Iraqi Transitional National Assembly
Meeting for the First Time
I’m struck by the strange standards applied by many commentators to the situation in Iraq. I’m not referring to the issue of punishment of U.S. officials and soldiers who have committed injustices or violations of law. I’m referring to:
1) complaints about the broadcasting of taped confessions by captured terrorists on Iraqi television, which hardly seems bizarre or unjust in the context of an ongoing war against extremely brutal terrorists who are eager to kill as many civilians as possible to make civil society and constitutional government impossible; and
2) complaints about the haggling going on to form a government under the transitional administrative law. (See Juan Cole’s strange complaint, as well.)
Regarding the first point, that practice seems remarkably mild and reasonable in the middle of an armed insurrection being waged by suicide bombers. We’re not talking about a policing situation in Oregon or Wales. It’s a war and this seems a reasonable way to dissuade potential hotheads from signing up to blow themselves up in front of schools, police offices, and mosques.
Regarding the second point, what’s so strange about a system that induces people to come to arrangements that all — or at least a substantial majority — will find tolerable and to which they would pledge their support? It’s a strange standard to apply in a country that is so riven by ethnic, tribal, religious, and linguistic divisions.
“Regarding the first point, that practice seems remarkably mild and reasonable in the middle of an armed insurrection being waged by suicide bombers. We’re not talking about a policing situation in Oregon or Wales. It’s a war and this seems a reasonable way to dissuade potential hotheads from signing up to blow themselves up in front of schools, police offices, and mosques.”
But your observation avoids the larger point, that the armed insurrection is against an occupying power, which, on your own admission, shouldn’t be there in the first place. I have in mind your own (nuanced) opposition to the U.S. invasion. I understand your position that, since the U.S. has now conquered Iraq, it isn’t appropriate for it to withdraw immediately. However, far from proposing to withdraw, the American conquerors are building what look like a number of permanent bases. Would you agree that they should, at least, cease the construction of these outposts of the American empire?
“Regarding the second point, what’s so strange about a system that induces people to come to arrangements that all — or at least a substantial majority — will find tolerable and to which they would pledge their support? It’s a strange standard to apply in a country that is so riven by ethnic, tribal, religious, and linguistic divisions.”
Your reasoning suggests that Iraq is not a tenable political entity. Is there any good reason why the Iraq that was cobbled together by British imperialists after the First World War should remain as one nation in the twenty-first century?
Mr. Brady seems to find it hard to ask more than one question. The question I raised was not whether the U.S. and the U.K. and the other states should have gone to war or whether they should withdraw their forces immediately, sooner, later, or never, but whether the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and police are wrong to broadcast the tearful confessions of people who had earlier appeared in videotapes in which they beheaded their captives with bravado (to take one prominent example). By raising a “larger point” that has nothing to do with the one I raised, Mr. Brady thereby avoids the smaller point: are the Iraqi authorities justified in broadcasting such confessions, or should outside critics demand for a war zone the same standards that would be applied to an accused thief in Surrey?
I should set one matter straight: my reasoning did not suggest that “Iraq is not a tenable political entity.” It may or may not be, but my reasoning surely did not suggest an answer one way or the other. It is the same reasoning that led to the requirement that amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in Congress and the ratification of 3/4 of the states in what has proven a more-or-less tenable political entity: the United States of America. Perhaps Iraq should not remain one entity, but I suspect that Mr. Brady would complain quite loudly were the U.S. authorities to decide on their own to make that decision and partition the country. If it were to be broken up, that should be for Iraqis to decide. A federal structure, which seems quite appropriate, is similarly a matter for Iraqis to work out in negotiations, bargaining, haggling, and the like.
On the second point, it doesn’t seem like Dr Palmer is saying that “Iraq is not a tenable political entity” at all. If anything it seems like Mr Brady is trying to make that point.
