by Eric Martin
Credit where due, Andy McCarthy is rather forthright in lamenting the collapse of our neo-imperial designs in Iraq in a piece discussing the SOFA/Framework Agreement that is now on the fast track to ratification. While refreshingly honest and, at times, stripped of the exceptionalist sentimentality often used to sell modern day manifest destiny, McCarthy can't resist chastising the Iraqi people for not buying in to the same propaganda that he dismisses. He actually blames the Iraqis for not being more grateful for our generous and excessively bloody invasion undertaken in pursuit of narrow national interests.
Perhaps this seeming contradiction stems from the fact that McCarthy still attributes more noble motives to the administration than he has the audacity to claim for himself, or maybe it's his inability to fully appreciate the implications of his harsh realist outlook. For example, McCarthy lets it be known how little he cares for the democratization project, but then scolds the Iraqi people for not thanking us for the condolence payments:
More disturbing, though, is the trajectory of Iraqi politics. Maybe it is understandable that the administration, which has expended inordinate capital on Iraq’s political maturation, should celebrate the growing confidence of its government. For those of us who have never much cared whether Iraq became a democracy, more relevant are the popular currents to which Iraq’s government reacts. Those currents tell us Iraqis are more concerned about prosecuting Americans than embracing them. [...]
This last point is the one that gnaws. Thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions in taxpayer funds have been expended to provide Iraqis the opportunity to live freely. And this despite the facts that (a) the U.S. interest in Iraqi democracy remains tenuous (our interest was the elimination of Saddam’s terror-mongering, weapons-proliferating regime), and (b) Americans were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that oil-rich Iraq would underwrite our sacrifices on its behalf. Yet, to be blunt, the Iraqis remain ingrates. That stubborn fact complicates everything.
Yesterday, speaking about the SOFA on condition of anonymity, a senior administration official acknowledged as much: “We’re still not popular with the Iraqis.” That’s putting it mildly.
But that is only a partial accounting of American interests, and McCarthy omits the more imperialistic objectives in that short list (with the exception of oil which is a biggie). But he doesn't fail to mention those objectives elsewhere in the piece. Here's McCarthy on the realization that Iraq is unlikely to provide us with a launching pad for future adventurism:
The post-war occupations in Japan and Germany, which supporters have pointed to in championing the democratization experiment in Iraq, featured a heavy, abiding American military presence to promote U.S. interests and regional security. By contrast, the aforementioned administration official conceded yesterday that the SOFA “forswears any U.S. bases on Iraqi soil” after 2011.
What’s more, no matter how randy the mullahs get as they build their nukes and saber-rattle against Israel and other American interests, the agreements prohibit the United States from using its current military bases in Iraq to stage operations against Iran or any other nation. [...]
Nor is that all. Because the U.S. is still widely reviled by Iraqi Muslims, Maliki insisted that his government be empowered to exercise jurisdiction over American soldiers who allegedly commit crimes in Iraq — at least to the extent such offenses occur off-base and outside official military duties. Worse, American non-military contractors have been consigned with even less protection to the Iraqi justice system, creating a powerful incentive for the contractors to cut back drastically the support services on which our strapped armed forces depend.
Nor will we, sadly, have created a compliant vassal state willing to ally with us in war with Iran:
Victory in Iraq has never meant a functioning democracy. It means defeating radical Islam, which in turn means routing al-Qaeda and leaving behind a stable Iraq that is an American ally against jihadist-sponsoring regimes like Iran. By those metrics, how are we faring? [...]
Today’s Obama euphoria will not long mask that the Iran/American conflict, far from going away, is intensifying. When the last American soldier departs in 2011, the question is: In which camp will Iraq stand? After all we’ve given, we still don’t know the answer. No matter how cleverly these new agreements are spun, that is very discouraging.
A couple of thoughts on these last paragraphs. First, the question of the allegiance of Iraq's governemt answers itself: We have overseen the ascendance of political parties that were either formed in Iran by the Iranians, or had been housed in Iran for decades prior to the invasion. These parties have, naturally, very close ties to Iran. They will not, absent Iranian aggression or extreme overreach, go to war with Iran at our behest, or permit us to do the same from their soil. Nor do large segments of the Iraqi population, who have had the benefit of an up close view of the splendors of shock and awe, wish to visit such a fate on neighboring Iran.
Second, if victory in Iraq means an Iraq that is both free of al-Qaeda and an ally against Iran, then we had already won before we invaded, and then squandered our winnings through the invasion itself. By invading, we allowed a previously non-existent AQI to emerge while greatly empowering Iran by removing its longtime regional adversary and replacing Saddam with extremely Iran-friendly political parties like ISCI and Maliki's Dawa.
Brilliant.
(via)
I really don't know what to about the McCarthy piece, other than to marvel at how such a person could actually write something like that and mean/believe it.
Posted by: Ugh | November 18, 2008 at 05:45 PM
I'm sorry, did he really just say that it would be bad for Iraqi's to be allowed to prosecute American soldiers and contractors for any crime they commit in Iraq?
There is so much more in there, but for some reason, that is jumping out at me just now. Any other country in which we have bases has that right, as per the SOFAs we have with those countries. Why shouldn't Iraq?
Posted by: Tracy | November 18, 2008 at 05:53 PM
wow, it's gotten a lot tougher to rule vassal states these days. What with nationalism plus modern weaponry, people are just making it too hard to be imperialists.
ingrates indeed.
newsflash to Michael Yon: The war's over, but Iran won.
