It wouldn't really have been better if we had done nothing
Sunday, October 1, 2006 at 2:37PM A gloriously one-sided analysis that says in effect, "the only killing that matters is that which occurs after we intervene."ARTICLE: The Humanitarian War Myth, By Eric A. Posner, Washington Post, October 1, 2006; Page B07
The UN (and no one disputes this) said the sanctions killed 50,000 a year in Iraq in the 1990s, more than the cumulative total of this "disastrous" humanitarian adventure in Iraq.
Then there are all those Saddam killed at home over his long reign, especially in the aftermath of our "limited" campaign (Powell Doctrine in action) back in 1991.
Then there are those who died in his war with Iran (cynically supported by us) and his invasion of Kuwait.
But none of those deaths matter, because they do not occur on our watch--so to speak.
Only a lawyer could argue anything so amazingly one-sided.
But yes, better we "do no harm" and let Darfur burn, let Saddam kill, let the Gap be the Gap, etc. This is realism and the Powell Doctrine and international legal BS at its best.
I am not my brother's keeper. I just manage the cell block, letting out those I care to recognize now and then, and sending in the riot police to quell the riots when forced. Please, please, no shrink the Gap for me. They're all just dark-skinned people in a galaxy far, far away.
Think if we finally did something serious in the Congo we'd rack up 5 million dead in a decade?
Or would we probably have 50k on our hands, and a huge guilt complex to boot for our efforts ("What have we done?")?
Lincoln picked Grant because he could do the awful math required. We live in a world where the equations are all reversed in terms of effort, and still we lack a decent Grant. Instead, we've enshrined our very own McClellan, whose latest hagiographic biography hits the streets today.
Limited regret, limited morals, limited courage, limited caring. We live in an era of great circumspection, where the ass-covering careerist is worshipped and men of any firm action are vilified.
I give it to Bush: he tries. You can disagree with the calls and the execution, but he tries. The Do-Nothings of our age are the foreign policy equivalents of the Know-Nothings that once plagued our political system. They always have an answer to the question, "why not do nothing?" They want from the world but they owe the world nothing. The selfishness and self-delusion know no bounds.
Reader Comments (37)
Actually, those 50k/yr dead under the sanctions were "our watch". But then again, that adjustment just strengthens your point. I wonder what those half a million dead would think about OIF? I suspect that their biggest complaint would have been the late start date.
I know Mr. B thinks of himself as a loyal Democrat, but would someone kindly point me to a Democrat (other than Mr. B) who thinks/says these things? The ones I'm aware of seem to be the objects of the post.
What's really puzzling is that he catalogues the variety of failures and deaths in the first few paragraphs, and then he follows with this:
So basically through all the fatal US errors and screw-ups, all the daily car-bombs and all the political and social chaos caused, he cedes that that a sizeable portion of Iraqis still think deposing Saddam was worth it. Heck, even many insurgent groups don't have an issue with Saddam be dethroned. To what depths must their loathing of Saddam have gone if despite all the failures, many still would rather deal with all of this instead of Saddam in power?
Does Posner really believe the force structure and management of the occupation of Iraq was our best effort, and our only choice from here on out is to just accept the mass death that occurs in several Gap countries?
I believe that the piece points up the need to construct a SysAdmin capability that can be successful in the nation building phase. Posner does not say that humanitarian wars are necessarily bad, rather that the track record in the post conflict phase is not encouraging. Even if Tom's analysis of how a SysAdmin force could work is correct, will it actually be developed and applied in the next humanitarian disaster?
As an international lawyer and dedicated reader of your blog, I feel compellted to point out that Mr. Posner does not represent the majority opinion among international lawyers. In his book, he all but dismisses international law, and seems more like a hard nosed poli sci realist than a lawyer. In the article you cite, he refers to the new 'responsibility to protect' concept that has emerged from the 1990's, and that is slowly getting traction as a legal concept around the world. So he is actually arguing against international law here, as expected.
Tom,
A little off topic, but in pondering the possible outcomes for Iraq, I see no solution other than to "Balkanize" the country: Kurds to the north, Shia and Suni to the center and south. Now that we have made the mess that we have, is any other outcome possible in the near future (5 years)?
Martin Bauer
Oak Ridge, TN
One thing to consider, however, is that "imposing" peace is not always a solution, but rather, may be a prolongation of a conflict. For it to work, I think you have to have a willing population, and have to work to reconcile one side with the other. Darfur, for instance, won't go anywhere positive until there is a real recognition of the Arab/African and West/East conflict in the Sudan. It's not as simple as patrolling the neighborhood.