Yes, Iraq wasn’t necessarily meant to be a country. The British intentionally divided up the Middle East into countries whose factionary tendencies were inimical to unity and effective government. There thus was infighting which enabled the British to essentially divide and conquer—pit the factions against each other so they’d be the only strong force. Since they were the strongest, they could easily take oil and resources with no complaint. So Iraq was *intended* to revert into faction and infighting. But allowing it to break up isn’t necessarily good either. Iraq is at a geographic crossroads between oil rich and Sunni Saudi Arabia and oil richer and Shia Iran. Unless there is a strong power between the two to buffer those international loud mouths, so to speak, there wouldn’t be much stopping instability from travelling. My assumption, and given history and circumstance it seems solid, is that multiple countries would lead to a struggle for subregional strength and clout. Ergo, more instability.
But, as Dr Palmer hinted, it has the potential to lead to a pluralistic society that governs based on compromise. Compromise then leads to a government that inevitably is limited to a good extent.
As to Dr Palmer’s response, a federal structure does seem appropriate. Centralization just doesn’t seem viable, as an Economist article demonstrates (http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3747055 )
I guess I’m confused…
Tom’s original comment: “Regarding the first point, that practice seems remarkably mild and reasonable in the middle of an armed insurrection being waged by suicide bombers. …It’s a war and this seems a reasonable way to dissuade potential hotheads from signing up to blow themselves up in front of schools, police offices, and mosques.”
Further explicating this point in response to Mark Brady, Tom describesthe Iraqis televising tearful confessions from some who had decapitated prisoners. But this seems entirely different.
If someone plans to kill himself by blowing himself up in front of school, police offices, and mosques, what kind of threat is it to say that “if you don’t succeed, we may televise you confessing your failed attempt”? If anything, that justs gives people a stronger incentive to initially succeed in their suicidal terrorism.
Ross L.
The point is not so much a threat, but a “de-romanticization.” Suicide bombers who fail are often (not always) quite bitter about the people who inducted them into the group. The video of one fellow who was covered with horrific burns from his failed attempt made rather more graphically real what it means to burn yourself alive. Furthermore, showing people who are portrayed on jihadist web sites as such dashing heroes in such un-dashing circumstances — tearful, remorseful, and fearful — helps to dissuade others from joining their ranks for money, for fame, or for other reasons. It’s not a matter of dissuading the person who has already agreed and gotten into his car-bomb (although even that is not impossible), but of dissuading people from making the deal that leads to that.
My point was not merely that the broadcasts are an attempt to dissuade suicide bombers (which, by the way, is not foolish in the way Ross suggests, since the risk of failing, being caught, and being humiliated is a factor in choosing to be one), but that the war is being waged against utterly ruthless people who are willing and eager to inflict maximum mayhem on innocents. As such, tactics that would indeed be deeply offensive if deployed to target petty thieves in a stable society (i.e., broadcasting confessions of people who haven’t been found guilty after due process of law) should not be rejected if there is evidence that they work.
“[A]re the Iraqi authorities justified in broadcasting such confessions, or should outside critics demand for a war zone the same standards that would be applied to an accused thief in Surrey?”
Well, it’s not just the Iraqi authorities, it’s the U.S. and Iraqi authorities, unless we’re to assume that the Iraqi authorities act independently of the U.S. occupiers, which is absurd. No, I don’t think the authorities are justified in broadcasting such confessions. Promoting the idea of the rule of law is surely undermined by practices that disregard the rule of law. Quite apart from which, there is the practical objection to the policy articulated by Ross Levater.
Now that I’ve answered your question, please answer mine about whether the U.S. should cease the construction of permanent bases in Iraq.
If Iraq is indeed “a country that is so riven by ethnic, tribal, religious, and linguistic divisions” (your words), why should we expect that it could be a tenable political entity? Since the thirteen American states were not “riven by ethnic, tribal, religious, and linguistic divisions,” it is not surprising that the U.S. federal constitution held together in the decades following its adoption and ratification. You’re correct in assuming that I don’t think the U.S. should partition Iraq–but neither should it force a constitutional process on Iraqis–which is exactly what it is doing today.
