Francis Fukuyama has left the building. And now Bill Buckley has burned the building down. The house that Bush built - the "liberation" and "rebuilding" of Iraq into a stable, secular, pro-American, Western-style democracy - has been reduced to little more than charred embers. Whatever it was we were trying to accomplish in Iraq has failed.
The massive stockpiles of WMDs never materialized. The pro-Western secularists who were supposed to become the new leaders of a "new" Iraq never had a very large base of indigenous public support. And the terrorist insurgency was never crushed.
It didn't work.
Of course, those on the extreme left who called Bush "the new Hitler" and claimed the war was all about oil and American empire are just as wrong as they always were. This foreign adventure was never about stealing oil from the Iraqis or conquering the world through endless unilateral military strikes.
What it was about, instead, was taking the public's post-9/11 rage, massaging it a bit, and then channeling it into support for the invasion and occupation of a weak, isolated anti-American regime in the heart of the Middle East. It was an idealistic Wilsonian attempt to re-make the entire world as safe for liberal democracy, while destroying Islamic terrorism in the process.
And it didn't work.
Bush, and his supporters (myself included), had the best of intentions. We were going to topple a cruel dictator and bring democracy and freedom to a land and a people that had been brutalized and oppressed for decades. We were going to help the Iraqi people, by golly, and all we asked for in terms of repayment was their gratitude.
And for a week or two after the fall of Baghdad, we got that gratitude. Iraqis danced in the streets, handed flowers and candy to American GIs, and slapped their shoes onto torn-down pictures of Saddam while chanting "Bush! Bush! Bush!" as if he was the second-coming of Allah. If a poll had been taken during this euphoric time, I have little doubt that the Iraqi people would have overwhelmingly voted in Dubya as Iraqi-President-For-Life.
But things fell apart shortly thereafter. There was widespread looting. The vanguard of the insurgency was already making trouble for the US military and Iraqi civilians. And the power was out, just about everywhere.
Things did not get appreciably better as time went on. Four American civilian contractors were killed, and their bodies defiled, by a mob in Fallujah. But the re-taking of that city from insurgents would be costly in terms of American lives, and it was an election year, so therefore Fallujah was allowed to fester for months.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Aaman
Interesting and culpatory piece, ergo, you are shriven:)
Unfortunately, Alladin's Genie is a raging insatiable demon, and it's going to be a tough struggle ahead:(
2 - Michael J. West
RJ,
You certainly do surprise me. Sometimes you can write things so unfairly inflammatory that I swear I'll never read another of your posts -- I'm not quite the extreme left, I don't think, but I have my moments just as everybody does -- and then you can go and write something like this. We obviously don't agree politically, but I must say that it takes courage to write something as honest and conciliatory as this piece.
Even assuming Civil War doesn't break out, I think our hope of creating an ally is gone. It's scary to think about, but as they are now, the person most likely to hold Iraq together is --gulp--Muqtada al Sadr. He's calling for a unified Iraq and actually attempting to make it happen...and people are listening. It does not bode well for the U.S.
3 - Eric Berlin
I never thought we should go in at the time and in the way that we did, but I think pulling out and leaving a further vacuum is the worst thing we could do for a variety of reasons. And for all of Bush's faults (and there are many) he knows this.
I think we need to do what we should have done two years ago: beg Europe and NATO to help us. Terror and extremist violence has hit Europe harder than the US post 9/11 so there is really common cause here to lock down Iraq, a place that *wasn't* a terrorist hotspring pre-invasion but likely is now.
4 - Tan The Man
"The people there hate us."
That's a very generalized statement. Which people and who? A lot of the media show just the angered people, and almost never the ones who want America to help.
5 - Elvira Black
What a great piece, RJ!
6 - Dave Nalle
Even assuming Civil War doesn't break out, I think our hope of creating an ally is gone. It's scary to think about, but as they are now, the person most likely to hold Iraq together is --gulp--Muqtada al Sadr. He's calling for a unified Iraq and actually attempting to make it happen...and people are listening. It does not bode well for the U.S.
I think you may have misread al Sadr's horoscope. He's solely responsible for this 'civil war', which is basically his attempt to short circuit a political realignment which was going to shut the extremist Shiites out of a major role in government. The backlash against him is already pretty fierce and it's just going to get worse. Once things calm down the end result of all this may be that the violence is pretty much played out.
