Centerfield

Just to move things along, I'll start us out with the two main objections. To be fair, they don't really count as "goal-line" moving, although I'd say there's a certain willful opacity.

-there's no timetable for troop withdrawal

-there's no clear definition of what victory is

Personally, I don't see either of these objections as having much merit. If there had been no progress or a measurable devolution, I might feel diferently. But I keep seeing small positive steps. Seems to me that we might be on our way towards being able to draw down troops as Iraqi army forces grow, and I don't see a timetable as efficacious. Victory? I'd settle for a semi-stable semi-autonomous democratic Iraq with a progression towards more self-determination, along with a trend towards diminishment of opposition violence as the populace buys into the government institutions that are slowly being established.

This could of course still all fall apart. But IMO, each small positive step makes me cautiously optimistic that the will of everyday Iraqis is behind autonomous rule under constitutional law.

Posted by: bk at October 25, 2005 11:34 AM

Gregory Gause, in the Sept/Oct. issue of Foreign Affairs questions whether democracy in Iraq or elsewhere will even have much effect on reducing terrorism. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050901faessay84506/f-gregory-gause-iii/can-democracy-stop-terrorism.html

He claims there is no evidence that democracies have less incidences of terrorism than autocracies. So, if the argument is that democracy in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East will reduce or eliminate terrorism, he says that's not necessarily true. Something to ponder anyway.

Posted by: Marc at October 25, 2005 05:20 PM

I think I've asked this question before but I'll ask again. If in a year Iraq has signficant sectarian tensions but a functioning legislature with decent voter participation will that be perceived as better than what they had pre-invasion? If the answer is even a qualified yes then my follow up question would be who is willing to sacrifice any troops (not to mention international wrath etc.) to get from that point A to that point B for future similar situations?

My hunch is the answer will be "no one". If that is the answer then I have to ask why do we ask any question about whether it was worth it? Maybe it will help us resolve why this all happened but it will only expose THE major weakenss in international diplomacy: we have no trump card.

Posted by: c3 at October 25, 2005 09:16 PM

Oh, I forgot to throw out something else. Does Iraq not now put an entirely new spin on the situation in Syria. Have we become the "bad cop" to the UN's "good cop"?

Posted by: c3 at October 25, 2005 09:18 PM

I'd say "yes" and "it depends." I don't think the answer is going to be "no one" for "similar" situations, because all of the devil will be in the details of "how similar."

Iraq now seems to have represented far less of an actual national security threat that what the Bush admin marketed to the general public. This alone raises the bar substantially for who will support future foreign interventions, and under what circumstances.

But each and every future situation MUST be evaluated on its own merits as far as how it effects our national security. The threshold should always be pretty high. But if a given act of foreign intervention has a reasonable chance of positive impact, no responsible future President or administration can forsake such an action to protect our national security simply because the people don't have sufficient taste for it. IMO, it's very right that a leader must look to the expected judgement of posterity in addition to the current judgement of the public.

Posted by: bk at October 26, 2005 12:02 PM

The point is, the action has to have some true relationship to our national security. And, IMO, a vague notion that democracy is better for us than non-democracy doesn't cut it, unless you can specifically show how the United States of America will be better off. I don't necessarily agree entirely with the Gause piece that I mentioned earlier about no relationship between democracy and reducing terrorism--it seems to me you have to look at it more long range--but I can't see anyone having the stomach to sacrifice American lives on such an ambiguous mission. Of course, people said that after Viet Nam too.

Even assuming that Iraq has a relatively well-functioning democracy (at least better than what it had), that doesn't mean the mission was worth it. IMO, the loss of American lives is worth it only if it makes us more secure. I'm glad the Iraqis are free of Saddam, but I would not spend 2000 American lives if that's the ONLY payoff. And I don't think anyone can predict the answer at this point. (Although my feeling is that the answer is "no" at least in the short run.)

Posted by: Marc at October 26, 2005 01:36 PM

The point is, the action has to have some true relationship to our national security. And, IMO, a vague notion that democracy is better for us than non-democracy doesn't cut it, unless you can specifically show how the United States of America will be better off.

Right,I don't think anyone reasonable expects that in the future America is going to engage in foreign intervention on the basis of such vague notions. Strangely enough, I find this notion trafficked mostly by Bush haters as a specter. It's not going to happen. Whatever taste the admin had for it as a general practice has to have been sated, IMO.

But I'm not sure how realistic it is to expect a given admin to "specifically show how the United States of America will be better off" in every case. And I think it makes sense to acknowledge that as long as we are the pre-eminent global superpower, American foreign policy will be based at least in part on our recognition of this: any signal to foreign entities that we will NOT get involved can have very adverse effects too. This means that a clear ironclad policy that allows other nations to predict our response in nearly every situation is not necessarily desirable.

Posted by: bk at October 26, 2005 02:08 PM

I agree BK; I'm not suggesting that we have to set forth an iron clad policy as to when we intervene and when we don't. And, despite the Powell Doctrine, it's probably not realistic to say we will only intervene when we have a clear, definite goal. Sometimes, we might have to take action when the goal isn't explicit.

And I agree that Iraq has chastened the Bushies. They aren't going to do this again.