Yes, I am opposed to a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq and therefore I oppose the construction of permanent military bases.
As to whether the U.S. and Iraqi authorities act independently, Mr. Brady will be surprised to find out that….sometimes they do. In fact, the broadcasting of the confessions was decided locally by elected mayors and police chiefs. Now one might argue (as I suspect Mr. Brady might) that that is known a priori to be impossible; I have a less a prioristic understanding of the possibility or impossibility of synthetic statements about contingent matters of fact and do not consider the possibility “absurd.” But there you have it.
As to whether it is effective, we’ll see. I don’t think that you can only establish a practice by conforming to the outcome. For example, if you are being invaded by marauding armies (this is a hypothetical, mind you) you don’t proceed to arrest the invaders, read them their Miranda rights, and then take them one by one to courts of law to be assigned bail, to be tried, to be retried on appeal, and so on and so forth. That is the goal for how one handles violence in a free and law-governed society, but if you are being attacked by organized and very well financed ruthless mass murderers who detonate car bombs at the openings of electricity generating plants in order to kill as many children and townspeople as possible, you won’t get to the goal of such a legal order by conforming to it on that occasion and against those enemies. Fighting wars and arresting criminals are not the same thing; if you can’t defeat a military/terrorist threat of the sort posed by the jihadists and Ba’athists, you cannot go on to establish the law governed state we would all prefer.
Moreover, Iraqis are indeed divided by religion, ethnicity, language, tribe, and other factors. We don’t know whether they will be able to establish the rule of law. I do think that we should help them try to do so, rather than simply abandon them to the civil war that would break out in the absence of at least an attempt to create a stable, democratically accountable, and limited government.
I presume that Mr. Brady would have opposed U.S. (and British) entry into World War II and, after having been ignored or outmaneuvered, he would have then opposed the post-war mestablishment of the Federal Republic of Germany and allowed bands of armed National Socialists to regroup and take over again. What a wonderful world that would have produced.
“Yes, I am opposed to a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq and therefore I oppose the construction of permanent military bases.”
That’s a very welcome declaration.
I agree that it’s not literally absurd that the Iraqi authorities might act independently of the U.S. authorities. It’s just that it’s difficult to imagine decisions of such significance being taken without at least some consultation with the U.S. As you say, we’ll see whether this measure is effective.
Like you, I look forward to the establishment of the rule of law throughout present-day Iraq. And the (admittedly imperfect) rule of law that exists in western societies may by example help Iraqis establish the rule of law in Iraq. However, I don’t see why civil war would break out in the absence of the U.S. and its attempt to foist a particular constitutional process on Iraqis. Civil war involves two (or more) armed groups contending for control of the state apparatus. Secession by the Kurds–or any other group–need involve little, if any, military conflict. And any of the seceding states can still adopt the rule of law. Indeed, there is surely a better chance of the rule of law taking root in at least some part of Iraq if the U.S. were to refrain from imposing a specific constitutional process on the Iraqi people.
Mr. Brady assumes that my “declaration” is somehow out of character with what I have “declared” elsewhere. It is not. How it could be “welcome,” then, as if it were a surprise, is hard to fathom. As in previous cases, Mr. Brady mistakes for a conversation a Rothbardian-type interrogation and elicitation of agreement with correct-thought, followed by praise for getting the answers right. I stopped finding that an interesting exercise many years ago.
