Our SCIRI Friends

To revisit the five year-old Charles Krauthammer quote from yesterday about SCIRI, I should say that I don't think the point is that Krauthammer was "wrong" about SCIRI. He was, of course, wrong but he's been wronger about many things over the years. Rather, the point of highlighting his changing tune -- and the hawks' general switch on this -- is to underscore the vacuous nature of the hawks' strategic thinking on Iraq.

The fantasy camp theory of the Iraq War in which we were going to install a happy pro-American democracy that led rapidly to a tumbling of Iranian and Syrian (and maybe Saudi!) dominoes was always dumb but it's at least clear why you might find it appealing. But that collapsed into the ashes years ago, and ever since it did folks have been casting about for rationales. We've gotten stuck in an inane debate over whether or not the surge is "working" or whether or not Iraq is "going well" when in reality it's been years since we've had any coherent objectives at all.

Comments

The fantasy camp theory of the Iraq War in which we were going to install a happy pro-American democracy that led rapidly to a tumbling of Iranian and Syrian (and maybe Saudi!) dominoes.

The neo-cons could care less about spreading democracy in the Middle East. They care about global leadership and maintaining military superiority; nuclear power superiority.

Iraq was a "presence mission" not a "democratization mission". Establishing military bases and gaining influence in the political and economic power structures in the Middle East were the objectives, and they saw Iraq as the best opportunity to achieve those goals.

Posted by AKBY | March 29, 2008 1:32 PM

"Objectives" are for weenies. Real men spend a decade trying to get into a war, and by golly, once they have it they aren't going to be bogged down by trivalities such as "goals" or "objectives."

Posted by David | March 29, 2008 1:34 PM

We've gotten stuck in an inane debate over whether or not the surge is "working" or whether or not Iraq is "going well" when in reality it's been years since we've had any coherent objectives at all.

That is exactly right, and put perfectly. So when hawks say advocates of withdrawal have no "plan", it's important to point out that simply keeping troops in Iraq for 10, 25, 50, or 100 years while you hope something positive happens isn't a "plan", it's just wishful thinking.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 29, 2008 2:29 PM

it's been years since we've had any coherent objectives at all.

Doesn't securing permanent military bases and a pliant, dependent ally count as a coherent objective?

Posted by Ryan | March 29, 2008 3:01 PM

simply keeping troops in Iraq for 10, 25, 50, or 100 years while you hope something positive happens isn't a "plan", it's just wishful thinking.

Right. Maintaining the viability of U.S. military bases in Iraq must eventually require stable conditions on the ground, and this may never happen. Doesn't matter. The US political power structure won't be willing to give up the dream of a permanant military presence in the Middle East, so they'll continue to push the stay-the-course policy; for them, there's no alternative.

All the Bush administration needed to do was get us in there; they were betting on the no-good-alternative to a permanant presence.

This is what disturbs me the most about this war. This isn't what Americans signed-up for; but in Cheney's words, "So?"

Posted by AKBY | March 29, 2008 3:06 PM

At times like this it would be nice if the U.S. had a two-party system. It would be even nicer if the Bush policy had collapsed during a hotly-contested Presidential campaign, because in that case the candidates of the opposing party could loudly point out that the "defining moment", like the rest of Bush's Iraq policy, has been a disaster. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

Posted by John Emerson | March 29, 2008 3:07 PM

I think the objective is clear. Iraq is to be nominally united, nominally democratic, and 'an ally in the war on terror', which means government(s) and people are reasonably tolerant of American military presence.

Posted by David Tomlin | March 29, 2008 3:15 PM

"[I]t's been years since we've had any coherent objectives at all."

So?

--Dick Cheney

But really, the objective is to hand this catastrophe off to a Democratic president and say "you're it."

Posted by Nick | March 29, 2008 3:20 PM

Very tolerant indeed, except for car bombs and that kind of shit.

Posted by John Emerson | March 29, 2008 3:21 PM

I don't think the problem is not having coherent objectives. The problem is that the administration won't come clean about what the real objective is. The real objective seems to be to destabilize Iraq to the extent that it requires a permanent US military presence. And we are certainly doing a great job of meeting that objective. This why I've had some problems with the incompetence charge against the administration. If the goal is instability, then deliberate incompetence is a good way to achieve it. And if the incompetence is deliberate, it isn't really incompetence, is it?

Posted by fostert | March 29, 2008 3:31 PM

Anybody still talking about "objectives" - rational ones, anyway - after learning the history of the run up to the war is a complete idiot.

There's absolutely no question that while some of the neocons may have (publicly) believed in the notion of "bringing democracy" to Iraq, the reality is that the real motivation was oil, war profiteering, ME hegemony and support for Israel.

Exactly how those four objectives broke down percentage-wise is not really relevant.

And all those objectives remain. Only two of them are being accomplished by continued presence: war profiteering and support for Israel. The oil isn't flowing well enough (unless you accept Greg Palast's concept that the goal was to take Iraq oil OFF the market to boost oil prices - THAT certainly worked well!) and ME hegemony is further away than ever (which is why Cheney and Bush are trying to start a war with Iran).

