Department of Analogies

On the subject of analogies between the idea of establishing an enduring US military presence in Iraq and establishing one in Germany, mostly what Andrew said. But more broadly, you have to ask yourself what the point is of bothering to construct analogies across obviously non-analogous situations. Nothing about the trajectory of US policy in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has resembled the years 1945-1950 in Germany at all. One hardly needs to enumerate specific points of difference.

The problems with this strategy, meanwhile, have nothing to do with analogies. The problem has to do with the fact that there are large and influential segments of Iraqi opinion that are fundamentally opposed to a permanent American military presence in Iraq and other segments of opinion that are deeply skeptical of it. Meanwhile, the major Iraqi social movement that does favor a permanent US presence is Kurdish separatism. That's the problem right there. When you define the mission in Iraq as, in part, the construction of an Iraqi government that will be amenable to an intimate long-term security arrangement featuring a permanent American military presence you make the mission much, much more complicated. The pursuit of this policy by the Bush administration makes the American military in Iraq a divisive, destabilizing force int he country despite the best efforts of our soldiers to be playing a constructive role. And as long as we're there, our presence will always be a divisive, destabilizing force.

Comments

exactly.

The idea the Iraqis want us there because the Iraqi government wants us there is so much hooey. We effectively put that crowd in place BECAUSE they're amenable to us being there.

And the notion that those groups who say 'yes' in opinion polls about American occupation are doing so out of some nationalist-peaceful-please-help-us-make-a-unified-Iraq sentiment is even MORE hooey. The people who want us to stay are - like the ministers- worried about their own skins. They want Americans to stay because it lines their pockets, or props up their special interest in some way. I would argue that very rarely it's not for some idealistic desire for the Bush 'vision' for Iraq to work out.

Posted by ssdagger | June 26, 2008 6:41 PM

US troops deployed to Germany can take their families with them. When Iraq becomes like Germany in THAT respect, we can revisit the analogy -- if we're not all comfortably dead by then.

The purpose of keeping US troops in Iraq is to keep US troops in Iraq. Nothing more. Why is our national discourse so stupid that any other excuse gets treated as worth arguing about?

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | June 26, 2008 6:51 PM

Doesn't this sort of describe Kurdistan?

Which, of course, we've been there 15 year so it's not an argument as to why we had to invade Iraq. But Kurdistan is kind of like Germany in that America went in with total legitimacy, has been welcomed...I think it's far more violent than Germany (no service members' families living there and marrying locals), but it's kind of like Germany.

Which, again, sort of proves how ridiculous McCain's argument is.

Posted by anonymiss | June 26, 2008 7:20 PM

Are you legally allowed to be a neocon without invoking WWII as a justification for everything you do?

Posted by Kyle | June 26, 2008 8:05 PM

On the subject of analogies between the idea of establishing an enduring US military presence in Iraq and establishing one in Germany, mostly what Andrew said. But more broadly, you have to ask yourself what the point is of bothering to construct analogies across obviously non-analogous situations. Nothing about the trajectory of US policy in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has resembled the years 1945-1950 in Germany at all. One hardly needs to enumerate specific points of difference.
================================================

Shorter MY - you can't use analogies UNLESS I SAY YOU CAN! Don't ask why - "One hardly needs to enumerate specific points of difference" - because arguing with facts is HARD WORK

Posted by Campesino | June 26, 2008 8:13 PM

If we had some ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some eggs.

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 26, 2008 8:19 PM

Well, if we need to enumerate some of the blatantly obvious points of difference that foreclose the possibility of a reasonable analogy...

1) The U.S. and Germany are deeply similar culturally, intellectually, and religiously - many of us are of German descent, we copied most of educational system from them, etc. With Iraq, the similarities just aren't there. Ok, we're mostly all monotheistic - but that's about where it ends.

2) Germany had fought a years-long, utterly ruinous war which left much of the population dead, and rendered us the least generous and most appealing of their many enemies. While we looked good compared to the Russians, we don't look good compared to, say, the Iranians, to the majority of Iraqis.