Mr. Brady shows a rather limited understanding of the geography and history of Iraq. The various groups are not so geographically separated as he suggests (and even the borders of a future “Kurdistan” would be very much at issue). Many of the various religious and tribal groups are interspersed amongst each other. (And a major problem, one that was encouraged by Saddam, is that tribal loyalties tend to absorb one’s personality and make it more difficult — though by no means impossible — to generate the kinds of cross-cutting loyalties that make civil society possible.) A truly horrific civil war is very much a possibility if the constitutional process on which the Iraqis are currently embarked were to fail. Trying to make sure that that does not happen is very much in the interests of the people of Iraq, who would otherwise be massacred, and of the rest of the world, as a “failed state” or a turn toward warlordism would be quite likely to generate even more outward-directed terrorism. It’s true that the Kurds could probably defend much or most of their territory in such a case, although that would open up the issue of an independent Kurdistan, which could involve Syria, Iran, and Turkey in an armed conflict. So even the best off group might find themselves in a very bad situation, indeed.
“Mr. Brady assumes that my “declaration” is somehow out of character with what I have “declared” elsewhere. It is not.”
I don’t assume any such thing. Since you never discuss how the U.S. can withdraw from Iraq (unless I have missed a post where you talk about this topic), I’m sure many readers suppose that you favor, or at least tolerate, an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq.
“A truly horrific civil war is very much a possibility if the constitutional process on which the Iraqis are currently embarked were to fail.”
We have a civil war of sorts at the moment in that Sunnis are killing Shiites and Kurds alongside U.S. troops.
“Trying to make sure that that does not happen is very much in the interests of the people of Iraq, who would otherwise be massacred, and of the rest of the world, as a “failed state” or a turn toward warlordism would be quite likely to generate even more outward-directed terrorism.”
What isn’t clear is why continued U.S. occupation helps contain the calamitous possibilities you describe above. It appears to those of us who call for U.S. withdrawal that the American presence in fact encourages “a turn toward warlordism” and generates the outward-directed terrorism that you fear.
“It’s true that the Kurds could probably defend much or most of their territory in such a case, although that would open up the issue of an independent Kurdistan, which could involve Syria, Iran, and Turkey in an armed conflict. So even the best off group might find themselves in a very bad situation, indeed.”
That may be true, but short of reinstating a strong-armed dictator in the mould of Saddam Hussein, I find it difficult to conceive how Iraq can be held together.
First, let me thank both Tom and Mark for a delightful hashing out of ideas; this is one of the main reasons I log on to Tom’s blog each day.
Second, let me add my agreement to the following statement of Mark’s, seconding Tom:
“Like you, I look forward to the establishment of the rule of law throughout present-day Iraq.”
After following the Terry Schiavo case, I further hope one day for the establishment of the rule of law throughout the present-day United States of America…
I missed the big “how dare they broadcast confessions” debate.
On the other hand, I have followed with great concern the difficulties in forming a new government in Iraq.
From the point of view of those of us who would like to see the U.S. leave Iraq as soon as possible, the current situation is undesirable.
There were elections in Iraq and a party has an absolute majority in the assembly. All they have to do is choose a government and the U.S. can turn things over to the elected government. To bad this didn’t happen a year ago.
While I believe the dominant Shia factions’ base of support is such that it’s government could survive insurgent attacks in short order and eventually suppress the insurgents, the longer it takes them to get started mobilizing their supporters, the longer the U.S. will be stuck fighting the insurgents.
The requirement that the majority get to 2/3 in order to form a government is postponing those actions.
What is this bargaining about? The vast majority of Kurd voters want independence. The dominant Shia faction will be able to form a government if they officially write down promises to allow the Kurds to take back Kirkuk with its oil, maintain its own army paid for by the central government, and have Iraq remain a secular state.
What is this about? Creating a “reason” to leave Iraq when those promises are broken? Are the Shia worried that their constituents and the Sunnis they hope to pacify will be outraged by such an agreement?
I think the most sensible thing for the Shia to do is to make whatever promises the Kurds want and ignore them. Since the other option is just to appoint a government, ignore the Kurds, and face down the Americans for violating the U.S. imposed interim constitution, this all amounts to the Kurd’s using possible American intervention as a club.