If I ask these underlying questions, would this assist the debate?:
With the end of the Cold War, has the world become a much more market-oriented and, therefore, become a much more market-dependent entity? Is this an entirely good thing -- or are there dangerous downsides to this overnight development? With these two questions in mind, should we consider national security and international relations concepts from the standpoint of facilitating the rapid rise of the market only -- regardless of the requirements or consequences? Or should some other baseline (such as attempting a smooth transition) be used in determining what is best for today and for the future?
The Iraq War was not prosecuted on any claim of a "duty to protect" innocent civilans about to be killed, but on an exagerated and dishonest claim that Iraq was a military threat to the U.S.
Neither Bush or the American people at large cared at all about the welfare of the Iraqi people. Claims that he was a murdering dictator was merely a pretext to make us feel justified in removing him. We as a nation stood by, and even offered tacit encouragement, while Sadaam killed the Kurds, the Shite rebellion, and used poison gas in the Iranian war.
That is one of the the dangers to creating an "international dudy to protect". It will be used merely as a pretext to justify an attacked based on perceived national self interest.
All the deaths that Tom points to are what economists call "sunk costs" that had already occurred. By 2002, the ongoing deaths from sanctions had been pretty much eliminated due to the much criticized "oil for food" program. From a humanitarian point of view, the issue was whether large scale deaths would necessarily occur in the *future* if we did not invade Iraq. My answer is not likely.
That said I'm sympathetic to some doctrine that would encourage the U.S. and the international "community" to intervene in situations such as Ruanda, Bosnia, and Darfur.
It always gets to me that those that are supposed to “oh so compassionate” just don’t get it. Yes, in war people die, sometime we kill civilians by mistake sometimes our soldiers are killed. Both are tragedies, but we try to limit civilian casualties and we try not to lose our own people. It’s not about saving taking lives, but saving them. Not what we lose, but what we gain. This is often clear from a historical perspective; no one would say that the Civil War or the World Wars weren’t worth the fight.
What someone like Saddam does to his nation is a horrible thing and as far as I’m concerned if we have the power to change and don’t then our nation deserves condemnation and scorn. Trying telling an Iraqi child that we have to pullout because it's costing too much money or lives. Sorry, we want to buy a new SUV or 52 inch tv so you just have to live here in filth, poverty and fear. Yeah that doesn't "create" new terrorists.
Note to Sean:
Just FYI - PARAMETERS has an article up, "Primacy without a Plan" that begins with a quote from Tom.
chew2, before the war started I believe something like 70% of Americans supported the war to remove Saddam because he was a brutal dictator. Polls are useless, but it's something to consider if you believe that the American people don't care about the welfare of Iraqi's.
"Claims that he was a murdering dictator was merely a pretext to make us feel justified in removing him"
What exactly do you mean by claims? Are you suggesting that he wasn't a brutal dictator? If you were worried about absurd claims wouldn't you want to start with your own? The U.S. did not encourage Saddam to gas and slaughter the Kurds or the Shite(s). (I haven't seen any evidence to support the third point about gas and the Iranian war, if you have anything to support your statement I would like to see a link. no wiki/anti-war.c0m)
It's certain that there would have been large scale deaths *deaths* in the future because Saddam would have started another pointless war as soon as he had a chance. If he couldn't start a war he would still be killing the people trapped in his "box".(with tacit encouragment from the U.S.;). What's the difference between a dictator who kills 100 people a day for thirty years and ethnic cleansing for a couple of weeks?
thanks, Mark. i'll be posting it: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/06autumn/freier.htm
Mike:
Good comments
The answer to "What's the difference between a dictator who kills 100 people a day for thirty years and ethnic cleansing for a couple of weeks?"
Nothing, but the media loves its graphic images and the interventions that they promote most people that now are protesting, also favor. See the list -Darfur (George Clooney) Ruanda (Newsweek) Bosnia (Clinton). Apparently the terrorists aren't the only ones with their "cause celebre".
While I understand the frustration that is visible in the post, who are the do-nothings? Bush has had control of all operational levers of government for the past 6 years? Who else was supposed to do something?
"He tries" is truly damning by faint praise.
Mike,
The U.S. government gave Sadaam tacit support in his war with Iran in the 1980's. As such we looked the other way and downplayed the reports when he massacred the Kurds who were supporting Iran, and used poison gas against Iran. You you remember the famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld embracing Sadaam during that time? After Desert Storm, the first Bush encouraged the Shia's to revolt in the hopes that they would overthrow Sadaam, but then stood by and let them be massacred. The US public expressed no outrage at these times and didn't care.