3) We had just spent years proving our willingness and ability to wage total, genocidal warfare - while also demonstrating our capacity for decency in surrender. "Do you want another Dresden, or do you want American supplies?" Hard choice. Conversely, in Iraq, we've demonstrated that we are inclined to wage only limited warfare (for various good and necessary reasons), but that we're pretty nasty if you surrender to us.

Matt didn't both going through all of this because it's so painfully obvious. I, on the other hand, had time to waste before my daughter's bed time.

Posted by Harvey Lobster | June 26, 2008 8:23 PM

Gee Campesino, that's...dumb.

How about "you will only convince me with your analogies if they aren't dumb analogies -- like McCain's analogy of Iraq to Germany."

Arguing with facts is hard work. Of course, at discussion here isn't facts, it's a dumb analogy. That's much easier. And perfectly justifiable, since there's no point going beyond a dumb analogy once you've established that it's a dumb analogy.

Posted by ResumeMan | June 26, 2008 8:23 PM

"Doesn't this sort of describe Kurdistan?"

Yes, but there is one critical difference. Kurdistan has the capability of igniting a very serious conflict with Turkey. If they try to become independent, Turkey will crush them. But it won't be easy, the Peshmerga are a capable force. There's a common misperception that the Turks hate the Kurds. They do not. It's just that the Kurds in Turkey happen to be sitting on Turkey's water resources. The Turks would kill their best friends to keep those resources. And in my travels in Turkey, the Turks have made it clear to me that they'll fight the Americans if we try to defend the Kurds. We would be wise to take those threats seriously. Water is life, and the Turks know it. They know that giving up their water will destroy their country. So they will risk their own existence to defend it. And the Turks have a very large, well equipped, and well trained army. We could beat their army, but not without very serious losses.

Posted by fostert | June 26, 2008 8:24 PM

US troops deployed to Germany can take their families with them. When Iraq becomes like Germany in THAT respect, we can revisit the analogy -- if we're not all comfortably dead by then.

The purpose of keeping US troops in Iraq is to keep US troops in Iraq. Nothing more. Why is our national discourse so stupid that any other excuse gets treated as worth arguing about?

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | June 26, 2008 6:51 PM

=================================================

Don't know if that is such a great argument. I thought I remembered that our troops can't have their families with them in Korea.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/washington/04gates.html?ref=asia

News from a couple of weeks ago shows they can't and the policy is just now under review. We've only had troops there for 57 years.

Posted by Campesino | June 26, 2008 8:40 PM

Arguing with facts is hard work. Of course, at discussion here isn't facts, it's a dumb analogy. That's much easier. And perfectly justifiable, since there's no point going beyond a dumb analogy once you've established that it's a dumb analogy.

Posted by ResumeMan | June 26, 2008 8:23 PM

=================================================

But obviously it's much easier to *establish* that it's a bad analogy but just asserting it's a bad analogy and not using any hard facts to demonstrate that it is - as MY has done. Perfectly justifiable???

"Nothing about the trajectory of US policy in Iraq since the fall of Saddam has resembled the years 1945-1950 in Germany at all. One hardly needs to enumerate specific points of difference."

Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy

At least Matt's grammar and spelling seems to have improved lately

Posted by Campesino | June 26, 2008 8:51 PM

If we ever get out of Iraq, it won't be because a rational & thoughtful political debate among the a$$holes in D.C. I mean, is that how we got there in the first place?

Posted by kafka | June 26, 2008 9:00 PM

The biggest problem with the Iraq=Germany equation is, who is the Soviet Union in relation to Iraq? We kept troops in Germany to prevent the Soviets from invading and turning West Germany into a communist puppet. Who represents a similar threat to Iraq? Iran? Al Qaeda? Give me a break. There simply is no rival outside of Iraq that threatens to invade. Nor is Al Qaeda a credible threat to take over from within. The only threats to Iraq comes from its own internal instabilities, and if those are vanquished such that we can keep troops there indefinitely without any ongoing fighting, there's no need to keep them there at all. If those are not vanquished, then there's absolutely no chance of keeping troops there without their being involved in constant fighting. Either way, the only reason to keep troops in Iraq is to actually be fighting there, rather than to be merely stationed as a preventive force that keeps the country from being overwhelmed by some outside invading army.