After the Sunni insurgency is defeated, then make a decision what to do with the Kurds. Use the Kurds as a threat to make a deal with the Sunnis.
If the U.S. were in this situation, and the libertarians won a majority, but the conservatives were saying that to get to 2/3 they must control all the border states as well as the deep South and reinstate Jim Crow–I would say promise them whatever they want and then deal with them after the Chinese occupation army has left.
But that is me.
Just today, there was a report that Sistani wants “his” party to compromise with the Kurds. Is this that Shia doctrine of justifiable dissembling? Or does Sistani really believe that giving the Kurds independence is the way to go?
I am all for super-majorities for some things. But unless we are starting with anarcho-capitalism or some approximation there of, I don’t think a super-majority for everything is a good idea.
And it sure works against the interest of the U.S.–that is the interest in prompt withdraw from Iraq, turning things over to an elected Iraqi government.
Interesting comments above. Bill Woolsey’s speculations are plausible, but still just speculations. Politics of this sort is often opaque to outsiders so it’s hard to know just what is happening. It might come out reasonably well, or it might be a disaster. We’ll see. Let’s hope it’s the former. I’m committed to doing something to make a desirable outcome more likely.
I don’t agree, however, that a super-majority is only justifiable in cases when the starting point is already desirable. In the present context, I think that the justifiable fear of the Sunni Arabs and the Kurds of Shia retribution or payback (in the case of the Sunni Arabs) or of Arab nationalism (in the case of the Kurds) means that something greater than a simple majority is a necessity, especially in the case of crafting and ratifying a constitution.
I’m surprised that Mr. Brady is so thick that he supposes that I favor an indefinite military presence in Iraq. What a remarkably misleading and downright dishonest thing to say. I have never expressed any such sentiment. I have stated my belief that the war was unjustified and foolish. And I have stated that the U.S. should withdraw. (I should also point out that my little blog is not my only activity in life, but that I spend a great deal of time working on other matters, including documents related to U.S. foreign policy.) I do not have a detailed schedule of which units should be withdrawn on which dates, but I do believe that U.S. forces should begin to be withdrawn in this year and that we should look forward to a zero U.S., British, Polish, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Ukrainian, and other foreign military presence within two years. (Whether military alliances allow for continued training assistance by foreign forces is a separate matter, but even that would be a far cry from our current military presence.) The coalition states have an obligation, however, to assist a constitutional Iraqi government to create a police and military capable of defeating the terrorists.
As to whether “We have a civil war of sorts at the moment in that Sunnis are killing Shiites and Kurds alongside U.S. troops,” the wording (“a civil war of sorts) is so mealy mouthed as to be incapable of serious evaluation. A “civil war” of that “sort” is rather small compared to the mass killings that a mobilization of ethnic and religious militias could and certainly would bring about. The murders and attacks carried out by jihadis and Ba’athist bitter-enders is evil and unjustified and should be stopped — through negotiations with tribal leaders and religious sheiks to find and turn over the perpetrators, through search-and-destroy military operations (such as the attack on a terrorist training camp just yesterday: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4374533.stm ), through police work, through armed civilians defending themselves (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/international/worldspecial/23iraq.html? ), and through other tactics. Such action, as carried out by the new Iraqi government with support from foreign military forces, involves violence much less than would be unleashed by the kind of civil war that would be occasioned by the sudden pell mell rush for the exits that Mr. Brady promotes, with no concern for the consequences. No doubt a priori reasoning demands that Mr. Brady disagree with me on the likely outcome of such an immediate withdrawal, for one must always exclude any evidence or any considerations that do not lead to the conclusion one already knows to be true. There can, after all, be no balancing of reasons, for there is just one big truth, and that truth brooks no thoughts that do not lead straight to it. I have a different approach to the matter. Consequences do matter. Hard choices have to be made. There are strong arguments on both sides of most arguments. There are difficult issues and consequences to be balanced. Because of such considerations, I do not favor sending an email to the U.S. troops informing them that, since their tickets home would have to be paid for by tax funds, as of right now they’re on their own and should try to get back any way they can. (Given the lack of any detailed plan for immediate withdrawal, after all reasonable readers would have to conclude that that is Mr. Brady’s position; I won’t rely on that fallacious argument, however, for given his view of the world, I also am pretty sure that that is what he favors.) The loss of human life and the shattered prospects for any semblance of the rule of law such an immediate “withdrawal” would involve compel me to set aside my ouija board to the departed shade of any “button-pushing” armchair theorists and instead to support a time-limited military presence and support for the Iraqi constitutional process, followed by expeditious withdrawal of military force.