My point is that we shouldn't take action--at least military action--based on abstract notions or theories divorced from the real world. I think doctrinal thinking is extremely dangerous in international relations, whether it's conservative doctrine or liberal doctrine.

Posted by: Marc at October 26, 2005 02:29 PM

Thanks for the pointer to Gause' article.

You know, something striking is missing from his article. He might be right that democracies are more often targets of terrorism. BUT. That was never the argument! The argument is that autocracies are likelier to EXPORT terror and support it. He has no numbers or arguments on that subject.

IMHO, Arab autocracies support anti-Israeli and anti-American propaganda and terror to keep attention away from the fact that most people' lives have stagnated under Middle Eastern autocratic rule. Diverting attention to official scapegoats is a well-worn tactic for maintaining rule.

He notes, correctly IMHO, that many countries, if democratized right now, would adopt anti-American attitudes. Well, that's actually fine by me. I notice that even he doesn't suggest that they'd export terror, though, and that's the important bit. Probably, given exposure to a merely freely propagandistic press and time, anti-Americanism would moderate to a more First-World-like level.

He grumbles that Islamists would gain power, while failing to draw a distinction between Islamofascism and Islamism. It's a Muslim-majority region. Of course candidates with strongly Islamic values are elected. It would be undemocratic if that didn't happen. The important thing is that Islamofascists will get few, if any votes.

Posted by: Jon Kay at October 26, 2005 07:58 PM

Those are fantastic and important points, John.

I think a lot of people are unaware of the notion that, even if new islamic democracies are substantially different from the U.S., and even somewhat adversarial, that could STILL represent a substantial improvement over what we've been getting from various islamic theocracies. The simple difference that in a democracy, the government has to (at least to some extent) respond to the needs and views of the people could possibly make all the difference.

I've never expected that, even in the best-case scenario, a democratic Iraq would start acting just like America, or even that we could expect back slapping and annual parades of thanks. Which is fine. While there were altrusitic rationales for deposing Saddam Hussein, the government acted not out of the kindness of its heart, but in response to the admin's assessment of self-interest as it related to national security.

Of course, it is still possible that nascent democracy will devolve into theocracy.

Posted by: bk at October 27, 2005 09:12 AM

Marc;

The point is, the action has to have some true relationship to our national security.

So of course troubles in the Sudan and Rwanda wouldn't invite any consideration on our part to intervene. Extending this priniciple to the rest of the world would likely lead to the same inaction. "Yes, I know the guy down the block beats his wife and kids but its not hurting me and they keep to themselves otherwise. What business is it of mine?"

Posted by: c3 at October 27, 2005 10:14 AM

My guess is that Marc's point was specific to interventions supposed to be undertaken for the purpose of national security. I don't think he meant that national security is the only possible purpose for military action, particularly actions that are not necessarily wars. Of course, I could be wrong.

Posted by: WHQ at October 27, 2005 11:29 AM

First, WHO is right; I did not mean we should never do anything for other than national security purposes. Clearly, humanitarian interventions are different, particularly where there is a specific goal and rational and the cost of intervention is relatively low. For example, we intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo specifically to stop ethnic cleansing, not necessarily to advance an ideological agenda. Of course, I still think one has to weight the costs and benefits of such intervention. Kosovo and Bosnia were essentially costless for the US (at least in terms of lives). But look at Rwanda; how would we feel about a humanitarian intervention that involved a significant commitment of troops and significant casualties? I'm not saying we shouldn't consider such interventions, but we need to at least think about the consequences. I mean, it's fine to say, let's stop the guy down the street from beating his wife, but what if that guy has a gun and might kill you? Would you still do it?

And, Jon, I agree, those are great points you raise about the Gause article. In fact, I would say that we need to get away in general from the idea that countries are either our friends or our enemies. Many are going to be in the middle.

Posted by: Marc at October 27, 2005 11:51 AM

And there are probably different standards for multilateral versus unilateral action as well. If a guy's been beating his wife, and you find, out, maybe you call the cops, so that authorities get involved. That's like multilateral action.

But if you are walking by and can tell that a man is beating his wife, maybe you consider taking unilateral action, but probably only based on the specific circumstances...if the guy's way bigger than you or has a gun, you'd likely back off somewhat for the time being unless you felt the woman was going to be killed, right?

Posted by: bk at October 27, 2005 12:27 PM

Your friends can be more trouble to you than your enemies. France and Russia are our "friends," right? :-)

Who was it again that made the most money off of Oil-For-Food bribes, and fought the hardest to prevent the invasion?

Nations do not have friends. Nations have allies, and it's usually situational.

Posted by: Tully at October 27, 2005 06:40 PM

Marc;

Clearly, humanitarian interventions are different, particularly where there is a specific goal and rational and the cost of intervention is relatively low

When does a "humanitarian intervention" become a war? If we had said "We're taking out Saddam becasue he's a killer to his own and a menace to the region" would that not be a "specific goal"? How many lost lives are "relatively low"?

Brian;

If a guy's been beating his wife, and you find, out, maybe you call the cops, so that authorities get involved. That's like multilateral action.

Now who are the "cops" in this analogy?

Posted by: c3 at October 27, 2005 10:46 PM

More potted meat product from California via Eastern European servers.

Posted by: Sp*mScum at October 28, 2005 07:31 AM