How would you get us out of Iraq?

[Bry]

what would constitute "firmly in place"?

 

[wonderwench]

A government is firmly in place when it has a Constitution or some other guiding set of laws and the leadership has been elected in accordance with such. It also has a court system through which to interpret law and a police force which handles enforcement. Walking away before these institutions are working would spell disaster.

 

[Annie]

Well said WW:

A government is firmly in place when it has a Constitution or some other guiding set of laws and the leadership has been elected in accordance with such. It also has a court system through which to interpret law and a police force which handles enforcement.

To leave Iraq before the above is in place would be more than criminal, not to mention against our vital interests. No Bry, I don't mean oil per se. Israel, Turkey, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Kuwait will all be seriously effected by what is done or not in Iraq.

 

[Comrade]

AtlantaWalter,

The best way to answer your question is to look at a historic parallel, the occupation of Japan post WWII.

There are many reasons to consider this situation very relevant.

Japanese culture had known no democracy and was enmeshed in values distinctly non-liberal, male dominated, and humiliation averse. Truly as non-Western as Iraq.

It's occupation was total, long term, and under the power long portrayed as an enemy by its former government. Like Iraq

Key facts behind the occupation of Japan:

Post WWII Japan

General MacArthur became, except in name, dictator of Japan.

--- Bremer is a military dictator of Iraq as well, although his actual authority and position is sanitized out of liberal concerns.

Japan was extensively fire bombed during the second world war. The stench of sewer gas, rotting garbage, and the acrid smell of ashes and scorched debris pervaded the air. The Japanese people had to live in the damp, and cold of the concrete buildings, because they were the only ones left.

--- The general living conditions of the Iraqi people are in far, far better shape. I bring this up because the idea of the Iraqi's hating us for having "bombed houses" gains currency with the left. How about instead of a few thousand we start with 10 million homes in Japan? A righteous quaqmire for sure.

All the Japanese heard was democracy from the Americans. All they cared about was food.

--- Another popular argument that is brought up is that the “suffering” of Iraqi’s under the US further distances them from the hope of becoming a liberal democracy. But if the humulated, starving Japanese accepted US reform why wouldn't the Iraqi's?

No food was brought in expressly for the Japanese during the first six months after the American presence there. General MacArther asked the government to send food, when they refused he sent another telegram that said, "Send me food, or send me bullets.

--- That was shortly before the investigation into the Hiroshima bombing and the criticism of Truman for his failure to provide for the Japanese during the post-war occupation should have occurred. Haha!

Iraqis aren't starving and the billions of US money spend to rebuild their society are already well in excess (in adjusted $) of any investment made directly for the Japanese during that same period. That is not including the cost of actual occupation and policing spend on US forces. And given the size and scope of operations this burden is immense in both cases.

But what specific actions taken during the occupation of Japan led to it's undeniably successful economy and liberal democracy? How can we ensure Iraq remains an ally to the US as well as a benefactor to the free world itself, much as Japan remains today?

“Bring the troops home” and "end the occupation" are not the answer.

Japan:

The most important aspect of the democratization policy was the
adoption of a new constitution and its supporting
legislation. When the Japanese government proved too
confused or too reluctant to come up with a constitutional
reform that satisfied MacArthur, he had his own staff draft
a new constitution in February 1946.

Same sh*t different occupation:

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: THE GOVERNING COUNCIL; DELAYS AND SPLIT ON IRAQI COUNCIL IMPERIL U.S. PLAN

Powerful cleric's demand for quick elections is undermining Bush administration's plan for political transition in Iraq, delaying drafting of interim constitution and creating serious new split in Iraqi Governing Council;

--- This is just the interim constitution, not the end product. Fortunately:

Bremer will reject Islam as source for law

Despite the fact that

Iraqi Official Wants Law Based on Islam

Iraq's current top official has demanded that Islam be the principal basis for Iraq's laws, a move that breaches a previous agreement among the framers of the interim constitution and creates the possibility that Islamic law could rule the land.

