy of building a democracy on sand.

I’m relaying to you what I’m hearing. I don’t know what else to tell you.

Yon and I are not usually at variance. It’s not all good news or bad here. It is mixed, and it is complex.

The surge worked really damn well. Will Iraq work well on its own? I don’t know. Maybe!

As far as long-term goes in Iraq… how many really think that the Iraqi population really wants a united Iraq? I see movements of self-determination between Sunni, Shia and Kurd as the most powerful centrifugal force in this nation-state that will continually prevent any form of collective unity in the short-term or the long-term.

I’d also like success in Iraq – however we define it. But there does come a time of diminishing returns. We’re way past that benchmark.

maybe it’s time to reasses that success…

Thanks for the update, and, oh Michael, I appreciate that you allow others to speak for themselves. Who would of thought …

Oh, right. That was last month.