The one upside of all this is that the US is clearly not at fault for this situation and it's very clear to people in the middle east that Iran is the real villain, since al Sadr is their tool.
Dave
7 - Victor Plenty
While I have to admire your honesty, RJ, this is exactly what I feared would happen, back when just about everyone on the right wing was gung-ho to overthrow Saddam. Getting rid of his regime was always a worthwhile goal, even if we've made some huge mistakes in the way we've gone about it.
There is never any way to guarantee success in any endeavor worth doing. There are, however, many ways to guarantee failure, and one of the surest is to give up prematurely.
Modern Americans' appetite for instant gratification leads us to give up on many projects before they ever get any real chance to bear fruit. It will be extremely costly for us in the long run, if we make the same mistake in Iraq.
One of Shakespeare's comic relief characters once said: "Beware of entrance to a quarrel; but, being entered, bear it that the opposed may beware of thee." In other words, if you get into a fight, make sure you win it. It was good advice, even if the Bard put it into the mouth of a buffoon.
Back when we were all deciding what to think of the Bush administration's plan to invade Iraq, far too few Americans realized the high likelihood this would be a project that could take many decades to complete. If that possibility would have changed your decision to support the invasion, you really had no business supporting it in the first place.
Now that we're there, it's far too early after only three years to proclaim that it didn't work. Now we have promises to keep, and miles to go before we sleep.
8 - Me
"...and all we asked for in terms of repayment was their gratitude."
[...]
"So much for the expected gratitude."
Gratitude can't be "asked for" nor "expected". Gratitude is *given* or *received* freely. What and arrogant attitude from you.
9 - Mal
How come you guys didn't want to overthrow the brutal dictators and free the people in china, palestine or north korea.
I think you would have gotten a lot more credibility if the people you chose to liberate first didn't have oil and if those oil wells were not immediately seized and dsitributed amongst american companies.
I still haven't heard any rational reason why the iraqies deserved freedom more then any other people in the entire world.
As for abu graib, if you lived in a country with free press you would have been allowed to see the people who were maimed and killed during torture in iraq. Come to think of it if you lived in a country with free press you would be able to know about all the other secret prisons and what ungodly things happen in them.
10 - Media Created Reality
To those of you still believing that our president is just a good ol' boy trying to make the world a better place for everyone, including the poor brown people of Iraq your closed mind will never allow you to see reality for what it truly is. The greatest Democracy in the world is sham, the president sent by good is a lying thief, the planet is beyond repair, and we are on the wrong side of Hubberts Peak regarding oil. Read between the lines and realize you are a pawn in a game already over. I feel sorry for your children
11 - Free and Independent Thought is dead in this country
I really think that you morons need to start ready some media sources outside the US. One doesn't have to travel far to get the truth, Mexico and Canada have a more independent media than our corporate controlled administration produced speakerboxx. Would you fight invaders of your country...I think you would? We have created more terrorists? Where are you idiots from? Maybe you should think for yourselves instead of just spouting off the ideas of conservative cocksuckers like Rush Limbaugh. Everything you were taught all your lives concerning our history, our culture, and our faith has all been a lie by the time your feeble minds are able to process this it will already be way to late.
12 - gazelle
RJ: this is a good article. yes you surprise me too.
I have to add that the flowers bit on arrival of US forces was kind of stage managed, as was the toppling of the statue, if I remember correctly.
I agree, it was flawed from the start.
Best
g
13 - Pratyush
The loss of lives was a given. In such a venture, lives would be lost. I hate this aspect but it is the harsh reality.
The question is, was it worth it? No.
Secondly, the financial damage has been far worse. China has been emerging over this period and world sentiment which had become Pro-US post 9-11 has been diverted hugely.
The US has the responsibility now to be there till peace occurs (if ever) to avoid a consolidation of militant forces which could have a damaging impact on the world at large.
I didn't like it when the US invaded Iraq. War is not always the answe. And I do feel pissed at the current situation.
A very nice piece BTW RJ.
14 - Me2
I have to disagree on three minor points: the 4 guys killed in Fallujah were technically (though not legally) mercenaries: they had received paramilitary training, were loaded for bear (though not for guerilla RPG squad, to their detriment) and although they did as far as anyone can tell escort a food shipment they did escort it into an area that was dangerous even for US Infantry troopers to venture into. Still, that does not justify using their corpses for comic relief as locals did.