How can traditional values towards women in Islam, for example, be legislated as a reformed liberal society?

A Post-War Constitution: Beate Sirota Gordon: The right place at the right time

"Initially, the Japanese themselves were charged with the duty of coming up with a document that would meet with the approval of the Americans. ... Time after time, however, the Japanese delegation presented MacArthur’s staff with only warmed-over constitutional provisions that were hardly different than the original ones."

It was understandably slow going as the men discussed sweeping changes that constitutionally renounced war, junked the feudalistic system, established sovereignty in the people, and retained the emperor essentially as a figurehead. As Mrs.Gordon remembers it, when finally the subject of women’s rights came up, “all hell broke loose.”
The subservience of women was as basic to Japanese men in 1946 as was their reverence for the beloved emperor. Many hours went by with no progress on the issue. Finally, an interesting event broke the logjam.....

Read it if you want to hear how she got the men to change their mind. MacArthur was determined to enact these provisions, which were far more sweeping than even US law at the time. (and he was dubbed a "radical feminist" as a result).

In any case the provision was going to be enforced by MacArthur one way or another. As much as I'd like to credit her story for convincing the council, the reality was that they really had no choice. Perhaps saving face here was in effect?

Anyway MacArthur's insistence on just this point was just one of many which provided for civil rights in Japan. Among others:

Article 13 and 19 in the new Constitution, prohibits discrimination in political, Economic, and social relations because of race, creed, sex, Social status, or family origin.

Consider also that Japan did not gain sovereignty until 1952, almost SEVEN YEARS after the initial occupation. Will the same results be gained during this administration under MacArthur be reproduced in Iraq in a fraction of that time? I believe the Iraqi’s are just as capable of achieving success as a nation as Japan, and their challenge to reform is so very similar.

But in this political age such ambitions are constantly undermined by the expectation of instant results. Post-WWII defeatism directed against America had yet to find traction, yet now it’s all we hear in the media. Today’s political atmosphere may yet result in a half-baked reform followed by inevitable blowback, perhaps with even greater consequences than 9-11.

Finally, even though the establishment of democracy and capitalism in Japan has given them peace and prosperity, the US effort was driven by a rational desire to fight the spread of communism in order to protect it’s own way of life.

And it is certainly not altruism that drives our attempt to reform the Middle East (via Iraq) while ignoring Africa. There is a US interest in destroying fanatical or tyrannical regimes where they pose the greatest threat to the US alone. This interest is being challenged by elements we did not face in post-WWII occupations. The media is bombards Americans with defeatist headlines and the anti-Bush/War rhetoric is used to leverage political capital. Those focused on the motive and costs of changing Iraqi government have no need to salvage anything good out of what is simply a bad thing, and I fear a new Iraq will likely be delivered premature should Bush lose the next election. Decisive foreign policy will be viewed a failure simply because it was never carried out to its full potential.

So stay the course America!

 

[freeandfun1]

EXCELLENT POST!

 

[Bry]

interesting analysis, Comrade. I had thought of Japan as a possible precedent, but rejected it because of some rather significant disparities:

1. Japan was a nation defeated in every sense of the word. Their very spirit was crushed, making them considerably more docile, unlike the Iraqis who seem to have only begun to resist. Of course, they have been worn down over many years of war and embargo, but I don't think they are nearly as "defeated" in spirit as were the Japanese. What you say about liberal criticism of "attrocities" in the Iraq war is in some ways relevant, but the definitive fact is that the grinding war that was in the pacific was by far more devastating in material and spirit than that in Iraq. In Japan, the end of the war was the end of the war.

2. Japan remained devoted to their emperor, who cooperated with the US and was maintained as a figurehead. The "council" in Iraq is in no way representative of the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

3. Japan, even after the war, was not a particularly divided society. They did not have any obstacles like the religious and ideological divisions which stratify Iraqi society.

