http://slate.msn.com/id/2099575/
Kaplan argues that we have very, very shaky ethical grounds on which to invade a city the size of Boston (!), and kill lord knows how many civilians, in search of the insurgents.
Some worthwhile analysis and speculation here and a bit older here.
I disagree strongly with Kaplan in that I believe that failure to definitively crush resistance in Fallujah will breed far more violence and resulting Iraqi deaths.
My two cents - if we’re going to put our soldiers in harm’s way, either give them the orders to go all out and crush and kill every enemy, or pull them out. The absolute worst thing we can do is put soldiers in with insurgents and terrorists and tell them to just be careful and try not to get killed.
“What do you think about this shit, babies? You can’t swing this high.”
How will these Iraqi deaths occur?
Oh you know. They’ll prolly be accidental deaths.
Since 70% of all accidents happen in the home, it stands to reason that they’ll prolly slip and cut their own jugulars while preparing dinner or something.
How will these Iraqi deaths occur?[/quote]
Well, some could occur the way they have recently - terrorist bombings of police stations and buses, assasinations of officials who work with the new government, etc.
Democracy never comes cheap or bloodless. Sadly.
England
Roman Republic (sorta)
Athens
Spain
Never, Jeff? Really? All the above countries transitioned to (or started out in) a democracy without shedding blood. As for “cheap”… depends on what you mean by that word. Personally, I consider it such a vague qualifier as to be practically useless.
In addition to the above countries, the following countries assumed a democratic form of government after obtaining their independence, so I would consider the blood spilt to be blood spilt for independence, instead of for democracy:
USA
India (they didn’t fight a revolutionary war, but they did suffer on the route to independence)
Netherlands
I’m sure more countries belong in those lists, but those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. The long and the short of this is that you consider the violence in Iraq to be inevitable when you’re trying to set up a democracy. Bullshit. The violence in Iraq is what happens when you bungle the attempt to set up a democracy. It isn’t inevitable; it’s a sign of incompetence.
edit - fixed a typo and a minor inaccuracy
How will these Iraqi deaths occur?[/quote]
Well, some could occur the way they have recently - terrorist bombings of police stations and buses, assasinations of officials who work with the new government, etc.
Democracy never comes cheap or bloodless. Sadly.[/quote]
That’s what I don’t see - if we leave, why are they going to be bombing this new government? I’m assuming our illegitimate puppet government will collapse instantly, of course.
See, here’s the rhetorical exchange:
“We must crush the resistance in Fallujah. Doing so will kill lots of rebels, reducing attacks on us. Not doing so would make us look weak, and invite more attacks.”
“Won’t that kill an absurd number of civilians? And the people attacking us are apparently a quasi-nationalist movement pissed we’re occupying their country; I don’t see how killing a few of them now is going to help at all. In the process we’ll kill a bunch of civilians, creating more angry rebels than we destroy.”
“But we can’t appear weak! We’d lose!”
“We’re clearly going to lose anyway. The only question is how many corpses we’ll produce between here and then.”
“Appeaser!”
Maybe some theoretical alternate plan for Iraq, like the loose federal partition ideas floating around, would work, which means there’s a possibility that quelling Fallujah would have a strategic point. I doubt it, but it’s a possibility.
However, Bush isn’t doing those; he’s still engaged in a strategy with no hope of success (his strong federal/Chalabi pipe dream). Killing the civilians of Fallujah would be entirely pointless. It’s a cost without a benefit.
It took the English Civil War to weaken the crown and lay the foundations of democracy in Britain.
Even more modern times, gaining the vote for all didnt come easy.
[quote=“Anaxagoras”]
England
Roman Republic (sorta)
Athens
Spain
Never, Jeff? Really? All the above countries transitioned to (or started out in) a democracy without shedding blood.[/quote]
Athens overthrew the tyrant Hippias to establish democracy with the aid of a Spartan army. A generation later, the Athenians burned their city and marched to battle against Xerxes to keep their democracy. A century after that, they fought a civil war against Critias and the Thirty to preserve democratic rule. Are you actually claiming that Greek democracy was cheap and bloodless?
