by Eric Martin
At this juncture, the Bush administration and its allies are primarily relying on three publicly stated rationales in order to justify maintaining the crippling occupation of Iraq: (1) protecting the Iraqi people from the violence of a civil war that would flare up should we leave; (2) fear of an al-Qaeda takeover in our absence; and (3) simultaneously with #2 for John McCain and others, curiously enough, fear of an increase in Iran's influence should we pull back our support for Iraqi political parties that were headquartered in Tehran prior to our invasion (and formed, funded, armed and indoctrinated in some instances).
The second and third prongs are easily refutable if you follow the links - or just apply common sense. al-Qaeda is a fringe movement amongst the already minority Sunni population. A vastly unpopular fringe of a 20% minority with limited resources can't take over a country when opposing groups have access to ample supplies of wealth and arms.
Iran's influence in Iraq was greatly increased due to the toppling of its nemesis, Saddam Hussein. By propping up an unpopular and Iranian-tied regime in Baghdad today (some members of which still receive pensions from the Iran's Revolutionary Guard), we are not doing anything to lessen Iran's presence. Our withdrawal would not add to what has already been achieved by Iran with our blood and treasure.
As to the first rationale, the facts, again, don't match the rhetoric. Consider, we are currently laying siege to neighborhoods in Baghdad, as well as other cities such as Basra, that house nearly 3 million Iraqis (close to 10% of the population) simply because the majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence. All of these civilian casualties and countless hardships so that we can ensure our ability to maintain the occupation...for the well-being of the Iraqi people. Call this the raze and save redux.
Speaking of which, our intentions are further betrayed by our actions, as Spencer Ackerman relates:
In a city consumed by chaos, war, occupation, corruption, intermittent and unreliable electricity, sewage overflows that you sometimes have to wade through, food shortages, public-health crises, you know what you shouldn’t build?
…luxury hotels, a shopping center and even condos in the heart of Baghdad.
That’s all part of a five-year development “dream list” — or what some dub an improbable fantasy — to transform the U.S.-protected Green Zone from a walled fortress into a centerpiece for Baghdad’s future.
But the $5 billion plan has the backing of the Pentagon and apparently the interest of some deep pockets in the world of international hotels and development, the lead military liaison for the project told the Associated Press.
That sort of indifference to the suffering of Iraq is provocative. If I was Moqtada Sadr, I would use it as a rallying cry. Consider:
“When you have $1 billion hanging out there and 1,000 employees lying around, you kind of want to know who your neighbors are. You want to influence what happens in your neighborhood over time,” said Navy Capt. Thomas Karnowski, who led the team that created the development plan.
Your neighbors! Your actual neighbors, the ones whose country it is, experience shortages of water, electricity, fuel, cooking oil, medical care, security and more.
Charming. But to realize our dreams, we may have to bomb another hospital or two. And take out the one Shiite political movement, the Sadrist current, that has shown any acumen in terms of delivering vital services to impoverished Iraqi Shiites. Makes perfect sense to me.
A vastly unpopular fringe of a 20% minority with limited resources can't take over a country when opposing groups have access to ample supplies of wealth and arms.
as anyone who reads righty blogs surely knows, once they take over Iraq, they'll be poised take over the US - with help from Nancy Pelosi, no less.
so, it's best not to take any chances.
Posted by: cleek | May 05, 2008 at 02:56 PM
Who exactly do they think will buy these condos? Although, the more I think about it, I'd be willing to donate to buy spots for Bush, Cheney, Kristol, et. al. if they'll promise to live in them...
Posted by: Scamp Dog | May 05, 2008 at 03:39 PM
I read about this, and thought: the only way I can think of to send a *worse* message to Iraqis would be if we provided security to the amusement park and condos (while not providing it to them.)
Every time I think that nothing can surprise me any more, the Bush administration proves me wrong.
(And welcome!)
Posted by: hilzoy | May 05, 2008 at 04:10 PM
come to the Green Zone Mall, where every store is a Target!
