I wish I had more time to write about this here, and indeed to write a letter to the editor. However, just take a look at the conclusion the WaPo editorial writers draw after five or six paragraphs recounting the "Carnage in Iraq":
Yet, as the insurgents increasingly go after Iraqi civilians, one thing has become clear: Theirs is not, as many people maintained before the Jan. 30 elections, a struggle against American "occupation." It is a fight against a legitimate government trying to operate under the principle of self-rule -- and trying for the most part, notwithstanding terrible provocations, to include every ethnic group. As Mr. Rumsfeld said, their only strategy is butchery. That doesn't mean they are sure to lose; their barbarism can go a long way toward slowing the economic and political progress that Mr. Rumsfeld said is necessary. It does mean that the United States is right to help the Iraqis battle back.Great! Proof positive that the resistance is resistance to "legitimate government", not resistance toward a government chosen in blind elections, without the voice of a majority of the minority Sunnis, and which has yet to call for the removal of US troops despite poll after poll saying that the majority of Iraqis want it and despite its being a campaign promise by the current Iraqi political "leaders". I am of course not advocating violence, but the idea that resorting to the targeting of innocents is somehow a move away from the ultimate goal of getting the US the hell out of here is sheer lunacy. The "insurgents" know where the country is vulnerable, and they're looking to make a huge dent.
Finally, the WaPo writers make my point, even though they believe otherwise. The US will never allow a regime that is not made in its own image. This is perfectly clear from what Bremer et. al. has done, and what Iraqi political leaders have refused to do. And so resistance toward--and carnage in the hopes of destabilizing--the Iraqi government (i.e., the occupation's Iraqi government) is indeed resistance toward "the economic and political progress that Mr. Rumsfeld said is necessary." A government committed, for reasons of might over right, to the US's vision of economic and political progress in Iraq is a government begging for resistance. Add to that the heavy fortification of the Green Zone, and you have a recipe for a general campaign of violence could appear only to the willfully blind as a campaign against the abstract concept of legitimacy.
Posted by Paul at May 17, 2005 08:53 AMI do think that you're right that the U.S. wants a pliable client regime, and that anyone opposed to that client regime has a strong case against it.
But interpreting the insurgency gets very tricky here, since so many of their actions don't have the effect of opposing a client regime. Now, sometimes even when an agent brings about a result that is quite different from his stated goal, we continue to attribute the stated goal to him. But other times the stated goal and the actual result are so different that we can begin to doubt whether the stated goal is the actual goal.
After all, the insurgency has a) only made free and fair elections harder (they bear a great deal of responsibility for the flaws in the election); b) given the U.S. a pretext to remain in Iraq; c) partly aimed at fomenting ethnic strife, rather than building a national unity movement; d) opted for the violent targetting of civilians when peaceful alternatives are possible, or would be if there weren't an insurgency going on; etc. etc. etc.
Given all that, I think it's genuinely hard to guess what various people are actually aiming at in targeting Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops. I imagine there are a thousand different reasons: avenging a cousin's death at the hands of U.S. forces; hoping for a reinstallment of the Ba'ath party; hoping to goad the U.S. into a holy war; etc. etc. etc. Many of those goals won't even be aimed at forcing the U.S. out. And some of the insurgents' tactics do seem to be aimed at fighting against the best shot Iraqis have at something resembling freedom, the obtuseness of the WaPo editorialist notwithstanding.
(What I mean by this last sentence is, the best shot Iraqis had at something like freedom was to have an electoral process that the U.S. lost control of. In my opinion, the insurgency sort of blew that chance.)
Posted by: Chris at May 17, 2005 11:09 AMChris,
I'm reminded of a Turkish friend of mine here in Berlin who was convinced that Turkey's Kurdish troubles were a result of the US giving arms to the Kurds in Turkey. A more wrongheaded opinion can scarce be imagined. However, her attitude suggests to me that anti-Americanism is such a big part of middle eastern attitudes that regardless of whether one is fighting to avenge one's cousin or whatever, one is still likely to link that goal with getting the US out.
I've said it before but I suppose I will say it again. The elections didn't offer Iraq much chance for freedom and trying to disrupt them was, I suppose for many Iraqis, an effort to prevent an american propaganda coup. Seen in that light, violence against the elections was also violence aimed at getting the US out.
I think you are right Chris, acknowledging the complexity and multi-faceted nature of the insurgency is the only legitimate analysis.This means looking at the historical aspirations and animosities of all the various sects and factions, not just assuming all conflict started with US invasion.As in Viet Nam, where PR required an easily defined enemy (commies)and motive (domino theory)the simplified analysis, even by reporters on the ground,dooms us to an incoherant response. We expect the government to spin, but now that the press is involved in the propagandizing...How many are dying for the Koran, how many for the constitution,how many for revenge, how many for the oil?
Posted by: Troutsky at May 17, 2005 11:29 AMI certainly don't--and didn't--want to say that the insurgency/resistance had more unity of purpose than they obviously do. However, like Peter, my impression is that the interest that various forces have in ousting the US forms an overlapping consensus significant enough to count the occupation as the most salient element rendering violence attractive to so many people.
To be sure, there will always be fanatics that view the Shi'a as just as evil as the Christian infidels. But I can't help but be convinced that Shi'a acquiescence of US aims, policies, and tactics is responsible for much of the motivation to violence. The only thing in the past that kept Iraq together as one country was an iron fist, and typically that fist was backed by the US. The experience of Falluja, privatization, the Bremer-decreed economic policies, the military bases, etc. clearly indicates a reluctance by the US soon to give up its firm hold on Iraq. Admitting this, and reasoning to the conclusion that the US should leave, does not commit one to the view that things will go swimmingly once the US is gone. Nor does it suggest that Iraq won't turn into some sort of theocracy. It just seems to me that the only thing that would give Iraqi even the hope of a peaceful existence without an immediate US withdrawal is the Fallujization of an unacceptable numer of persons and cities.
Posted by: Paul at May 17, 2005 01:36 PMThat is the sad truth,Paul, that there is no good answer and the Iraqi people will continue to suffer regardless.In Israel they build a fortress to keep out unwanted elements, so perhaps the "green zone" is a metaphore for the future of Iraq.The US will go on to some new adventure and the collective amnesia will take hold.
Perhaps the most insidious aspect of this is that I,as a leftist,am subtlely excluded from the discourse by an internalized fear that any position i take, withdraw or stay, will result in more carnage.I am reduced to angry criticism and can support nothing. Perhaps the Coalition should deploy another 3 to 500,000 troops,experience some consequences for it's actions but it seems unjustifiable to "teach a lesson" at the expense of the civilian population caught in the crossfire.
Posted by: Troutsky at May 19, 2005 11:41 AMAll of these are positions that I respect (and not just in the, "I respect your right to hold that view" way). And perhaps Troutsky's view should be mine in the final analysis. I'm not afraid to conclude that there simply is no right thing to do in a certain sphere. But I am still convinced that the best thing to do is to get the US out now. Thus: US OUT NOW!
Posted by: Paul at May 20, 2005 08:27 AMCouldn't agree with you more Paul.
Posted by: peter at May 22, 2005 09:48 AM