Seven Wicked Spirits
Jesus told a story about a poor guy possessed by a demon who made his life hell. Whereupon the demon was exorcized, the fellow enjoyed life more but failed to fill the spiritual void with righteousness. In its place, as the man’s apathy for his well being continued, the demons returned with seven friends who moved in opportunistically to lay claim to the newly vacant real estate. The moral of the story may be that the humanity abhors a vacuum, that the soul must be disciplined in righteousness or be subject to invasion by escalating wickedness. Spiritual neutrality is not an option.
James Wiser and Hermit Greg have very good posts up about Iraq and reflections on the “new” strategy hawked by the President. They, almost everyone else and I agree that the invasion and occupation in Iraq is and always has been a dire mistake with horrific consequences. I can think of no competent American who could trust yet that this war was justified factually or even could now recite the first blushes of war-marketing without embarrassment. The problem is well known: did we invade for weapons of mass destruction, to stop an imminent terrorist attack, to avenge the World Trade Center, to destroy terrorist networks? As it turns out, no, but we have decided that we will strip ourselves of pretext and get to the point: democracy. If we can plant democracy, everyone benefits, says the theoretical justification.
Now, do we not all agree that this experiment is failed?
If it is not failed, the consequences and price of our folly is steeper than we ever conceived. The consequences and price are so high that no one is willing to pay it. The President is first among those unwilling to accept the price. His new proposed strategy is a vapid half-measure, designed to mask failure and to set out the next moves to justify abandonment.
Greg argues well for immediate withdrawal. James balks at the impending cataclysm in the wake of withdrawal. Greg argues that withdrawal is the only moral policy, and James wonders if the bloodletting may be more immoral in wake of our penetration into this once nation-state.
I take guidance from our occupation of Japan after World War II. The Japanese surrender was complete and unconditional. Our military dominance ultimately was so overwhelming and violent, that opposition could not stand, even to conduct guerrilla exercises after surrender. McArthur ruled Japan under martial law for five years, as near absolute ruler. During those years, we forced our Constitution on them, trained them up in the ways of democracy, overcame a political culture of emperor worship, then set the island on its way to political and economic stardom.
Can we learn a lesson for Iraq from Japan and not end up again in Vietnam? Among all the options before us, I believe the only viable option for staving off genocide, religious civil war and a sucking parade of horrors in Babylon is to escalate. We should not escalate by 20,000 troops. We should escalate by 200,000 combat troops to dominate and flush the place of violence. We should impose a martial police state on Iraq for 10 years, during which we should force our Constitution on them, train them up in the ways of democracy, overcome a political culture of emperor worship, then set the country on its way to political and economic stardom. We may also have to impose new partitioning borders to set right the British blunder of creating Iraq in the first place. In ten years of peace and benevolent authoritarianism, we might just create democracy in Iraq. Of course, we would need conscription and some national privation, but we have somehow mustered such political will in the past.
Why would the Japan model fail? Japan was and is homogenous. Iraq is not. Japan is an island. Iraq is not. Why else? We demonstrated our military and political might to the point of nuclear war in Japan, and we have not, will not and cannot do it in Iraq, for the very simple reason that the Iraq War is unjust. The Pacific War was just and defensive, and the nation could appreciate the danger. The Iraq Was is unjustified and preemptive, so the nation will not respond with victory gardens, rations and war bonds.
If we do not have the will for the Japan model, if withdrawal will create a vacuous nightmare and if half-measures only prolong the inevitable half-state, half-peace, half-resolution and inevitable deterioration of our national credibility, what can we do?
We can be humble, Mr. President. Humility is the answer. We must seek guidance from the United Nations, the European Union, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all of our other colleagues whom we have ignored or offended. We must asked for it, hear it, accept it and apply it wisely. The base sin of this disastrous war is blind pride. Confessional, repentant, practical, realistic, pragmatic humility is the antidote. We must invite others to invest their stake in the outcome and risk some of our power and control so that the neighbors have more incentive than to sit around and watch it burn. We must seek advice again from those who told us this was a bad idea and appreciate their perspective. We need to be creative and courageous enough to le the Iraqis sort it out.
Unless, of course, we have yet to hear from the Chief some other justification, then we still probably will need to nuke Tehran. If this is all about oil after all, we’ve done a poor job of that so far, too.
Was Saddam Hussein the first lonely demon in Iraq, and is this fiasco the seven hobo demons taking his place, or have we yet to meet the seven-fold horrors awaiting their turn after the exorcism? What can we possible install in the monster’s place that will not be magnitudes worse?
James Wiser and Hermit Greg have very good posts up about Iraq and reflections on the “new” strategy hawked by the President. They, almost everyone else and I agree that the invasion and occupation in Iraq is and always has been a dire mistake with horrific consequences. I can think of no competent American who could trust yet that this war was justified factually or even could now recite the first blushes of war-marketing without embarrassment. The problem is well known: did we invade for weapons of mass destruction, to stop an imminent terrorist attack, to avenge the World Trade Center, to destroy terrorist networks? As it turns out, no, but we have decided that we will strip ourselves of pretext and get to the point: democracy. If we can plant democracy, everyone benefits, says the theoretical justification.