Posted by conradg | June 26, 2008 9:12 PM

"The biggest problem with the Iraq=Germany equation is, who is the Soviet Union in relation to Iraq?"

Turkey.

Posted by fostert | June 26, 2008 9:44 PM

Most of the time these analogies are deployed to ideologically bludgeon people into agreeing by default; I don't think the "hey we've been in South Korea a long time" users really care very much whether the analogies are apt or not, what matters is their utility to their cause.

Posted by El Cid | June 26, 2008 9:48 PM

Awh, puhleeze: Turkey is a member of NATO.
Turkey anlogous to the USSR is even more ridiculous than Iraq analogous to Germany. How desperate can this argument get?

-- TP

Posted by Tony P. | June 26, 2008 9:49 PM

Shorter MY - you can't use analogies UNLESS I SAY YOU CAN!

Shorter Campesino: Iraq is like a kumquat . . .

Posted by rea | June 26, 2008 9:56 PM

Conradg has it right about the Soviet Union and Germany. The Nazis - before they tried to take over the world and exterminate Jews - were at heart anti-communists. After the war, it was fear of being fed to the wolves (USSR) that made Germany so easily reconciled to their conquerors/occupiers. The thing is, Max Boot is a very smart man and undoubtedly knows this very well. I don't know if he's grasping at straws to defend this indefinite occupation because of his love of the military and his desire to see their sacrifice validated - or because he's married himself to a war he supported from the beginning and is simply contorting his view of reality to fit his support of Mess-opatmia. I'll give him this much at least; unlike others who originally supported the war and then jumped off the bandwagon when it was obviously stuck in a ditch, he's kept his views throughout. And unlike the war-loving pussy brigade, Mr Boot understands sacrifice as more than just a word. Though I disagree completely with him, I still very much respect and admire Max Boot.

Posted by Nathan | June 26, 2008 10:00 PM

"But obviously it's much easier to *establish* that it's a bad analogy but just asserting it's a bad analogy and not using any hard facts to demonstrate that it is - as MY has done. Perfectly justifiable???"

Dude, did you miss the part where he linked to Sully's blog and said that he agreed? I think if you click the link, you'll find some reasons enumerated. Hate to pile on, but please read the whole damn post..

Posted by amos | June 26, 2008 10:05 PM

I have seen no indication from his writings that Max Boot is smart. Rather they demonstrate that he is profoundly stupid. He may be consistent, but intelligence has nothing to do with consistency. He is at the bottom of a hole, and is continuing to dig. His analogies have always been strained, and they are becoming more so with time.

Posted by Tom S | June 26, 2008 10:21 PM

hey if we just allow the kurds to have their own area then we can pack it with 50+ bases and the turks can do nothing about it, our soldiers can be out of "iraq" and if the iranian army steps into iraq we can halt that impulse and we can "milkshake" the iraqi oil from the kurdish fields and then we can open an international airport in kurdish land and fly in some wives. oh, and i believe that if you are not deployed to the dmz you can have your family come with you to korea. plus, living and working around ft. bragg, a lot of soliders marry koreian girls. so i guess if you squint your eyes and spin around a bunch of times then you can compare iraq to korea. if only the insurgents took uniform advice from kim jong then life would be great in iraq.

Posted by prick | June 26, 2008 10:26 PM

"At least Matt's grammar and spelling seems to have improved lately"........ Camp you are sooooooo f-in lame.

Posted by prick | June 26, 2008 10:29 PM

"Awh, puhleeze: Turkey is a member of NATO."

For now, they are, but that could change. But you are right, the situation is very much different. The Soviets were not willing to fight the Americans (except by proxy), the Turks are willing to do so. The Soviets never faced an existential threat (except from themselves). The Turks really do face an existential threat. If the Kurds take their water, they are doomed. And the Turks will not let that happen.

Posted by fostert | June 26, 2008 10:45 PM

If we want to play the comparison game then let's consider the following:

Total number of Allied troops occupying Germany on V-E Day 1945: Over 3 million American and British ground troops. On top of that the Army Air Corps had over 17,000 planes stationed in Europe and over 400,000 airmen. This doesn't even include the 5+ million Soviet troops on the eastern front.