Posted by: cleek | May 05, 2008 at 04:22 PM
An expensive holiday in other people's misery.
Posted by: Hogan | May 05, 2008 at 04:25 PM
cleek is the early front runner in the gallows humor 20K
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 05, 2008 at 04:28 PM
Wait for the plans to make pig farming mandatory in Iraq ;-) [/sarcasm]
The new condos/luxury flats in scenic Baghdad come with highly trained Blackwater security. Their service is included in the rent* (if you choose to buy instead**, there will be free service guaranteed for 5 years with a discount rate on renewal). The 3 feet thick windows (plus titanium shutters) can withstand the impact of any ordnance grumpy natives have yet fielded with a safety factor of 3.5. Individual condos come with 2 heavy MG and a stash of portable firearms (choose from our catalogue). The complex has its own air and missile defence system, state of the art perimeter defences and enough stocks of food and ammo to withstand a lengthy siege. Within half a mile around the complex native-picking*** is permitted without special licence.
*spent ammo excluded
**preferred option, cash only (no US$)
***sniper rifles and ammo can be rented or bought from (we think) reliable suppliers on location, no background checks (if you can afford our service, you are kosher)
Posted by: Hartmut | May 05, 2008 at 04:41 PM
Maybe they'll look like the luxury hotels BLDGBlog so recently profiled.
Posted by: Megan | May 05, 2008 at 05:41 PM
I like the Kinks reference.
Posted by: Tom S | May 05, 2008 at 05:45 PM
That's seriously awesome, Megan.
Posted by: Anarch | May 05, 2008 at 06:51 PM
Megan.
Awesome.
Seriously.
Posted by: Jay C | May 05, 2008 at 07:24 PM
Aren't those lovely? I wish I could go climb around on them.
Posted by: Megan | May 05, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Where on earth do they get all the water for that masonry?
Posted by: xanax | May 06, 2008 at 12:28 AM
It's getting hard to tell a real news story from a post at The Onion.
Posted by: mikefromtexas | May 06, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Well done Tom.
There's usually a musical allusion in each of my post titles for the curious.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 06, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I don't think #1 is so easily refuted. Al Qaeda becomes irrelevant, sure. But there are large, often regional, forces at work, and they're sitting on top of a polkload of oil. And we've already seen some "ethnic cleansing". And there are large outside interests as well (Iran, Turkey) that may not be so hesitant to get involved if we're not there.
None of this is a reason to stay indefinitely. But downplaying the possibility of civil-strife-level death and displacement makes me a little queasy.
Posted by: david kilmer | May 06, 2008 at 11:33 AM
David,
The point is that under our watch, 4 million Iraqis have been displaced as refugees (internally and externally).
Hundreds of thousands have died. Many, if not most, have died at our hands. Presently, we are racking up thousands of Iraqi dead (mostly civilians) and demolishing life-giving infrastructure in sprawling neighborhoods of Baghdad and elsewhere. Ask the Fallujahns how much they appreciate our protection.
So yeah, conflict could break out should we leave. It could very well intensify. But, er, conflict has had a persistent habit of breaking out with us there. In fact, we have been, and are, a major party to that conflict. Stay or go, the forces of civil war will play out as they will. We can slow some down for a bit, but then, we ourselves have become a party thereto.
Put simply: we are killing Iraqis for the ostensible purpose of protecting...Iraqis. We are staying in Iraq to prevent violence and disruption that has happened anyway.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 06, 2008 at 12:03 PM
"There's usually a musical allusion in each of my post titles for the curious."
What do you put in your post titles for the non-curious?
"Put simply: we are killing Iraqis for the ostensible purpose of protecting...Iraqis."
