Yesterday I talked about what we can do in Iraq now. At the same time though, I think we need to reflect on what we did and see if what happened changes our world view at all. The fact is that our goal of regime change and a stable democracy were not realized. Before the invasion there were plenty of voices that said we should not go into Iraq because either the Iraqis don't want democracy or are incapable of it. Since there is no democracy, we need to think about whether those voices were right.
First, let's look at the argument that Iraq is too diverse a country and therefore is incapable of democracy. This is something that my idealistic nature won't let me believe. But I also think there is plenty of empirical evidence to contradict it. India is the world’s largest democracy and has more ethnic and religious groups than Iraq. Turkey is also very diverse and democratic. Its main groups include Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds - although having similar religious groups as Iraq doesn't mean it is a perfect comparison. Lastly, Lebanon with both Shiite and Sunni Muslims alongside Christians and Druse is a developing democracy.
I readily admit that the above mentioned countries have all faced violence and turmoil in dealing with their diversity (not the least of which includes a decade-long civil war in Lebanon and Turkey's act of genocide against its Armenian population). But I think most people feel hopeful about the chances for long-term stability for each of those countries.
So if democracy is possible, but isn’t working, does that mean that it was bound to fail because there wasn’t the structure in place for democracy to succeed? This argument rests on a direct comparison between the American Revolution; we created a democracy after ridding ourselves of the iron-fist of Britain because we were already practicing democracy. I don’t completely buy that argument either. Call me a neo-conservative, but I think every group of people is ready for a democracy if you can convince them that it will make their lives better.
This is where we made our mistake in Iraq. Their lives are actually worse under a representative government that respects the rule of law than it was under a power-hungry, delusional dictator. This has been the case from the beginning. Our operation / occupation was done in a way that prevented Iraqis from seeing how much better their lives could be. From early looting to suicide bombs and escalating religious violence, they were never given the stability they were promised.
I know this doesn’t sound like a grand conclusion. Everyone knows that we completely botched the mission (everyone except our President). But I think it is very important not to use that to fall into the logic that democracies don’t work in other countries. I am fearful that our troubles in Iraq will lead us towards isolationism. Our foreign policy needs to be a faith in the just cause of human dignity (and therefore the need for representative government) mixed with humility (which is where I diverge from neo-conservatives) about our ability and how far limited resources will go.
3 comments:
Okay, two things. To me the problem with the diversity in Iraq isn't the level of diversity, but that the different groups don't seem to want to work together. I realize this is a broad generalization, but right now it seems like the factions that don't want anything to do with each other are winning.
Secondly, about your statement...
"I think every group of people is ready for a democracy if you can convince them that it will make their lives better." Why is it our job (an external voice) to convince them? If you want to make an Am. Revolution comparison, look at it this way - France didn't invade America when colonists became discontented; we asked for their help. If Iraqis had started to fight against Saddam and had asked for our help I think we'd be in a different situation right now.
In regards to your first point, I agree, except I think it really stems from our inability to stop the Sunni insurgency. Shiites have been dying for too long, in too many numbers, to sit around and wait for Americans to actually acheive stability. In this respect, why should they try to work with the Sunnis? If you look at most ethnic conflicts of the recent past, it isn't about an inability to work together based on culture, but a desire of one group to maintain power. This is the case with the Sunnis, and was the case in Lebanon during the 1980s.
This comment obviously feeds into your second statement, which is why are we there in the first place. My position on democracy is very universalist in that I think everyone should have it in some form. I think waiting for rebellions to ask for it is a cop-out, especially considering that authoritarian governments by their nature restrict dissent and rebellion. (Also, it isn't really true that Iraqis didn't ask for our help. Shiites rebelled after the first Gulf War and asked for our support, and we abandoned them.)
Despite all this, it isn't possible or prudent to go into every authoritarian country and execute regime change. So I agree that invading Iraq was a bad idea, but my reason is vastly different from yours. I steadfastly believe that everyone wants a democracy of some form. What I meant by convincing them is that the only time people might work against democracy is when it appears to be less safe than the authoritarian government was.
This is the case in Iraq, but not because this culture needs an iron fist to control it. It is because we allowed the Sunnis to create so mucn instability that Shiites looked to local militias for protection instead of the new government and the Americans.
As a quick add-on, there was a really good article in the NY Times last weekend describing how many moderates have left Iraq because it is unsafe. The whole idea that Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis just don't want to work together is a fallacy. The fact is that right now, the militants are in control because we never maintained stability.
Post a Comment