Anybody who thinks the outcome of this is some kind of "stable" Iraq government which is "democratic" and favorable to the US and Israel and hostile to Iran is a complete loon.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 29, 2008 3:50 PM

Re: Iraq was a "presence mission" not a "democratization mission".

It's both, since there's no contradiction but rather a synergy between those two ideas. After all, the democratization of Eastern Europe has allowed NATO to expand throughout the former Soviet satellites and even into the former USSR itself, and most of the former satellites are more pliant to US will than "old" Europe. Some warmongers like Cheney were principally interested in establishing American hegemony, but others were truly mesmerized by events in Eastern Europe in 1989 despite the huge differences in cultures and politics and they really did believe that the fall of one dictator would start a chain reaction and let 1000 (Americanized) flowers bloom.

Posted by JonF | March 29, 2008 3:53 PM

I understand the public's seeming apathy towards Bush flailng about in Iraq. It certainly is incoherent policy. But incoherency is something half the country works hard at achieving every Friday and Saturday night and other nights as deemed needed. An incoherent leader for an incoherent people. Nice fit.

Posted by steve duncan | March 29, 2008 4:05 PM

"The oil isn't flowing well enough "

I don't think the objective was necessarily to increase the flow of oil, but to change who profits from the flow. Prior to the fall of Hussein, oil leases in Iraq were mostly owned by French, Russian and Chinese interests. Now they will be owned by American, British, and Dutch interests. If you're Exxon Mobil, high output means nothing if Total Fina Elf is getting the profits. The reduced flow still represents a vast improvement in revenue for Exxon Mobil because they are now the ones who will profit from the flow. We should keep in mind that we really aren't stealing Iraq's oil; we are stealing France's, Russia's, and China's oil. Ever wonder why those countries didn't support the war?

Posted by fostert | March 29, 2008 4:28 PM

The comments by Ryan and fostert seem on target. The "hidden" objectives of getting bases in Iraq and control of the oil seem to matter more than our official goals and benchmarks. That should be clear to all by now, esp after senior officials (e.g., Greenspan) have admitted it (at least about oil).

Compare Stratfor's analysis of our goals with the offical ones:

"Stratfor’s analysis of US reasons for invading and occupying Iraq"
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/stratfor-iraq-goals/

"Stratfor again attempts to explain why we invaded Iraq"
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/03/24/stratfor-new-reasons/

"Our Official Goals and Benchmarks for the Expedition to Iraq"
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/iraq-goals/

Posted by Fabius Maximus | March 29, 2008 4:34 PM

Re: We should keep in mind that we really aren't stealing Iraq's oil; we are stealing France's, Russia's, and China's oil. Ever wonder why those countries didn't support the war?

Then why didn't they supoport the war initially, since they could have made getting their share of the oil profits a condition for doing so? OK, maybe they did in secret negotiatiuons and BushCo was dumb enough or greedy enough to reject the idea. Still, the Bush administration apparently was on board with sharing the wealth with the Brits and the Dutch, so why not the French and the Russians too?

Re: Anybody who thinks the outcome of this is some kind of "stable" Iraq government which is "democratic" and favorable to the US and Israel and hostile to Iran is a complete loon.

I don't see anything loony about that idea and as I noted previously it dovetails quite nicely with the other motives people suggest. A pliant Iraqi client state operating as a catspaw for US policy in the Middle East is exactly the sort of thing any committed imperialist would want, since outright take-over and provincialization is decidedly out of fashion these days.

Posted by Jonf | March 29, 2008 5:25 PM

Jonf- that's a reasonable point. But think of it from France's perspective. Bush wasn't going to give them ALL of what they had. They were likely to get 20% of what they had (because it would be divided among the other war participants). There were three options: 1)Oppose the war and hope their opposition would stop it- then they get to keep their oil and don't have to fight for it. 2)Oppose the war knowing it will happen anyway- then they lose their oil but don't get caught up in a messy war. 3)Support the war, knowing that they will lose 80% of their oil- then they get to keep only 20% of their oil but get caught up in a nasty war. Option 3 is already worse than Option 2. But Option 2 allows the possibility that Option 1 (obviously the best for them) might happen. The British and Dutch were willing to take a small cut because they didn't have a cut to begin with. The Russians, French, and Chinese weren't willing to take a small cut because they already had a bigger cut. Why would these countries fight a war that could only result in them losing money (on top of the money spent fighting the war)? People do not desire to be poorer. And they certainly don't expend massive resources in an effort to make themselves poorer. Not intentionally, at least.

Posted by fostert | March 29, 2008 6:18 PM

Krauthammer is another typical neocon Chickenhawk. He seems to have avoided military service in Vietnam by living in Canada and England until he was 22.

But in 1972 he seems to have been paralyzed in a diving accident. Much classier than getting a vulgar bullet. Fortunately for Krauthammer, there was Affirmative Action for Assholes.

"If Hermann had doubts--I would not have blamed him: no one with my injury had ever gone through medical school--he never showed it. He told me he would do everything possible to make it happen.