The classics are still classic: we have to destroy their neighborhood in order to save it.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 06, 2008 at 12:45 PM
We've done a lot of damage - there's no argument. But the fact that there's conflict while we're there is only one side of utilitarian moral equation. The question is, how much would the conflict escalate if we left? How many more (or less) people would be killed? Another couple hundred thousand? A few million? How many more would be displaced? Would it be more or less than if we stayed? Would there be regional instability? Would an eventual stable Iraqi government take decades to form, or would it happen quickly? To what extent would Iraq's infrastructure be harmed?
Have you seen any credible answers to these questions? Yes, we can ask the Fallujahns. We can also ask the Kurds.
Put simply, my point is that we have a moral responsibility to do the most good possible in Iraq. That might involve staying, leaving, installing a multinational peacekeeping force, installing a strong-arm puppet government, or any number of other things. We can't dismiss staying without having a decent understanding of the cost of leaving. The fact that things suck now doesn't mean that they wouldn't suck more if we left.
Posted by: david kilmer | May 06, 2008 at 08:22 PM
"The classics are still classic: we have to destroy their neighborhood in order to save it."
I'd argue that most of the really difficult moral problems we face involve situations in which harm can't be avoided.
Posted by: david kilmer | May 06, 2008 at 08:24 PM
but it's true that open italic tags can be avoided, with the judicious use of the preview button.
Posted by: david kilmer | May 06, 2008 at 08:26 PM
But david, you're ignoring a few important things:
While it is extremely difficult to determine if our presence is helping the Iraqi people, one thing is certain. It is enormously, mind bogglingly costly to the US in a number of ways. From lives lost, to trillions spent as our infrastructure rots/needs are neglected, to the breaking of the military, to the reputation tarnished, to providing a staging/training ground for militants and terrorists, to fueling anti-Americanism, to neglecting inumerable other foreign policy needs, etc.
Also: There is evidence that a majority of the Iraqi people want us to leave. So much so, that we've taken to targeting political movements that want us out so as to prevent the possibility of them making the political case. At the very least, we should consider fair national referendums.
So when faced with the specter of greater chaos if we leave, and the specter of greater chaos should we stay, how does that balance against the costs? Will of the Iraqis?
There are ways to withdraw that mitigate the potential for large scale conflict in our absence. I wrote an article on this subject for the Netroots Journal last summer, but their site is down. If it comes back up, I'll post the link.
In the meantime, if you're interested, I think Stephen Simon of the Council on Foreign Relations makes the best case:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12172/
You can download the pdf for free FYI.
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 07, 2008 at 10:53 AM
"But david, you're ignoring a few important things"
I wouldn't say I'm ignoring them so much as that they're not really part of my argument.
I'm arguing that:
A) The reasoning in your post is not sufficient to refute the idea of staying in Iraq in order to protect Iraqis. To do that, you'd have to make the case that all in all, our presence there is not making them safer, or that leaving would not result in a huge catastrophe. The idea that we we're executing attacks "simply because the majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence" is unsupported.
B) I think that it's very important to recognize - in any discussion of staying in Iraq or leaving - that we have a tremendous moral responsibility to do as much good as we can for Iraqis. Anything other than a purely pragmatic argument with that as the premise gives me the jibblies deep in my soul.
By the way, Eric, I apologize for neglecting to welcome you aboard! It's good to have you here.
Posted by: david kilmer | May 07, 2008 at 09:08 PM
"B) I think that it's very important to recognize - in any discussion of staying in Iraq or leaving - that we have a tremendous moral responsibility to do as much good as we can for Iraqis."
I agree, and I'm completely open to, and feel it is required, to listen to all vaguely sensible arguments based on such a premise, but I question the assumption that our continuing the role, in even highly modified form, that we've played in Iraq for the last five years is a wise one.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 09, 2008 at 01:05 PM
The idea that we we're executing attacks "simply because the majority of residents in these regions support a political movement, and militia, that oppose our presence" is unsupported.
I disagree. There is little else that distinguishes the Sadrists from others that we call allies.
What's your hypothesis.
(and thanks for the welcome!)
Posted by: Eric Martin | May 09, 2008 at 02:13 PM