Posted by: (The Original) Francis | November 18, 2008 at 06:11 PM
And I do love this line of yours Eric:
Second, if victory in Iraq means an Iraq that is both free of al-Qaeda and an ally against Iran, then we had already won before we invaded, and then squandered our winnings through the invasion itself.
It jibes with what I like to say: we lost the war when we decided to invade.
Posted by: Ugh | November 18, 2008 at 06:24 PM
wow, it's gotten a lot tougher to rule vassal states these days.
I suspect this is grossly premature, but perhaps we should have a brief moment of silence to mark the occasion, just in case it later turns out with benefit of hindsight to have been the proper time to say this:
The American Transoceanic Empire 1898-2008.
Requiem in pace, sic gloria transit mundi.
Posted by: ThatLeftTurnInABQ | November 18, 2008 at 06:38 PM
Victory in Iraq has never meant a functioning democracy.
Hard to know just what to say about this assertion.
The nation's foreign policy has been run for the last eight years by Marvin the Martian.
Thanks -
Posted by: russell | November 18, 2008 at 06:57 PM
"Americans were assured, when the nation-building enterprise commenced, that oil-rich Iraq would underwrite our sacrifices on its behalf."
If I recall correctly, the funding bill that Kerry was for before he was against a different one called for the funding to be repaid by the Iraqis. So, I don't know exactly where McCarthy gets that idea from, since that whole issue was denounced by Cheney, Bush, McCain and virtually the whole Republican Party, including, probably McCarthy himself.
"Victory in Iraq has never meant a functioning democracy. It means defeating radical Islam, which in turn means routing al-Qaeda and leaving behind a stable Iraq that is an American ally against jihadist-sponsoring regimes like Iran. By those metrics, how are we faring? [...]"
As you say Eric, if those had really been our concerns, what the hell were we doing in Iraq. I will quote my son, who did spend way too much time in Iraq, as most here know. "We got rid of one the main stabilizing influences in the Middle East and didn't know what to do next."
And the Itaqis are ingrates indeed. After all, all we did was kill a few hundred thousand of them, either directly or indirectly, did things that resulted in the displacement of 20% of the population, created an environment where the al Qaeda wannabe AQI was able to develop, destroyed what little infrastructure that was left and have done a miserable job rebuilding it, tossed billions of dollars to American firms and precious little to Iraqis that are more than willing to work, but aren't allowed to because foreigners are taking many of the jobs they could do, etc.
The list is far too long for a full accounting. I am sure if any country did that to us, we would be grateful.
Posted by: john miller | November 18, 2008 at 08:22 PM
If I recall correctly, the funding bill that Kerry was for before he was against a different one called for the funding to be repaid by the Iraqis. So, I don't know exactly where McCarthy gets that idea from, since that whole issue was denounced by Cheney, Bush, McCain and virtually the whole Republican Party, including, probably McCarthy himself.
I think McCarthy is referring to Wolfowitz's Congressional testimony before the war. During that testimony, he lowballed the costs of the war ($50 billion or so, with some costs picked up by foreign countries) and insisted that Iraqi oil would cover the remainder, thus ensuring that the war would actually pay for itself!
When Lawrence Lindsey, one of Bush's economic advisors, predicted that the costs could actually come to about $200 billion, Rummy and Wolfie were quick to call his figures "baloney" and Lindsey was shunted out the door.
At present, the total costs will likely come in around $1-2 trillion.
Funny, though: I forgot about the later Kerry bill.
Posted by: Eric Martin | November 18, 2008 at 08:48 PM
"Any other country in which we have bases has that right, as per the SOFAs we have with those countries."
It varies. For instance:
Posted by: Gary Farber | November 18, 2008 at 09:05 PM
I'm so glad that this blog isn't given over to lamentations about The Return of Joementum.
Seems to me that our quiet defeat in Iraq is of vastly more importance. And it happened under Bush's leadership!
No way to blame this on the argula-eating surrender monkeys.
Posted by: wonkie | November 18, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Bush fought Saddam and Iran won!
Sung to the tune of "I fought the law . . ."
Posted by: Bill White | November 18, 2008 at 09:32 PM
Almost, kind of, on topic, I highly recommend the movie War, Inc.
Posted by: J. Michael Neal | November 18, 2008 at 10:31 PM
That pretty much covers what I mean, Gary. Most (I won't say all, because obviously I don't know for sure) countries in which we station troops are allowed to prosecute soldiers under their laws for crimes committed on their soil. The differences there are who gets custody during the proceedings, and at what point the soldier is handed over.
Posted by: Tracy | November 19, 2008 at 09:38 AM
Bill White ftw!
Posted by: Eric Martin | November 19, 2008 at 09:57 AM
Posted by: John Spragge | November 19, 2008 at 05:49 PM
"...people are just making it too hard to be imperialists."
It's never stopped and won't stop some Americans.
Posted by: T.Ghosh | December 23, 2008 at 05:29 AM
"...people are just making it too hard to be imperialists."
It's never stopped and won't stop some Americans.
Posted by: T.Ghosh | December 23, 2008 at 05:29 AM
So, I don't know exactly where McCarthy gets that idea from, since that whole issue was denounced by Cheney, Bush, McCain and virtually the whole Republican Party, including, probably McCarthy himself.
As Eric Martin noted, this came direct from Paul Wolfowitz when he was Deputy Secretary for Defense. When this became inconvenient, however, it turned into a Republican meme that the idea of Iraqis repaying the US was all John Kerry. Now Kerry is 2004 news, I expect the new Republican meme will change again to whatever is most convenient to attack Barack Obama. It is all pure Nineteen Eighty Four.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | December 23, 2008 at 06:45 AM