Total number of Allied troops occupying Iraq on "mission accomplished" day? About 130,000

Number of Pentagon and State Department analysts planning for the occupation of Germany and Japan from 1943 onwards? Thousands.

Number of Pentagon and State Department analysts planning for the post-combat occupation of Iraq in 2002? Perhaps a dozen neo-cons in Paul Wolfowitz's cabal.

Practical alternative to American/British occupation Germany in 1945? Soviet occupation. The Soviets would have been more than happy to pick up occupation duties from the Americans. I doubt more than 0.1% of Germans in the western sector would have traded Soviet for American occupation.

Practical alternative to American occupation of Iraq in 2003? An independent Iraq in civil war perhaps, but ultimately run by Shia under the influence of Iran. No doubt a large number of Iraqis would have traded American occupation for that.

I could go on and on but the comparison is just frankly ridiculous.

Posted by Kent from Waco | June 26, 2008 10:52 PM

"hey if we just allow the kurds to have their own area then we can pack it with 50+ bases and the turks can do nothing about it"

Really? I'd bet the Turkish Army would not feel that way. They'll take over our command and control system (based in Turkey) and use it against us. And they have far more troops in the region than we do. We'd catch up, of course. And we'd create a new command and control system in Iraq. But it would take us years to put up a good defense against the Turks. We'd 'win', but it would be at a very great cost. I'm guessing we'd serve up the Kurds to the Turks before we'd got to war against the Turks. It would be in our interest to do so.

Posted by fostert | June 26, 2008 10:57 PM

"Don't know if that is such a great argument. I thought I remembered that our troops can't have their families with them in Korea."

Whoa, what sort of argument is this? Who said anything about Korea? No one did until you brought it up. That's called a "red herring" buddy, a sign of intellectual lazyness and dishonesty. From that I'm going to guess that you are a conservative.

Posted by freddiemac | June 26, 2008 11:17 PM

"hey if we just allow the kurds to have their own area then we can pack it with 50+ bases and the turks can do nothing about it"

Except close the border. So Kurdistan would have a border with Turkey, who would blockade and make war, Iran, who would blockade and make war, and the rest of Iraq, who would blockade and make war. Sounds like a recipe for success to me!

Posted by freddiemac | June 26, 2008 11:21 PM

fostert,

Are you seriously suggesting that the reason we have to keep troops in Iraq is to prevent Turkey from invading? Who in the Bush Administration, in the McCain campaign, is even making this claim? And what on earth does it have to do with American interests, much less the war on terrorism? Turkey and Iraq have fought how many wars so far this century? Ever? Yes, there's the Kurdish problem, but that's hardly a major power confrontation that threatens American interests. Nor is Turkey about to invade and occupy Iraq and uterly transform that country into some kind of strategic threat to America, as the Soviets threatened to do in Germany. We can't station troops in every country in the world that has some kind of potential conflict with a neighbor.

As for existential threats, yes, the Soviets faced total annihilation from the Nazis. The Nazi occupation plan called for an eventual holocaust of the entire Serb population of Russia, and probably most everyone else. Likewise, the Germans faced the end of their entire economic and much of their cultural system, as occurred in East Germany. There is no such threat to Iraq from Turkey, Iran, or anyone else.

Posted by conradg | June 26, 2008 11:26 PM

freddiemac: "Red herring" is a moniker that could be applied to this entire discussion. The analogy of Iraq to Germany is laughably bad, but it serves its purpose if it succeeds in drawing the debate away from Iraq and into the weeds of historical comparisons. For Republicans, an obscure-sounding debate about the Marshall plan beats a straightforward discussion of their Iraq policy any day of the week.

Campesino is right on top of the strategy.

Posted by Leo | June 26, 2008 11:37 PM

We should be reconsidering troops everywhere. There is no reason for U.S. troops to be in Germany. In South Korea, we should be talking about withdrawing. The need for a worldwide web of U.S. troops is over. It would be like Russia keeping outlets of troops all over Europe fifty years after Napoleon was defeated. To use analogies. To use another - remember when the Philippines kicked us out of Subic Bay? And remember how they immediately became an Islamo-Fascist communist threat - except they didn't. In fact, it made not one iota of difference to anything that we were there.

