It’s time to put on the perspective-correction spectacles again.
Christopher Hitchens argues that recent unpleasant events are a warning of what will happen if the liberation of Iraq fails. Oliver Kamm is re-examining his reasons for supporting military action, saying no outcome would cause him to question his original justification. Glenn Reynolds monitors people who are offering a whole range of explanations. Oddly, the best The Independent‘s Robert “Quagmire” Fisk can do is to claim that Iraq is only “on the brink of anarchy“. (I think he’s suffering from wolf-crying fatigue.) Two of my calm, sane pro-war friends Claire and Judith are deeply worried.
I’m not. I’m certainly not happy about what is happening, though. I grew up intermittently hearing my dad tell stories of real and attempted coups d’état—apparently a popular recreational activity for young army officers in West Africa throughout the 60s and 70s. This isn’t even a failed coup; it certainly isn’t civil war. All that’s going on in Iraq is that a bunch of fanatics and looters have got their knickers in a twist because they’re unemployed, non-specifically resentful (of a specific and convenient foreign target) and have access to AK47s and rocket-propelled grenades. A large proportion of the rabble are more interested in picking up a slightly used PC than overthrowing the Yankee oppressor.
Bush is committed to finishing the job in exactly the way his father was not. Tony Blair is standing by him, his eyes retaining their scarily convinced stare. And we have precedents. Sierra Leone is one. It was recently described by the UN as the poorest country in the World and by the not-famously-hyperbolic Economist as “the worst place to live on the planet”. It’s better now, thanks to humanitarian military intervention. All the hellish ingredients were there too: mischievous neighbours, “organised” terror against the civilian population, economic disaster, and lots of weapons.
Stability came despite the kidnapping of 11 British soldiers in 2000, after the collapse of a peace deal and the capture of hundreds of UN peacekeepers’ weapons, despite interference from the delightful Charles Taylor and despite the presence of tens of thousands of drug-crazed, gun- and machete-wielding psychos wandering around in country that makes Iraq look like Regent’s Park on a mild Spring morning.
So why the hysteria about Iraq now? The World’s media hardly gave a shit about Sierra Leone, except insofar their trying to save its people embarrassed the Blair government. And, even when the journos did care, no one paid any attention to their reports. By comparison, the situation in Iraq is a storm in a teacup, but one being observed through powerful magnifying lenses by people who have been forecasting a hurricane for two years and are yet to feel a splash of rain.
Yesterday CNN reported that the UN is continuing to wind down its massive peace-keeping operation in Sierra Leone. Wake me up if Sadr’s thugs are still fighting in the streets four years from now.
UPDATE: An Economist leader writer obviously read PooterGeek last night before filing this.
UPDATE: I swear I didn’t read Mark Steyn either before I put digit to keyboard.
Excellent, rationality has been coming at a premium the past few days.
Iraqis do care about being invaded, actually, and the general attitude is “Thanks for dumping Saddam, now piss off.” They also realize this isn’t realistic, but in the end, they’re annoyed that the U.S. stomped on the flowers.
Unfortunately, just because we think their problems and complaints aren’t serious doesn’t mean they agree. The guys with the guns aren’t terribly sophisticated (except the foreign fighters). But, they can shoot a Kalash, RPG, shoulder-mounted surface to air missile. Or lay mines, etc.
And, they know what happens when you’re on the losing side. You get killed in a particularly nasty way, along with your family. So, there’s little reason to “join” the Americans, but a lot of reason behind “joining” the anti-Americans.
After all, they KNOW the Americans won’t dump them all in mass graves. The other guys will…with pleasure.
I’m so pleased the Bushman feels committed. I’d like him committed, too. And, if he thinks the current effort constitutes military & political committement, he should be committed. Any fool who thinks a war is fought entirely with weapons is a dangerous fool, and probably president of the USA.
p.s. I’m going to Iraq on Monday. Last time I was in was just after the war, May-June. A time of befuddled head-shaking, awaiting exactly what did arrive.
Actually, the journos did care about Sierra Leone. Two of the best photogs were killed in an ambush in Sierra Leone, and we miss them. Editors, on the other hand, are scum of the earth.