So when we had the chance to do something about his massacres we did *nothing*. At the time of the invasion in 2003, Sadaaam was killing hardly anyone, was militarily much weaker than he had been, had not attacked anyone for 10 years and could easily be contained. Sure he was a bad dictator, one of many, but that is not the reason we attacked him. We attacked him because the U.S. administration claimed he was a great military threat to us. The evil dictator stuff was just icing on the cake. But maybe you are right, lots of Americans suddenly cared about the poor Iraqi people and wanted to liberate them from such an "evil" man.
So let's liberate Sudan next and save the people of Darfur.
I agree with Chew2 to the extent that I don't buy the claim that the Iraq invasion was about
'liberating the Iraqi people'. I'm not sure that we'll ever know the administration's real
motivations for the invasion but I suspect it was something along the line of
1. Attacking Saddam was 'sellable' since he was generally perceived world-wide as unlikable
2. Strong action will deter the 'Muslim street' from attacking us
3. This would deter other 'unfriendly' regimes from acting in ways contrary to our interests
4. Iraqis are secular and would welcome democracy (making this a relatively smooth operation)
5. We needed to close our mil bases in Saudi Arabia
6. We needed a stable ally in the region who would allow us to build new mil bases from which we could deal with other 'bad' regimes like Iran and Syria (in case step three didn't work to our satisfaction).
7. Iraqi oil would cover reconstruction costs
I could go on but basically I'm just trying to make the point that the liberation stuff is just 'salesmanship'.
In fact Wolfowitz basically said as much to Vanity Fair back in '03.
It ain't easy to convince a nation to go war so that we can allow globalization to shrink the gap causing the world a safer place.
hortense (and Jim Hicks, whose comment i am not publishing):
Tom's point about the do-nothings is obvious: Colin Powell and those who subscribe to his doctrine, on the right and left.
chew2, "After Desert Storm, the first Bush encouraged the Shia's to revolt in the hopes that they would overthrow Sadaam, but then stood by and let them be massacred."
This is, as far as I know, a myth, please provide the quote where Bush called for a revolt. I am also suprised to see that the U.S. government down played reports of massacres in Kurdistan, again please provide some evidence to back up your claim. What would someone have to do for you to drop the "s off of evil?
JakF, I thought Wolfowitz had been warning people about Saddam for decades and that WMD's were the salesmanship part of the war (the WMD's almost everyone thought he had). I didn't vote for Bush either time, but I think he believes that every person has a right to live in a free democratic society. I understand that the devil is in the details, but he deserves some credit.
JakF
I think that your analysis is pretty good. But I would make the point that almost every Just war is both idealistic and practical. If a war were purely idealistic then a nation would be fools, if it were purely practical then we would be immoral. The reasons that you mentioned all seem fair and reasonable. Don’t discount the liberation and the WMD argument though. The President does seem idealistic enough to believe in liberation and everyone thought they had WMDs (I still believe that).
The problem that Dr. Barnett is pointing out is that there are those that think that if we just left the world alone it would be better off. The fact is that we are not the enemy.
I am curious even though lack of curiosity seems to be prevalent on the long-term issues raised by our Iraq intervention. If Michael Sheuer (sic)of "Imperial Hubris" fame is right and our policies are what are causing the Islamic fundamentalist pushback exactly what policies are we talking about. Humanitarian intervention could be one. Promoting democracy could be one. Energy politics could be another. Religious intervention could be one. Israel support could be one. ON and on. The problem is that none of these are really fixable in the sense that they will terminate in the foreseeable future. So where are we left. Accede to others point of view. Why? Out of defeatism? Generosity? Belief we are wrong? Belief they are right? How about real-politic and where are the hardnosed assessments of what can be accomplished and at what costs! I don't see any of this in the literature. Perhaps looking closely at what it takes to feed and shelter 5M people for up to 5 years is necessary. After all under some scenarios that could happen domestically. I think the real rationale for getting out of IRAQ may be that a more critical "opportunity" may arise shortly. Time will tell. How fast can we really retrograde from Iraq starting now and what if the next deployment is to assist militarily an ally and who are are allies now. If shared interests are our real concern, what are are shared interests in world affairs now and how can we maximize our security or whatever. Why not be above board and see how far our nonparticipation goes until say 1M are dead and before that it is the rest of the world's problem. Cynical yes but then we have to be prepared for the big ones since no one else can do those. Sorry world but you have to help out and can't just wait for US to do it and then criticize the performance. If we are going to make a splash lets try some of the newest areas- explore MARS, protect the oceans, push birth control, limit economic exploitation, support health intiatives worldwide. Military power has demonstrated again that its limits are soon reached unless its focus can be on limited aims. Where are our expressions of goals for IRAQ? Free elections-won't happen. Religious factions cannot stand that. Market economy-not when oil is underpinning of IRAQ society. Unified State-Not likely now. If you had to predict next real revolutions politically where would you be looking-Is anyone doing that? Have the real politics of genocide been studied? Problem with the Holocust is not that it happened but that it succeeded. Destruction of European Jewry largely worked. The real lessons of history are not lost. The Romans were experts at the use of surrogates and satrapy's to assist their cause. Suggest rereading of Edwin Luttwak's Military Strategy of the Roman Empire. Never more than sixty legions yet transportation network allowed employment based on you can beat us now but not forever. I think no real policy formulation going on anywhere much less Republicans and DEMS. Thus, Tom's analysis really just supports the vacuum not new thinking. We (meaning Tom) not me can do better. What is the way forward for US? 10 years! 20 years! 50 years!