He did. Within a few days, a hematology professor, fresh from lecturing to my classmates on campus, showed up at my bedside and proceeded to give me the lecture, while projecting his slides on the ceiling above me. (I was flat on my back in traction, but I'm sure Hermann had instructed everybody to carry on as if such teaching techniques were entirely normal.)

He then went to work behind the scenes: persuading professors to let me take their tests orally with a recording secretary (I did not learn to handwrite for another three years); getting me transferred for my 12 months of inpatient rehab to a Harvard teaching hospital so that I could catch up at night with my class's second-year studies and rejoin it in third year; persuading (ordering?) skeptical attending physicians to allow their patients to be cared for by the student in the wheelchair with the exotic medical instruments (the extra-long stethoscope Hermann had made for me was a thing of beauty)."

Gee, how does one get private lessons at Harvard, and for nothing?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/krauthammer082800.asp

Posted by bernarda | March 29, 2008 6:41 PM

Ultimately, we have to look to domestic conditions to see the reason for the war.

I don't think it loony to presume that the Washington Establishment genuinely saught the democratizing the Middle East. They equally genuinely saught Imperial power in a resource-wealthy region. These are non-contradictory goals (especially considering that "democracy" in establishment ideology means "free-market", "pro-Western elite-run institutions with elections between two elite-run pro-Western parties and dirty tricks for any troublemakes)".

But we still have to ask: what enables and compels the establishment to play at Empire, to begin wars of choice, and to take what are fantastic risks with other people's lives and money?

And the answer of course is hidden in plain site: wars make societies conservative. They create public economic scarcity; they favor political reactionaries; they establish expertise among Imperialsists; they enrich political cronies; they reelect incumbents (especially in high office).

It is simply too tempting to be a reckless imperialist: the domestic political benefits are immediate and potentially structural whereas the international benefits are possible and your playing with house money anyway.

You can't expect people who are addicted to the aphrodesiac of power to be a rational humanitarian about these issues. And thus we will continue to have Vietnam's/Central America's/Iraq's and other lesser futilities for the life of the "Pax" Americana.

Not that US elections can't be a moderating force, but fundamentally this is the dynamic that will prevail.

Posted by tom f | March 30, 2008 12:11 AM

Re: wars make societies conservative.

I disagree very much. Every major war the US has fought (with the exception maybe of the War of 1812) has led to major, and sometimes massive, reform at home. The Revolution-- well, duh! The Mexican War ignited the fracas over slavery. The Civil War gave us Reconstruction. The Spanish-American War ushered in the Progressive era. WWI was followed by the Roaring 20s (OK, socially but not politically liberal). WWII plus Korea laid the foundation for the Civil Rights and feminist revolutions. Vietnam-- well, we know about the 60s! In fact I think the GOP knows that war transforms societies in ways unpredictable but generally not favorable to established interests, and that explains both the very limited effort in Gulf War I (and even that was followed by a limited defeat for the Right) and the refusal of the Bush administration to put the country on a true war footing-- hence "Go shopping" instead of "Rally Round the Flag".

Posted by JonF | March 30, 2008 8:34 AM

Yeah, perhaps you're right.

On the other hand, I think the correlation between end of WWII and feminism or for that matter WWI and the roaring 20'sis very weak . I would look first at the growing afluence and atomization of American life first. The very wealth and stability that made the USA a world power also contributed to these social developments.

And again with the 60's, we have to ask to what degree the Vietnam war was a check on the political success of the new left and the counterculture. Obviously Vietnam was a significant recruiter and motivating force for the Left, but might it not also have relegated these political movements to the fringe? In at least one major sphere, the fruit of 7 years of military aggression in South East Asia was Nixon's 72 re-election.

Similar hedges could be made with the Gulf War. Remember on the eve of war the country was largely split, as was the Congress. But during the war, Bush I became very popular and it's certainly reasonable to suppose that he was defeated in spite of, not because of, his foreign policy.

Anyway, this can only be speculation. We can't see what the US would have become without these wars.

Posted by tom f | March 30, 2008 11:47 AM

Too bad we couldn't have taken up a collection ten years ago for all these pants-pissing five-year old mentality neocons, and send them to a War Fantasy Camp where they can "play army", chase each other through the woods with paintball guns and get their I-got-chosen-last-for-dodgeball, I'm-not-enough-of-a-man insecurities out of their system without dragging the country into a destructive clusterfuck. It would have been much cheaper.

Posted by Mike G | March 30, 2008 3:20 PM

JonF: qualified agreement. In Britain it's more or less accepted that WW1 was vital in the women's suffrage campaign; women who had worked in the munitions industry during the war had a much better claim for voting rights after the war (which they were in fact granted in 1918). And there's a similar obvious connection between WW2 and the birth of socialist Britain - the 1942 Beveridge report, the 1945 Labour landslide victory, the foundation of the NHS and so on were all very much tied to the war. You could say the same about the GI Bill in the US.

But I would be very wary of connecting the Vietnam war with the overhaul of society in the 1960s. First, the struggle for black civil rights, the first real cause of the reforming left, had been going on for many years before the first US combat troops went to Vietnam. Second, the same things were happening in societies such as the UK which weren't involved in Vietnam at all.

Posted by ajay | March 31, 2008 7:25 AM