Greek history is bloody. I don’t think of the battle of Marathon as a fight to keep their democracy… I think of it more as a fight to keep their independence. Xerxes didn’t invade because the Athenians were democractic… he invaded because he thought they were weak, and because the diplomatic situation had seriously deteriorated.
However, as for the other examples you bring up… I think you may be right. I had completely failed to take into account those cyclical revolutions & struggles. I think of them more as class warfare, rather than an adherence to the ideals of democracy, but nothing in history really determines which viewpoint is “correct”… as far as I can tell, the Greeks themselves rolled the whole thing up… democracy, class strife, etc. into “Liberty”. But the whole thing is one bloody mess.
Then again… you can flip it around and use the Greeks as an example that whatever form of government you talk about comes at a high price. Maybe mentioning the Greeks wasn’t such a hot idea. They had incredible philosophy, but man, they were pugnacious little bastards.
Interesting development:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3672205.stm
The Fallujah Protection Army coming in.
I really don’t know what to make of this idea yet but a part of me thinks this might be a smart move. These guys in Fallujah are mostly diehard Baathists or just Sunnis who are terrified of being dominated by a Shiia majority or sidelined by U.S occupation forces. Assuming this general really has a reputation with the local community, he’s ex-Republican Guard. You going to fight him as a collaborator and get wiped out, along with your family, by American airstrikes? Or do you claim victory and cheer the general on as a liberator…and see about signing up for some paid military service? Yeah, it looks like the U.S. backed off. Yeah, many of the insurgents will probably end up working for this guy. But it really can’t be lost on anyone, at a deeper level, we could have levelled that city but instead we gave them the kind of security force they might actually accept. Let’s just hope he isn’t a mini-me Saddam. But, even then, this city might be getting what they deserve.
The only major downside I see to the move, and there is alot we don’t know about the situation, could be when the country is trying to integrate. Will this general play along and bring the Sunnis with him? Or will he just be an Iraqi warlord working for the highest bidder whether U.S., Saudi Arabia or Syria? Could make for a bad situation depending on who this guy really is.
We lucked out with Sistani and the Shi’ia. If anyone can keep it together down there, especially considering the Sadr situation, he can. Is our new friend also interested in the greater good of his people or is he only interested in what he can get out of them?
I’m pretty sure Denmark, Sweden and Norway all became democracies pretty much without bloodshed. Not Finland, though…
Actually, for some insightful commentary on the actions in fallujah, check out this.
Belmont Club is the single best place I’ve found yet to take bare-bones facts such as are reported in the military releases and the newswires, and fit it together into some sort of overall coherent picture of what is actually going on.
In other words, the kind of thing I would buy a newspaper for, if any of them knew what news analysis meant anymore.
Your friendly guide to media (and Pentagon) military news stupidity:
There’s nothing I love more than good self-congratulatory analysis. That said, I don’t know these Belmont people are wrong. What I probably wouldn’t do is put too much faith in CENTCOM press releases. For example, how ‘fully integrated’ in the command structure can a force be which didn’t exist a week ago lead by a former Republican Guard commander? Of course, they have to say this but I’m still not convinced how true it is. Nor am I convinced how important that fact is. What is necessary is subduing Falluja without triggering a massive uprising in Iraq. Sitting on our asses was not working. Attacking would have worked but might ultimately have been counterproductive.
Now if these talks were really a stalling technique we put out until this General and his men could be brought into play (I’m fairly sure Republican Guard troops and a Republican Guard general wouldn’t have been welcomed until the very recent decision to de-de-Baathify the provisional government and army) then they worked well. Of course, just putting up a cordon and ignoring Falluja would have worked just as well as a stalling technique. So I’m not so convinced of any brilliant tactic at work here. What happened is that we were just waiting Falluja out until some mercenary security guards got killed when detoured without proper escort. It looked pretty grisly and the Republican political base at home demanded blood for blood. The Necons, ever eager to show the value of American strength against ‘terrorists’ pressed for action against the ‘thugs’. This was rationalized as the need to show ‘resolve’ but if you hear former officers talking about it they’re far from unanimous in agreement that storming Falluja was a good idea.
I don’t know the whole story of where this Iraqi General came from yet or how he came into play. Once we know more about this we’ll have a much better idea whether we were brilliantly crafty, lucky or possibly taking whatever we could get as a way out.