U.S. troops overseas in these countries do no good. They should be brought home. Sell the bases for real estate. Hey, and put that money down on the U.S. debt, you know a billion here, a billion there. It would be cute.

Posted by roger | June 27, 2008 12:34 AM

Leo hits it on the head. This sort of argument is just a diversion from any real rational discussion of the situation. It's the sort of thing Powell does when he makes broad, bland assertions about our "national interests" and "the history of the region" and other bullshit.

It's argument by assertion, nothing more.

And Turkey has no interest in invading Iraq - they just want the PKK to stop rousing the Kurds in Turkey. The same is true on the Iranian side - they just want the Kurds to shut up and stay out of Iran. The Kurds on the other hand, since they have family in Syria, Iraq, Turkey AND Iran, want to own a big piece of all of those countries.

And it ain't happening. This year and next when the Iraqi nationalists take power, they're going to shut down the Kurds attempt at secession because they don't want that oil going to Israel - which is where it will go if the Kurds secede from Iraq.

And Turkey will not allow it because the oil revenues from Kurdistan will finance Kurdish separatism in Turkey. Turkey has said many times if north Iraq is allowed to be independent, they will invade. But they won't be invading IRAQ - they'll be invading Kurdistan.

It's not clear whether an Iraqi nationalist government would join the Kurds in fighting the Turks if the Kurds were the ones trying to secede from Iraq. More likely, I think, the nationalists would attack the Kurds from the south like Saddam did while the Turks attack the Kurds from the north. It would be a major civil war, but it would end the Kurds attempts to secede for quite a while.

None of that is relevant to the US national security situation, however, or any justification for the US to remain in Iraq.

And, yes, the Turks aren't afraid of the US in Iraq. I've seen quotes from Turkish generals in interviews to that effect. They're even less concerned about Iraq's current military, understandably so.

The only concerns in Iraq at this time are the Shia worrying about the Saudis funding a Sunni resurgence. That is the only reason Ayatollah Sistani hasn't issued a fatwa kicking the US out by now. Nobody is concerned about Iran invading Iraq. Influence, yes, invade, no. And that is the only concern of the Sunnis - that they won't get representation (or control) of the government like they have had in the past and that Iran will have too much influence.

This is why the nationalists - a coalition of moderate Sunnis and Sadr's Shia (and part of the Shia Dawa Party that has split off from the main Dawa Party) - are likely to get power. Only they can deal with both the Sunnis and Iran, as well as keeping the Kurds from tearing the country apart. And it's likely most people in Iraq know that.

Maliki and his cronies in the Dawa Party and ISCI are more interested in "federating" Iraq - read: take over the southern oil fields and to hell with everybody else while still nominally being the "central government". This isn't sitting well with Sadr's crowd or the moderate or extreme Sunnis and probably not with the average "man in the street" Iraqi who probably wants to still think of himself as an Iraqi, rather than some member of some "federated state". It's not clear whether Iran likes that notion, either, since it is potentially destabilizing to Iraq and not particularly helpful to Iran.

I think Ayatollah Sistani and Iran will both agree to the nationalists winning if both believe that the Shia will still retain the larger share of the political - and street - power in the country. And if Sistani and Iran both ally with the nationalists, then the Dawa and ISCI parties will have no choice but to follow suit.

That is the only way Iraq is going to be even marginally stabilized.

The problem for the neocons is that as soon as that happens, the US is OUT. No bases, no oil, no military presence, no huge Embassy. OUT. There's no doubt that the moderate Sunnis, the extremist Sunnis, Sistani, Sadr and Iran ALL agree on that ultimate outcome, as do the bulk of the Iraqi population.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 27, 2008 1:32 AM

Interestingly, this week I got an e-mail from NYT reporter Andrew Kramer in the Baghdad bureau about "our obligation" to the Iraqi people. He was responding to a letter I sent him about his story on the western oil companies signing no-bid contracts in Iraq, which to me pretty much proves we're there to secure oil.