It would appear that more of the ‘fighter’ doing the intimidating are actually Iranian rather than Iraqi (check-in with HealingIraq). Sadr has become the willfull stooge of Tehran, for his own political gain among the Shi’ites. I think Tehran’s motivation for causing upheaval in Iraq has quite a bit to do with the criminally un- under-reported uprisings in Iran. Possibly they blame the US for meddling, maybe they just want the US occupied while they turn various Iranian cities into re-enactments of Budapest, 1956; it’s anyone’s guess with the informationm at hand. There is quite a bit more going on that we don’t than than the contrary.
Dear David
First of all, your photos are great, but there seems to be a bug in your gallery at the moment.
Iraqis do care about being invaded, actually
Who said that they didn’t?
Unfortunately, just because we think their problems and complaints aren’t serious doesn’t mean they agree.
Again, I don’t believe the problems of the Iraqis aren’t serious. The point of my entry, as with so many of mine, was to remind people of the true scale of the incidents currently obsessing the commentariat, by comparison with a more serious mess that received far less press attention—one which, in many ways, foreshadowed this one.
the general attitude is “Thanks for dumping Saddam, now piss off.”
If it is, then the Iraqis are as wrong as a patient whose symptoms have cleared up asking to be taken off the antibiotics. (The majority of the population of Sierra Leone actually want the British to come back and take over the country now, by the way.)
After all, they KNOW the Americans won’t dump them all in mass graves. The other guys will…with pleasure.
And this is exactly the way the “rebels” in Sierra Leone recruited.
Any fool who thinks a war is fought entirely with weapons is a dangerous fool, and probably president of the USA.
Talking of antibiotics, in the Telegraph today was an insert of excellent recent articles from the New York Times. One—“America Tries To Win Over Wary Afghans”—is about how the US military are using social engineering to enlist the help of local civilians in dealing with the remnants of the Taleban. Annoyingly, I can’t find a link, but here’s a bit from the dead-tree:
Actually, the journos did care about Sierra Leone.
You’re right; I’m wrong. This was true of some journalists and I have revised my original condemnation accordingly.
all the best
Damian
“the general attitude is “Thanks for dumping Saddam, now piss off.”
“If it is, then the Iraqis are as wrong as a patient whose symptoms have cleared up asking to be taken off the antibiotics.”
Point 1) The Iraqis may be wrong, but if this is indeed the way they feel, it poses some vexing problems for the physician. I don’t mean to speak for David, but I think this is what he meant.
Point 2) How exactly do we know what “the Iraqis” think? From the news reports, and predictably, it seems one can find at least one Iraqi to defend any point of view any given journalist wants defended. Iraqi bloggers seem pretty divided. Zogby conducted this poll in August:
http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19153,filter./news_detail.asp
Their survey protocols seem pretty sound. I’d guess this is about as close as you’ll get — given the obvious problems of opinion polling in Iraq — to figuring out what “the Iraqis” think. I take this more seriously than any one anecdotal report, anyway.
Of course, that poll was taken last August. Gallup’s poll of Baghdad, taken last September, found that 71 percent of the city’s residents felt U.S. troops should NOT leave in the next few months:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/focus/sr030924.asp
This, David, would not suggest support for your statement, but again, hard to say for sure. I’m not aware what more recent polls say, and would be curious to know.
Point 3) It’s clearly going to be possible to find anecdotal support both for the position that US troops are doing good, constructive things in Iraq (and Afghanistan) and for the position that they are not doing enough good, constructuve things. My question: Is there some critical level of good, constructive activity that needs to be reached in order to achieve our goal — getting some sort of stable, reasonably sane, reasonably friendly Iraqi government to run that snakepit? What is that level? Are we there? If not, how far off are we? And what, if anything, is the relationship between that and this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/3607775.stm
Point 4) “Two of the best photogs were killed in an ambush in Sierra Leone.” I bet they both told their girlfriends they were going to the “really safe” parts of Sierra Leone, too. Feminine wailing may now be heard.