The treatment of Abu Ghraib detainees should not be described as "hazing" IMHO - the latter does not cause lasting injuries or mental derangement, whereas Abu Ghraib incidents routinely do so. Also, a figure of three-quarters of the inmates is probably a good approximation of the number of folks in there who have at worst been asking the wrong questions to the wrong people or p'ssed off somebody with better connections to the cops (Reliable information leading to an arrest is kinda hard to come by in a coutry that is so rife with mistrust as Iraq).
As a side note, there is probably no place that signifies "bad times" and "terror" for Iraqis of all stripes as much as Abu Ghraib. This factoid is usually overlooked in our part of the world, but to Iraqis, the fact that whatever happens there now is far less atrocious than what happened there under Saddam seems to bear far lesser weight than the fact that thís most visible stain on the Iraq picture is still there. The whole compound - a veritable mini-town it is, worthy a quick look'n'see on Google Earth indeed - should have been razed to the ground first thing after the Iraqi Army had deserted away.
But I digress, and these points were more remarks about style than criticisms of the substance. I find your analysis, coming from an entirely different political angle that I stand at (I consider myself a decidedly independent Liberal Left guy - "independent" meaning I never bought this war-for-oil shenanigans etc. Nice from an ideologically point of view, but I prefer to do my own research, which naturally came to rather different conclusions. Greed as a motive, why not, but not on a scale that would imply intent or any significant level of organization), but I cannot agree more. My analyses are basically the same. I find it important to note that, as things are, Iran of all countries has benefitted most from the Iraq conundrum.
Incidentially, Iran may gain one more: From what I hear, Hamas got the lead in the PA elections not because of their "destroy Israel" stance, but because many Fatah officials, their hands often being tied and the amount they could actually do slim indeed, turned corruption into an art form. Hamas, on the other hand, distributed alms, handed out food, the works. To many people down there, Hamas handouts were the only means of survival, and, well, as Brecht said: "Food comes first, and only then comes morality" (That is not to say that there are not many folks down in Paliland who wouldn't agree with Hamas' anti-semitism. It's just that there were more important issues for most voters than politics.) As an exchange student told a mate of mine: "My family all voted for Hamas. We're pretty secular folks; we know that their politics are brainless. But they gave us food, whereas Fatah gave us squat. Period."
Now, Tehran is busy calling for aid to Hamas, so that these guys can continue their "social work". Hamas, Sunnis as they are, have traditionally been sponsored and influenced less by Iran - they always had the Hezbollah as their pet terrorists - but by the Muslim Brotherhood and its clones. This looks like it's set to change. There will be no success in combatting Islamist extremism as long as the West has not grasped the concept of zakah, every proper Muslim's obligation of giving to those in need. To islamists, this is the dandiest stepladder to moral higher ground one can imagine. And islamists, as a rule of thumb, are not prone to corruption, at least not as those folks see it. Never mind baksheesh, that's a way of life. So yes, some baksheeshy kind of "greasing the cogs of the government machineries" will exist under Hamas, but I seriously doubt they will emulate the Mafia-style corruption of the Fatah.
As for the third point where I might disagree, it's all the talk about civil war in Iraq. One hears a lot of it these days, written for Western eyes, but there seems to be less, if anything, in Iraq itself. It may be argued that this civil war has been going on since mid-2003. Usually, we define "civil war" as a war between some sort of governmental authority and an internal opposition, and that is precisely what we've seen in Iraq all the time. The assumption that just because Iraq is split between 2 major Muslim denominations a civil war has to pit these against each other instead of running along political fault-lines is preposterous.
I still do not think that a Shia-Sunni civil war is imminent. Nobody had taken responsibility for the Samarra bombing as I last looked (yesterday), or shall I say "nobody has DARED to": the mosque was a place of worship to Shia and Sunni alike, although only to the former it was really important. There's much finger-pointing, however, and more than half of that goes in the direction of the usual suspects down there, i.e. the Coalition and the "Zionists". This is completely ludicrous; the US (and Israel, though they're preoccupied with their election right now) would not want anything less than a further barrel of oil thrown into the Iraqi flames. The Bush administration most likely considers it every day Iraq does not make front-page news a happy one, so where would be their motives? Urban Iraqis are usually fairly well educated, so this absoultely cleless, reflexive game of blame-the-Great-Satan ist even more disturbing. At any rate, it seems that except for the most lunatic fringe of the radicals on both sides, nobody in Iraq, Shia and Sunni alike, would want such a conflict either. The death squads are more realistically guys seizing the opportunity to pay some old bills from Saddam's times, and though they exist (in both denominations) and in the case of Shias do seem to have government connections, the joint cause is Islamist and that is prospering, so why, seems to go the argument, risk it?