"I am not my brother's keeper. I just manage the cell block, letting out those I care to recognize now and then, and sending in the riot police to quell the riots when forced. Please, please, no shrink the Gap for me. They're all just dark-skinned people in a galaxy far, far away."
That is a pretty fair summation of those who were against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from the get go. They just refuse to accept the reasoning you put forth in TPNM. I guess there will always be those who, even if they have read your book, will not get it or understand it.
It seems that the only way people might be convinced is if they could be brought to understand the process by which the Core States reached the rule sets and processes that allow them to peacefully produce high standards of living for their populations. The truth is that things like separation of church and state, free scientific inquiry, private property ownership backed by courts, reasonably honest representative government, and human rights standards evolved over hundreds of years and with copious amouns of bloodshed. Acceptance of new ideas and rule sets does not come easy.
When someone says you can't spread democracy at the point of a gun, I always like to ask how they think Japan and Germany became countries with representative governments. Or how representative government came about in England or France. Or how this country became an independent nation.
If the Iraqis could agree on a means of distribution of the oil revenues with a fund something like the State of Alaska has, where every citizen gets a percentage of the oil income, I believe that would cut a lot of the friction. Then, if they would work their way toward a government somewhat along the lines of Switzerland, with strong sovereignty for the Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia areas and a weak central government that handles national defense, the oil industry (and fund), and international relations, they have got a shot at getting the country stabilized in a reasonable amount of time. But that's just my opinion.
Mike,
My point was that whatever crimes and massacres Sadaam had committed were long since past. At the time we invaded in 2003 he wasn't much of a threat to kill anybody, so the "duty to protect" was not a proper justification for the war. In any case, as I emphasized that was never the reason we invaded: it was some claimed extreme military threat.
As to Rumsfeld and our support for Iraq during its war with Iran see this Newsweek article:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.01A.nswk.saddam.htm
"The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions."
"The United States almost certainly knew from its own satellite imagery that Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iranian troops. When Saddam bombed Kurdish rebels and civilians with a lethal cocktail of mustard gas, sarin, tabun and VX in 1988, the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. There was only token official protest at the time. Saddam's men were unfazed."
As to the first Bush leaving the Shia and Kurds to be slaughered, see this Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
"On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north."
"By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene."
So where was our American humanitarian concern at that time? We could have stopped that killing then in 1991. Isn't it pretty disingenuous to use those killings as an excuse to justify a humanitarian invasion in 2003.
"On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein."
What did he say Chew2? I want a specific quote, you cannot provide it. Bush calling for revolt is a myth. The comments were public, find the quote.(I honestly cannot find it, it doesn't exist)
I don't want to take the wind out of your Darfur sails, but if American troops head to the Sudan under the U.N. banner they will be under orders not to intervene no matter how nasty the latest atrocity is/was.
Not to pick at you, but what do you know about Saddam's regime. Do you read anything other then truthout and chomsky? You discounted him as "evil" and just another dictator. Do you know what was going on inside Iraq or is this just political to you?
Mike,
I thought...that WMD's were the salesmanship part of the war
You're right about the Wolfowitz/WMD point. I wanted to express my thoughts on the differences between how this war was 'sold' and what our actual objectives were. In my mind I had this connection set up between the 'liberating Iraq' mantra and WMDs but obviously there was a gap between what was swirling around in my head and what I tapped on the keyboard. Those pesky gaps.
The reason that I followed up on Chew2's point about liberating Iraq is that I've always felt dubious about the initial justification for the war. I truly feel that 'Liberating Iraq' is just rhetorical language. WMDs were irrelevant. See Cheney's MTP interview last month where he states that the invasion would have occurred even if evidence proved that there were no such weapons. It seems that our motivation for invading Iraq was largely self-serving. Sure, if it's successful (defining that is a whole different discussion), there will be positive effects for the mid-east & world but that's not the same as putting liberation out there 'front and center' as justification.