I’m a bit puzzled as to how I can simultaneously be both “thick” and “remarkably misleading and downright dishonest.” Perhaps I’m “so thick” that I can’t appreciate Tom’s psychological insights into my character. Or perhaps he doesn’t have any good evidence for making them. In any event, I don’t think that a serious discussion of the issues is assisted by name-calling. I shall merely observe that, although Tom earned a doctorate from a very good university (Oxford), his extensive knowledge of the history of political thought and related subjects does not especially qualify him to pronounce upon either my intelligence or my motives or my epistemology (which he asserts is some sort of crude apriorism).
Certainly readers could be forgiven for thinking Tom wasn’t particularly interested in a speedy withdrawal of U.S. (and other) troops from Iraq. I don’t remember that he ever discussed the subject as specifically as he did in his most recent post. I’ve never supposed Tom has–or ought to have–“a detailed schedule of which units should be withdrawn on which dates” (unless unbeknownst to us he’s a top-secret advisor to the Pentagon). To the best of my knowledge this is the first time that Tom has stated on his website his belief “that U.S. forces should begin to be withdrawn in this year and that we should look forward to a zero U.S., British, Polish, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Ukrainian, and other foreign military presence within two years.” Judging from recent news reports, it appears that the Polish, Dutch, Ukrainian and Italian forces may be out of there a lot sooner, but I don’t entertain much hope that the U.S. will have withdrawn all its forces within two years. If by March 2007 the Bush administration has not done so, then presumably we should look forward to Tom’s clarion call for the withdrawal of all remaining U.S. forces forthwith.
Yes, I agree, consequences do matter. But I’m not persuaded that the U.S. presence is preventing the outbreak of a ferocious civil war. In fact, I think there’s a strong argument for supposing that the U.S. invasion and occupation has encouraged and, as long as U.S. troops stay there, will continue to foster extreme violence among Iraqi ethnic and religious groups. I’m also not persuaded that the U.S. administration is inspired by the sort of noble goal that readers may well think Tom attributes to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice & Co. States are states, and they’re all pretty ugly. Or is that assertion too aprioristic for Tom?
Mr. Brady has a point. The first line of my remark above his was inelegantly put. My point was not that he is thick, but that “I’m surprised that Mr. Brady is so thick that he supposes that….,” i.e., that I don’t believe that he in fact thought that. What followed was a charge that he was trying to mislead others. His epistemology seems of the following sort: “I haven’t heard Mr. Brady express any opposition to the holocaust in months. I can only suppose that he favors it.”
I have expressed my support for the holding of elections. I have expressed my support for helping Iraqis to create a government and a security force that can stop the jihadis and the followers of Saddam Hussein. Reasonable people should not conclude that that means that I favor making Iraq the 51st state. Other people aren’t as dumb as Mr. Brady claims. And I doubt that he thinks that, either. (Nor have I ever expressed the idea that all of the administration leaders Mr. Brady cites are “inspired by the sort of noble goal that readers may well think Tom attributes to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice & Co.” That, Mr. Brady, is another example of dishonesty. “Readers” may well think it? On what basis, other than your malicious insinuation?)
I may return to this and add more comments later, but I’m late for an appointment now.