The only guys that have a conceivable motive are whatever remains of the secular ("Saddam loyalist", although this is untrue since at least 2 years), ex-Ba'ath guerilla, sidelined and only significant because on a per-individual basis, thy are still the most capable militarily. Their political influence is negligible, exactly because Shia and Sunni Islamists find it appropriate to work together: put the Sharia in the Constitution now, work out any differences about veneration of "saints" and the Mahdi or whatnot later. But is the marginal secular-nationalist guerilla really up to this? The location suggests that it is not impossible. But I don't have a good opinion on that issue.
Sorry for the length of the rant. No guarantees for reliability of my thoughts given; it's merely how it appears to me over here in Good Old Europe :)
15 - bob faraway
Well at least they wont cause any problems to the world.
If the western military pulls out it will be a civil war.
Maybe after 15 years it will be stable again.
So 15 years no problems for the western world.
16 - Sicilian Eagle
RJ
I think the West got caught up in a war within Islam as it struggles to find itself.
Sunni versus Shia,moderates versus fundamentalists within both sects are staging a struggle for control of the religion...and the West is a victim of that war.
As what happened centuries ago as Christianity tried to define itself during the Protestant Reformation (where bloof freely flowed throughout the European continent),the same is happening here now.
Our problem is that we never understood the cultural conflicts within Islam.
The fight for control of wone of the world's biggest religions is taking place before our eyes.
Sorry,but we may have planted a seed there that may,perhaps in decades,yield fruition.
Instead,we want a sloution now,today,which won't happen.
This is a marathon...with the thought of one fourth of the world's population at stake.....and the West's best bet is that moderates will ultimately prevail.
17 - troll
not to worry stockholders...
Iraq's fields have been fallow long enough...new wells will be punched - new rigs and pipelines will be constructed
the oil will flow
troll
ps - you might want to diversify you holdings with Iran/China in mind
18 - hawaiian_son
Once the objective was obtained (which was to oust a terrible leader), we should've left Iraq thereafter and let the country work out its political problems themselves. The Iraqis loved us (US Forces), when we got Saddam out of their lives, but once we started bringing in our "bad influences", we've now become the enemy.
Somehow the higharchy of our government forces doesn't get the hint... get our forces out of there and let them work out their own problems. The United States has to stop being the policemen of the world and concentrate on solving our own domestic problems before lending a hand to other foreign countries.
I understand that we have a certain obligation to foreign relations, but at least let's have the decency to fix our problems first before we give out free money to foreign countries. But then again... this is only my opinion. So what if I pay taxes. So what if I served in the Army during the 80's. So what if I had two brothers who fought in Nam for our country, and didn't get the kind of recognition that our troops are now getting when returning from war (well, at least now they're getting some recoginition, but what did it take... 20 years or so before doing so?). It's only my opinion.
19 - zan
it's too bad that the iraqi's war has and always will be about american oil. It just so happened that a solution to invade iraq fell right into George W, Bushes fat lap, or rather, his buildings.
20 - George Psalmanazar
The neocon strategic objective regarding the imposition of a permanent US military presence upon Iraq was delineated in their 2000 PNAC.
As we know (See O'Neill), during their initial months in office, they obsessed over that imperialistic goal whilst ignoring the imminent threat from al Qaeda.
They exploited the terrorism of 9/11/01, immediately conflating the attacks with the disparate matter of Iraq (Rumsfeld's directive), there being no evidence of Saddam's complicity whatsoever - a fact Bush was subsequently forced to concede.
Their undeniably woeful comprehension of the inevitable aftermath of the unprovoked invasion and occupation envisioned the installation of an accomodating regime, their man Chalabi who was well remunerated to supply pretexts (i.e. his man Curveball's mobile biolabs, etc.) being their favoured boy. That the populace would democratically ratify such an imposition was, of course, absurd.