I found his response really infuriating, there was a subtle "get over your anger at being lied to" dig plus the usual "there's a pony under all of this horseshit" delusions. And he's a reporter for the New York Times? Maybe he needs to come home for a while and get a little perspective.

Posted by Southern Beale | June 27, 2008 4:44 AM

The Occupations of South Korea and West Germany were required to protect these nations from a menacing neighbor and were key parts of the Cold War. There is no analogy in a long-term occupation of Iraq.

Posted by bob h | June 27, 2008 6:19 AM

I would add that to a large extend, Germans and Japanese could view the occupation as somewhat disinterested and well meaning because, well, it was the case.

By the way of contrast, the most charitable interpretation of our motivation to occupy Iraq is "unclear", which gives room to less charitable interpretations like "war of infidels against Islam", "helping the Zionists", "stealing oil" etc. So we have a spectrum of Iraqi Arab opinion ranging from loathing to outright hatred.

That being the case, the only way we can stay there is by emasculating "nascent Iraqi democracy", thus making sure that "unclear" is the best what can be said about our motivation.

Posted by piotr | June 27, 2008 7:47 AM

"Really? I'd bet the Turkish Army would not feel that way. They'll take over our command and control system (based in Turkey) and use it against us. And they have far more troops in the region than we do. We'd catch up, of course. And we'd create a new command and control system in Iraq. But it would take us years to put up a good defense against the Turks. We'd 'win', but it would be at a very great cost. I'm guessing we'd serve up the Kurds to the Turks before we'd got to war against the Turks. It would be in our interest to do so.

Posted by fostert | June 26, 2008 10:57 PM"

Plus, even if we did double down on this strategy, there would be only three potential supply routes to re-supply our bases: 1) through war-torn Iraq proper, 2) through Iran or 3) through Turkey. The first is too unreliable, the second is highly unlikely given our bad relations with Iran and the fact that Iran has a large Kurdish population as well and why #3 wouldn't work is obvious.

Plus, we want radical Islamism to take the moderate path of the AK Party. If we somehow got into a shooting war with Turkey while the AK Party was in power, we would de-legitimize their moderation, they would get voted out and radical Islamists would feel vindicated that their radical violent stance was the way to go. If we got into a shooting war with the AK Party and lost, then we look like pussies. The GOP is trying to get us into no-win situations.

Posted by Reality Man | June 27, 2008 9:01 AM

I thought I remembered that our troops can't have their families with them in Korea.

Sure, South Korea is exactly like Iraq. Servicemen can't have their families live there because we are afraid their families will be murdered by Koreans.

Smarter trolls, please.

Posted by anonymiss | June 27, 2008 9:20 AM

If you want an analogy with the US's current occupation of Iraq, perhaps looking at the UK's occupation of Iraq after WW1 would make more sense.

Posted by hankest | June 27, 2008 9:24 AM

You know, when the Germany/Japan analogies were first being made, it was to support the idea that our most implacable enemies could, over time, fluorish as democratic partners and strong allies.

In retrospect it now seems obvious that the analogy was intended to familiarize us with the notion of permanently stationing troops there.

I remember on at least one occasion, Bush explicitly promised that we would leave the country as soon as Iraq had a stable government. That was part of how he sold the war to the American people and to the Iraqi people. I do not understand why the administration gets a pass for breaking its word about this. For that matter I don't understand why McCain gets a pass on that either.

Posted by mark | June 27, 2008 9:45 AM

The BIG difference is simple: In Germany and Japan an American soldier could walk, work and interact safely among the inhabitants right after the surrenders. Iraq was won five years ago and we're still unable to do this. I'd suggest that there will never be a time when that will happen.

Time to bring the troops home to where they will be safe and appreciated.

Posted by Llyonnoc | June 27, 2008 10:54 AM

"In Germany and Japan an American soldier could walk, work and interact safely among the inhabitants right after the surrenders."

Actually Iraq never surrendered. Maybe that's the problem.

Posted by hankest | June 27, 2008 11:04 AM