4. Japan, as an island, was not nearly as accessible for foreign insurgents, if there had been such a thing in Japan. In Iraq, all of its neighbors have a significant stake in the outcome of the new government, and you can believe that all will go to significant lengths to try to manipulate the process in their own favour. And that's not even to mention terrorist / fundamentalist groups.

Including with these significant (and to my mind advantageous) differences, and in the absence of the problems that the media currently presents to the unilateral activities of the temporary American administration, the occupation in Japan was to last seven years. (speaking of difference in media coverage, it is also true that the US was dominated by an intense racial hatred of the Japanese after the war, and even though conditions were inhumane, Americans were willing to let Japs starve and freeze. Such negligent behaviour today is met with outcry from the press and certain factions of the society. I would say this difference is positive, rather than negative, for what it says about our humanity.)

Another difference: the American economy post WW II was in a boom time, and more able to shoulder the costs of reconstruction. Not so today. In your economic analysis of US money earmarked for reconstruction, I accept your comparison while I expect that the percentage of the overall US budget earmarked for reconstruction is considerably greater now than it was in 1946.

Just some food for thought. I enjoyed your post.

-Bry

 

[Comrade]

Bry, good thoughts.

1. Japan was a nation defeated in every sense of the word. Their very spirit was crushed, making them considerably more docile, unlike the Iraqis who seem to have only begun to resist. Of course, they have been worn down over many years of war and embargo, but I don't think they are nearly as "defeated" in spirit as were the Japanese. What you say about liberal criticism of "attrocities" in the Iraq war is in some ways relevant, but the definitive fact is that the grinding war that was in the pacific was by far more devastating in material and spirit than that in Iraq. In Japan, the end of the war was the end of the war.

--- Absolutely agree. Consider though that if Iraqi’s in general have not been through the same devastating experience due to conflict with the US, and in general have shown an overall lack of fanatical resistance, wouldn’t this indicate that reform of Iraq is much easier as well? Although Jeffersonian policy would agree that had we nuked Baghdad and firebombed the other major cities the cowed population would offer little resistance, it was uncalled for. But are you saying this would have been more effective?

2. Japan remained devoted to their emperor, who cooperated with the US and was maintained as a figurehead. The "council" in Iraq is in no way representative of the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

--- True enough, Saddam was no Hiro. But with the most popular clerics sprinkled among the secular reformists, why doesn’t that give the same semblance to legitimacy that the emperor offered under US guidance? Are we being too soft in allowing these figureheads to spite the US administration, compared to how Japan was handled?

3. Japan, even after the war, was not a particularly divided society. They did not have any obstacles like the religious and ideological divisions which stratify Iraqi society.

--- Good point. The prospect of civil war during or after our occupation is indeed a factor we did not face in Japan. A possible solution would be to split the country along the general lines of Kurds, Shi’ites, and Sunnis. The fears of our "ally" Turkey is one reason this won't happen but more importantly is the fact that the three weakened nations would be vulnerable to their neighbors and could even war on each other. Assuming a unified Iraq is more stable, this is all the more reason to not only push through reform to legislate equality, but to ensure the new government enforces it. That requires the US to stick around with enough force to make the government follows through.

4. Japan, as an island, was not nearly as accessible for foreign insurgents, if there had been such a thing in Japan. In Iraq, all of its neighbors have a significant stake in the outcome of the new government, and you can believe that all will go to significant lengths to try to manipulate the process in their own favour. And that's not even to mention terrorist / fundamentalist groups.

--- Asia certainly had its communist intrigue even then. But you are right though, it helped that the US was one of the few powers left who wasn’t hobbled by the war. Nobody except the USSR really could challenge our role in Asia (except China proper). However, I believe we have been considerably successful in not only reigning in state support of terror but have also delivered enough consequences to its practitioners to thin the herd.