I'm making a fuss about this because I'm concerned about how this policy will be used in the future both by us and other nations. Could Saddam have 'liberated' Kuwait? Maybe Putin would like to do a little 'liberating' too? What criteria would need to be in place for us to 'liberate' Venezuela?
Don't get me wrong. I like this blog and I certainly find Tom's analysis and vision appealing. But mainly that's because we're already in Iraq and, well, we gotta do somthin'. From here though, what should be the 'checks' to make sure that this liberation/nation building thing isn't abused?
It wasn't a myth.
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm
The strongest signal of U.S. support for a popular rebellion came toward the end of the air war, when President Bush declared on February 15; "[T]here's another way for the bloodshed to stop, and that is for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands to force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside." This remark was heard by Iraqis on the Voice of America.
Mike (with appologies to Tom)
You wanted the quote?
CNN:
As the clock ticked, U.S. President George Bush gave one of the most controversial speeches of the war, calling on Iraqis to rise up against their leader.
"There is another way for the bloodshed to stop: And that is, for the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people to take matters into their own hands and force Saddam Hussein, the dictator, to step aside and then comply with the United Nations' resolutions and rejoin the family of peace-loving nations," Bush said on February 15, 1991.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/unfinished/war/index2.html
The full speech is available in Bush's collected papers.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1991/91021504.html
thanks, sean.
I still think "he tries" is damning with faint praise. The underlying presumption that we might have had a POTUS who didn't "try" after 9/11 seems far-fetched.
Tom, you can appreciate a man of action but if you just simply act for the saking of doing something, you can do a lot more harm than good.
'what should be the 'checks' to make sure that this liberation/nation building thing isn't abused?'
JakF: Tom proposes checks in his A-Z rule set for processing politically bankrupt nations:
step 1: UN indicts
step 2: G-20 executive which puts up the money for the Leviathan (take down) and the SysAdmin (reconstruction)
step 3: Leviathan
step 4: SysAdmin
step 5: Int'l Reconstruction Fund (? don't have my copy of BFA at hand...)
step 6: ICC
Sean,
Ah. A-Z rule sets. Shoulda known that my 'concerns' had already been addressed. So I did a site search for A-Z rule sets and came up with a bunch of hits. That should give me plenty to mull over for a while. Thanks for the info.
Mr. Barnett is also qouted in the "Outfitting a Big War Military..." article (footnote 2)
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/PARAMETERS/06autumn/melillo.htm
Also, I wonder if we could get a link to UN report that the frequently cited 50,000 dead from sanctions number comes from for reference.
Thanks.
chew2,
So the current distaste for war, as evidenced by polling Americans, is not the check against ambitions of empire,/i> you seek? You need more self-imposed restrictions on our ability to defend ourselves?
You deconflate the on-going Battle of Iraq from the threat of AQ and the Pan-Islam threat of Hiz and Ham, etc., etc. 30 times. It's all the war on terror/Islam (you pick).
It ocurs to me that anyone loyal to the US cause and camp (and naturally anyone with children) would think and say: We defeated Iraq, because we needed basing closer to the looming action in the Gulf. If we stop the jihadis wherever we encounter them, they'll just go after someone else, like KSA.
Since they're currently our allies, we are not allowed by treaty to invade them to protect them. Just like we won't be able to invade europe to save them.
Besides which, should the Islamists succeed in closing the Straights, as many as 20M people a year will starve, around the world. That wouldn't be a good thing, no matter your politics. Oh, and Sadamm gave us a whole lot of other reasons for picking him first.
Clark,
Re: your article about small wars capability.
The paradox of successfully fighting "small wars"/nation building is that it requires a much larger army.
"The lessons learned in Iraq have shown that to be effective, the US military must balance its well-developed ability to apply force with compassion and understanding of the local indigenous population. This basis tenet of counterinsurgency has underscored the importance of cultural awareness as a key component of the struggle for the “hearts and minds” of the people. "
Pablum like the above quote doesn't help if we are unwilling or unable to commit enough troops.
chew2:
'The paradox of successfully fighting "small wars"/nation building is that it requires a much larger army.'
yes, this is a basic tenet of Tom's SysAdmin concept. the force for nation building/peace keeping has to be proportional to the populace and any insurgents. there have to be a lot of boots on the ground.
William R. Cumming, Great post, lots of food for thought. It was not overlooked.Thanks.
Agreed. When I saw the Posner op-ed I wondered from what planet did he e-mail it in to the Post.