Alas, democracy rears it's ugly head and a fundamentalist cadre responsive to the majority (and antithetical to neocon objectives) accedes to power. A brutal secularist regime vanquished; an Islamist regime acceding. Sistani, who now wield as much power as anyone, has yet to bother speaking with a single official of the occupational forces.
Under the circumstances, can a mega-fortress 'embassy' in Baghdad and multiple permanent military bases be expected to project US hegemony throughout the Middle East as the neocons envisioned?
Methinks not. Best they negociate a modified permanent presence within Iraqi Kurdistan, a mutually satisfactory alternative born of necessity.
Unambiguously renounce the scheme now; diffuse the Iraqi nationalist resistance and free them to vanquish the jihadist interlopers for whom the induced chaos constitutes a grim playground, indeed. It is a cause that could well at least temporarily unite a significant percentage of indigenous Shi'ites and Sunnis.
Forestall the civil war. Save American lives.
21 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
RJ,
Interesting article. Generally well written.
I disagree with one fundamental assertion, but have no time to argue the issue right now. Will do that later when time permits.
WND's: Got from two sepaerate sources that they were moved out of the country six weeeks before the American invasion began in 2003, and are now in Syria. Guess who thy're aimed at?
Very interesting and informative set of comments.
Best
Reuven
22 - George Psalmanazar
Over a month ago, an evangelical Christian named George Sada (who had done whatever was required to achieve the second highest rank in Saddam's air force) had proclaimed his sensational, self-aggrandizing, uncorroborated hearsay evidence that, on the eve of Bush's invasion, Iraq's militaristic dictator had surreptitiously whisked away his proscribed arsenal via commercial aircraft and truck convoy (undetected by intense satellite scrutiny) to Syria. Ignoring the notion that unilateral disarmament by a militarist is a curious preparation for an imminent invasion, it is worth noting that one of the primary Bush pretexts for instigating the war was anxiety that Saddam's chimerical wmd's might be transferred to Al Qaeda or similar jihadist organisations. We have long been apprised of such folks readily traipsing over the Syria/Iraq border to reek havoc, yet somehow always failing to accessorize with the available naughty bits.
That the Bushies, desperate for a modicum of vindication amidst the current horrors, would utter nary a peep concerning Sada's fanciful tale is ample testimony to it's authenticity, imho.
23 - Dave Nalle
Ruvy, glad to see you bringing up the relocation of the Iraqi WMDs. This seems to be pretty definitively established now, yet there's remarkable ignorance of it worldwide except among those who have gone looking for the information. The media and political leaders are both studiously avoiding it.
Dave
24 - Paul -V-
YOU WROTE: "What it was about, instead, was taking the public's post-9/11 rage, massaging it a bit,"
In other words, Bush lied to start a war.
YOU WROTE: "and then channeling it into support for the invasion and occupation of a weak, isolated anti-American regime in the heart of the Middle East."
That just so happened to be sitting on vast oil-fields. What a co-inky-dink!
YOU WROTE: "It was an idealistic Wilsonian attempt to re-make the entire world as safe for liberal democracy, while destroying Islamic terrorism in the process."
Wilsonian? Are you serious?
Wilson was re-elected in 1916 on the campaign slogan "He kept us out of war."
If it wasn't for the Germans resuming submarine attacks and the Zimmerman telegraph he would have preferred to keep the US out of WWI.
Wilson didn't, as you put it, "massage" the American people in order to give him an excuse to invade Europe.
After the WWI was over, Wilson's 14-points speech and League of Nations plan was designed to prevent pre-emptive wars in the future. One of the reasons the Senate didn't want to join the LON was that many Americans feared we would get dragged into more foreign conflicts.
Wilson wasn't perfect, but to spin the NeoCon agenda as "Wilsonian" is historically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.
I will agree with you on this point: Liberals should stop using words like "Hitler" to describe Bush. Calling people Nazis is cliche.
25 - Alan
If you think controlling 2 of the worlds largest stockpiles of oil (afganistan and iraq), and doing so to iraq as sanctions agasint them are about to run out (they would have traded with the euro, and had a bunch of europeans going to their country to work = loss economy in u.s.) is not about controlling the worlds supply of oil you are bitter fools.