I remember when US troops deaths were averaging 4/day. Successful attacks on US positions after Saddam’s capture picked up a little as predicted and since have rapidly declined to perhaps one a week? (on US targets)

And targeting has since drifted away from US presence to softer targets and overall seems to have conflicting objectives. The US sponsored police force IS making a difference now. And once a system of internal security and effective border guards are established I feel there will be little possibility of regular terrorist attacks. It takes time to establish such a thing, but its already showing results. The government should eventually follow up on the US to secure most the ordinance left lying around by Saddam, and domestic acts will become very difficult. And having established sovereignty and a new military Iraq will no longer be a hunting ground for other nations.

Including with these significant (and to my mind advantageous) differences, and in the absence of the problems that the media currently presents to the unilateral activities of the temporary American administration, the occupation in Japan was to last seven years. (speaking of difference in media coverage, it is also true that the US was dominated by an intense racial hatred of the Japanese after the war, and even though conditions were inhumane, Americans were willing to let Japs starve and freeze. Such negligent behaviour today is met with outcry from the press and certain factions of the society. I would say this difference is positive, rather than negative, for what it says about our humanity.)

--- I think we have grown as a country to be aware of our global responsibilities and are more sympathetic to the impact our actions have. At the same time I believe we are no longer capable of unified action as long as the whims of the media rule our perception of this particular conflict. The decision to continue occupation is now a partisan issue and is no longer a debatable issue.

Another difference: the American economy post WW II was in a boom time, and more able to shoulder the costs of reconstruction. Not so today. In your economic analysis of US money earmarked for reconstruction, I accept your comparison while I expect that the percentage of the overall US budget earmarked for reconstruction is considerably greater now than it was in 1946.

--- Interesting question though, is the official 3.8% plus change for the 80 Billion in Iraq “affordable” compared to what was spent in those years? We ramped down from a hefty 40% of GNP to maybe as low as 10% during the 50's, but never has such a low % bought so much now. And remember in a recession it’s a good thing to have the government fill in as a customer in the economy. The military industrial complex bailed America out of the big one.

But are we still in a recession?

Just some food for thought. I enjoyed your post.

--- Same here.

 

[Avatar4321]

The only way to get us out of Iraq without making the situation worse is to:

1)Erradicate those suicide bombers attacking the US troops and the Iraqi Civilians.

2)Build up the Iraqi superstructure (which means we have to spend money building roads, schools and hospitals and training police, etc).

3)Help them establish a Constitution with checks and balances, and of course positions for leaders to be elected to.

4)Have a census to find out how many people are in Iraq, where they are, and help them register to vote.

So basically we have to do what the President has been doing from the beginning.

 

[Annie]

Agree with you Avatar. We must handle Iraq to the best of our ability, including getting a secularist government, with Islamic leanings, established. It's important not only for Iraq and its neighbors, but also for the West. I don't think we attacked for the 'oil' but we have that and other vital interests in the region. I never thought we did for altruistic reasons, though there certainly would be a case with just the mass graves.

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
we shouldn't be pulling out of iraq anytime soon. we need even more troops in iraq to rid it of its insurgency and the AQ cell floating in. We also need to be doing more to swing the iraqi populace over to helping us instead of waiting for us to help them.

I agree with this completely. We need to smother them and kill them so we don't have to deal with their sorry asses later on and somewhere else. And the more they are able to help themselves the more of our brothers and sisters can come back home

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by nbdysfu
I agree with DK, but I think one might consider wether we need more troops or more police, MP, and fire fighters there.

Unfortunately I don't believe we have enough MPs trained to police as big an area as needs policing? I agree we need more specialized emergency personell over there, but I am afraid we are doing the best we can with the resources we have. I also believe we should be building more roads, schools, hospitals and all that good stuff in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess what I'm getting at is that as awesome as our military is, it has limitations. It is obvious our military needs to be reshaped to handle the future, no?