Now, do we not all agree that this experiment is failed?
If it is not failed, the consequences and price of our folly is steeper than we ever conceived. The consequences and price are so high that no one is willing to pay it. The President is first among those unwilling to accept the price. His new proposed strategy is a vapid half-measure, designed to mask failure and to set out the next moves to justify abandonment.
Greg argues well for immediate withdrawal. James balks at the impending cataclysm in the wake of withdrawal. Greg argues that withdrawal is the only moral policy, and James wonders if the bloodletting may be more immoral in wake of our penetration into this once nation-state.
I take guidance from our occupation of Japan after World War II. The Japanese surrender was complete and unconditional. Our military dominance ultimately was so overwhelming and violent, that opposition could not stand, even to conduct guerrilla exercises after surrender. McArthur ruled Japan under martial law for five years, as near absolute ruler. During those years, we forced our Constitution on them, trained them up in the ways of democracy, overcame a political culture of emperor worship, then set the island on its way to political and economic stardom.
Can we learn a lesson for Iraq from Japan and not end up again in Vietnam? Among all the options before us, I believe the only viable option for staving off genocide, religious civil war and a sucking parade of horrors in Babylon is to escalate. We should not escalate by 20,000 troops. We should escalate by 200,000 combat troops to dominate and flush the place of violence. We should impose a martial police state on Iraq for 10 years, during which we should force our Constitution on them, train them up in the ways of democracy, overcome a political culture of emperor worship, then set the country on its way to political and economic stardom. We may also have to impose new partitioning borders to set right the British blunder of creating Iraq in the first place. In ten years of peace and benevolent authoritarianism, we might just create democracy in Iraq. Of course, we would need conscription and some national privation, but we have somehow mustered such political will in the past.
Why would the Japan model fail? Japan was and is homogenous. Iraq is not. Japan is an island. Iraq is not. Why else? We demonstrated our military and political might to the point of nuclear war in Japan, and we have not, will not and cannot do it in Iraq, for the very simple reason that the Iraq War is unjust. The Pacific War was just and defensive, and the nation could appreciate the danger. The Iraq Was is unjustified and preemptive, so the nation will not respond with victory gardens, rations and war bonds.
If we do not have the will for the Japan model, if withdrawal will create a vacuous nightmare and if half-measures only prolong the inevitable half-state, half-peace, half-resolution and inevitable deterioration of our national credibility, what can we do?
We can be humble, Mr. President. Humility is the answer. We must seek guidance from the United Nations, the European Union, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and all of our other colleagues whom we have ignored or offended. We must asked for it, hear it, accept it and apply it wisely. The base sin of this disastrous war is blind pride. Confessional, repentant, practical, realistic, pragmatic humility is the antidote. We must invite others to invest their stake in the outcome and risk some of our power and control so that the neighbors have more incentive than to sit around and watch it burn. We must seek advice again from those who told us this was a bad idea and appreciate their perspective. We need to be creative and courageous enough to le the Iraqis sort it out.
Unless, of course, we have yet to hear from the Chief some other justification, then we still probably will need to nuke Tehran. If this is all about oil after all, we’ve done a poor job of that so far, too.
Was Saddam Hussein the first lonely demon in Iraq, and is this fiasco the seven hobo demons taking his place, or have we yet to meet the seven-fold horrors awaiting their turn after the exorcism? What can we possible install in the monster’s place that will not be magnitudes worse?
posted by JRB at 10:15 PM
3 Comments:
Yes, and then there's that approach, too. I've often wondered what would happen if we wanted to send in an additional 300,000 or so troops. Obviously, we'd probably need to bring back the draft. Surely if this is the defining ideological struggle of our time, as GWB opines, our country would be up for it?
1. The proposal for massive escalation is more than wishful thinking because it may be the only realistic option to prevent a state of nature in Iraq. You present very real problems, problems that likely will not be overcome. This massive escalation will not happen, but it will fail not because we do not have the material or personnel capacity. WWII demonstrated our capacity to multiply our forces quickly and decisively. It will not happen here, though, because we could not muster the national will. We could not muster the national will because it is not a just war to begin with.
2. This should have been the strategy three years ago.
3. Do not miss the fourth option, which is actually MY proposal. My proposal is not withdrawal but is radical, creative diplomacy which creates economic incentives for neighbors and new constituents. While that process is underway, we need to fire for real effect in the capital and put aside the pretense that the Iraqi government somehow bears the burden of success and stability.
JH - I disagree. We have lessons to learn from our mistakes and successes along the way. There is nothing new under the sun, and this is not a war without analogy. I did not compare this war to any other war as a point for point comparison, but we are foolish to deprive ourselves of lessons learned. If anything, that is among this President's greatest follies, failing to appreciate that his new vision was not new and would founder.
Post a Comment
<< Home